Who killed the church leaders in Manipur? May 13 ambush explained

The killing of three church leaders in Manipur’s Kangpokpi district on May 13 has triggered widespread condemnation across ethnic, political and religious lines, while also reopening long-running tensions involving armed groups operating in the state.

The ambush, which took place between Kotzim and Kotlen villages, has become one of the most sensitive incidents in recent months because the victims were not armed cadres or political actors, but senior Christian leaders returning from a religious gathering and reportedly involved in peace and reconciliation efforts.

What happened on May 13?

According to reports and statements issued after the incident, the victims were travelling in two vehicles from Churachandpur to Kangpokpi after attending the 1st United Baptist Convention Assembly at the GBA Centre Church in Chiengkonpang, Lamka.

The attack reportedly took place around 10 am near Saheibung Peak, between Kotzim and Kotlen villages in Kangpokpi district. Armed men allegedly opened fire on the convoy carrying members of the Thadou Baptist Association (TBA).

Those killed were identified as Rev. Vumthang Sitlhou, Rev. Kaigoulun Lhouvum and Pastor Paogoulen Sitlhou. Several others sustained injuries and were shifted to hospital for treatment.

The deaths immediately triggered shutdown calls and mourning across Kuki-Zo inhabited areas. Civil society organisations described the attack as a direct assault on unarmed religious leaders and accused militant groups of attempting to derail peace efforts between communities.

What made the incident especially significant was the profile of Rev. Vumthang Sitlhou. Multiple statements issued after the killings described him as a peace advocate who had recently participated in reconciliation efforts involving Kuki-Zo and Tangkhul communities through the Nagaland Joint Christian Forum.

This became central to the reaction that followed. For many organisations, the killings were not merely another violent incident in Manipur’s conflict-hit hills, but an attack on individuals associated with dialogue, peace-building and reconciliation.

The timing also mattered. Manipur continues to remain deeply polarised after the ethnic violence that erupted in May 2023 between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities. In such an environment, attacks involving church leaders carry enormous symbolic and emotional weight.

Condemnation across political, church and ethnic lines

The killings triggered condemnation from a remarkably broad spectrum of groups, including Kuki organisations, Naga legislators, church bodies, political leaders and even Kuki Christian groups based abroad.

Kuki Inpi Manipur, the apex Kuki tribal body, described the attack as barbaric and announced a total shutdown across Kuki-Zo areas from May 13 to May 15. The organisation also declared two days of mourning and called for candlelight vigils in churches, saying the killings had deeply wounded the sentiments of the Kuki-Zo people.

Deputy Chief Minister Nemcha Kipgen called the killings heartbreaking and appealed for peace and compassion, while assuring that the government remained committed to ensuring justice.

MLA Letzamang Haokip issued a strong condemnation statement and described the incident as a “heinous and cowardly ambush”. He also referred to allegations that the attack had been carried out by “ZUF-Kamson”.

Religious organisations responded sharply as well. The Evangelical Baptist Convention described the killings as a painful moment for churches across Manipur and urged people to reject hatred, retaliation and communal fanaticism. The Catholic Archbishop of Imphal, Dr Linus Neli, condemned the killings as a heinous act and appealed to all sides to embrace reconciliation, restraint and peaceful coexistence.

One of the strongest international reactions came from the Kuki Worship Service (KWS), London, which represents part of the Kuki Christian diaspora in the United Kingdom. 

The organisation called on both the Government of India and the British government to ensure accountability and justice, while describing the targeting of church leaders as a grave human rights concern.

Perhaps the most politically significant condemnation came from the Naga Legislature Forum in Manipur. The forum, comprising Naga MLAs, condemned the killings as “cold blooded murder” and appealed for restraint and harmony between communities. Importantly, the forum also appealed for the release of civilians — both Nagas and Kukis — who were reportedly detained after the incident.

That statement carried weight because the killings risked inflaming tensions between Kuki-Zo and Zeliangrong Naga communities in the region. The fact that Naga legislators publicly condemned the killings and appealed for calm reflected growing concern that the incident could widen ethnic fault lines further.

Across almost all statements, one theme remained consistent: the targeting of unarmed church leaders was seen as unacceptable regardless of political or ethnic divisions.

Who is being blamed?

The question of responsibility has quickly become the most controversial and politically explosive aspect of the incident.

Soon after the ambush, allegations began circulating against a group referred to as “ZUF-Kamson”. Several Kuki organisations and leaders alleged that the attack had been carried out by this faction.

However, the officially recognised Zeliangrong United Front, or ZUF, issued a detailed rebuttal denying any involvement in the killings.

In its press statement, ZUF claimed that “ZUF Kamson” was not a genuine ZUF faction at all. Instead, the organisation accused NSCN-IM operatives of using a fabricated label in order to malign the Zeliangrong community and provoke hostility between Kukis and Zeliangrong Nagas.

The ZUF statement argued that the strategy was aimed at creating distrust between communities, sabotaging peace efforts and destabilising reconciliation initiatives in the Zeliangrong region. The organisation also claimed that NSCN-IM had recently opposed peace meetings and dialogue initiatives being organised in the area.

This narrative was further amplified in social media messages circulated after the attack, which alleged that “ZUF Kamson” was effectively a proxy identity being used by NSCN-IM operatives.

But another development complicated the picture even further.

A separate statement issued under the “Government of the People’s Republic of Nagalim” associated with NSCN/GPRN structures rejected allegations against NSCN/GPRN and instead accused a “self-style ZUF(J)” group of spreading misinformation and falsely blaming NSCN.

In effect, multiple groups immediately began accusing one another after the killings.

This reflects the deeply fragmented militant landscape of Manipur and the wider Naga areas, where several factions, splinter groups and armed organisations operate simultaneously. Rival organisations frequently accuse one another of proxy attacks, fabricated group names and attempts to manipulate ethnic tensions for political advantage.

That complexity is one reason why incidents like the May 13 ambush become so difficult to investigate and politically explosive almost immediately.

What has intensified public anxiety is the belief that the victims were associated with peace and reconciliation efforts. Several statements issued after the killings specifically highlighted Rev. Vumthang Sitlhou’s role in inter-community dialogue initiatives.

For many observers, this has transformed the incident from a militant ambush into something much larger: a symbolic attack on fragile attempts to rebuild trust between communities after two years of ethnic violence in Manipur.

That is why the killings have resonated so deeply across the state.

The incident is no longer being viewed merely as an isolated act of violence. Instead, it has become a test of whether peace-building efforts can survive in a political and security environment still dominated by mistrust, armed mobilisation and competing militant narratives.

Also Read: The Church found its voice again in Manipur: Where was it for everyone else?