Introduction
The tranquil precincts of Lilong in Manipur’s Thoubal district were jolted by a violent outburst when an irate mob torched the residence of Md Asker Ali, president of the BJP Minority Morcha in Manipur, following his public endorsement of the recently enacted Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. In the wake of this alarming incident, the district administration swiftly imposed prohibitory orders in Manipur’s Lilong under Section 163 of the Manipur (District and Sessions Courts) Act (BNSS), aiming to curb further unrest and restore public tranquility
This blog delves into the background of the Waqf Amendment Act, the chain of events leading to the arson attack, the specifics of the prohibitory orders in Lilong, and the broader implications for law and order in Manipur. Through detailed analysis and multiple combinations of our focus keyword—prohibitory orders in Manipur’s Lilong—we explore how this episode reflects the delicate balance between freedom of expression, community sentiments, and the state’s duty to maintain peace.
1. The Waqf Amendment Act and Its Controversy
The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 was passed by both Houses of Parliament after marathon debates. Its stated objectives include streamlining the administration of Waqf properties—assets dedicated by Muslim communities for religious and charitable purposes—and enhancing transparency through digital registers and heritage conservation provisions. Supporters argue that the Act modernises the management of these endowments, preventing encroachments and misappropriation.
However, critics contend that certain clauses centralise authority excessively, potentially undermining the autonomy of local Waqf boards and community stakeholders. In Manipur, where communal harmony is often fragile, the prohibitory orders in Manipur’s Lilong came against a backdrop of mounting unease among sections of the Muslim population who viewed the amendment as intrusive
The bill’s passage also ignited protests in multiple Muslim-majority pockets of Imphal Valley. From Lilong to Kairang and Kiyamgei, thousands took to the streets demanding repeal of what they termed an unconstitutional encroachment on religious endowments. This groundswell of dissent set the stage for the dramatic events in Lilong.
2. The Arson Attack: Sequence of Events
On the night of April 6, 2025, a mob estimated at 7,000–8,000 strong, armed with lathis, stones, and other makeshift weapons, descended upon Md Asker Ali’s residence in the Lilong Sambrukhong Mamei area. Eyewitnesses reported that the crowd first vandalised the property before setting it ablaze, reducing much of the structure to ashes within minutes. Fortunately, there were no casualties, but the material loss was significant.
Md Asker Ali had earlier posted on social media: “Do not do politics on the Waqf Amendment Bill. Welcome the Bill. We support WAB.” His statement triggered outrage among local residents, who perceived his stance as a betrayal of community interests. In the immediate aftermath, Ali issued a public apology and retracted his support, stating: “I sincerely apologise to the Muslims and Meitei Pangal community. I oppose the Waqf Bill and it should be repealed immediately”
Despite Ali’s contrition, the violence underscored deep-seated anxieties. Within hours, the Thoubal district magistrate enacted prohibitory orders in Manipur’s Lilong, banning assemblies of more than five people and prohibiting the carrying of lethal weapons, to preempt any further breaches of peace.
3. Anatomy of the Prohibitory Orders
The prohibitory directives, issued under Section 163 of the BNSS Act, cover the entire Lilong assembly constituency. Key provisions include:
- Ban on Assembly: No gathering of five or more persons is permitted in public spaces.
- Weapons Prohibition: Individuals are forbidden from carrying firearms, swords, lathis, stones, or any objects capable of inflicting harm.
- Movement Restrictions: Security forces are authorised to stop and search vehicles and individuals to enforce the orders.
- Duration and Enforcement: The orders remain in effect until further notice, with additional police and paramilitary deployments in sensitive localities.
These measures reflect a calibrated response: restrictive enough to deter mob mobilisation yet targeted to minimise civilian hardship. Local authorities believe that such prohibitory orders in Lilong will prevent reprisal attacks and restore confidence among residents and businesses disrupted by the unrest
Community leaders and civil rights advocates have urged authorities to ensure that enforcement does not become overzealous. They emphasise the need for clear communication, grievance redressal mechanisms, and swift action against any abuses by law enforcement personnel.
4. Impact on Communal Harmony and Civil Liberties
The imposition of prohibitory orders in Manipur’s Lilong inevitably raises questions about the balance between maintaining public order and safeguarding civil liberties. On one hand, the state has a constitutional obligation to protect life and property; on the other, restrictions on assembly and movement risk infringing on fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.
In a region already scarred by ethnic tensions and sporadic violence, the burning of a political leader’s home over a legislative stance deepens mistrust. Analysts warn that without robust dialogue channels, such incidents could precipitate a cycle of retaliatory violence, with prohibitory orders in Lilong becoming a recurring tool rather than an emergency measure.
To foster reconciliation, stakeholders propose convening a peace committee comprising representatives of the BJP Minority Morcha, local Muslim organisations, civil society, and law enforcement. Such a platform could address grievances related to the Waqf Act, ensure transparent policing, and rebuild confidence in the rule of law.
5. Lessons for Governance and Policy Communication
The Lilong episode underscores the importance of proactive policy communication, especially on sensitive religious matters. While the Waqf Amendment Act may aim to strengthen heritage conservation and welfare, its rollout in Manipur lacked sufficient local consultation and explanation.
Effective governance demands anticipatory engagement: hosting town halls, issuing multilingual explainer materials, and involving community elders in disseminating accurate information. Had such steps preceded the legislation’s implementation, the inflammatory reaction culminating in the arson attack—and the subsequent prohibitory orders in Manipur’s Lilong—might have been averted.
Moreover, political leaders and party functionaries must calibrate public statements with an awareness of local sentiments. Md Asker Ali’s endorsement, though perhaps well-intentioned, overlooked the prevailing apprehensions in his constituency, triggering a backlash that spiralled into violence.
6. Path Forward: Restoring Peace and Trust
In the days following the incident, local administration has focused on three priorities:
- Security Consolidation: Reinforcing police posts, increasing patrols in vulnerable neighbourhoods, and setting up helplines for reporting violations of the prohibitory orders.
- Community Outreach: Deploying district magistrate-led teams to meet residents, hear concerns, and clarify the legal implications of the Waqf Act and the scope of the prohibitory orders.
- Political Dialogue: Convening cross-party meetings to depoliticise the issue and agree on a roadmap for addressing legitimate anxieties related to Waqf property management.
These measures aim to transition from crisis containment—anchored by prohibitory orders in Lilong—to confidence-building and long-term stability. Political scientists emphasise that true peace arises not from curbs on rights but from inclusive governance that acknowledges diverse perspectives.
Conclusion
The burning of Md Asker Ali’s house and the swift imposition of prohibitory orders in Manipur’s Lilong constitute a stark reminder of how legislative actions can ignite latent tensions in plural societies. While the Waqf Amendment Act seeks to modernise the management of religious endowments, its implementation without adequate community engagement precipitated a violent backlash, compelling the state to resort to restrictive orders to preserve public order.
Moving forward, policymakers must prioritise transparent communication, participatory decision-making, and robust mechanisms for grievance redressal. Only by bridging the gap between legislative intent and community trust can Manipur—and indeed India—navigate the complexities of social harmony, religious freedom, and rule of law. As Lilong returns to a semblance of normalcy under the protective canopy of prohibitory orders, the real test lies in translating emergency measures into sustainable peace.
For More News Update –Dailynewfeeds
