Why Michael Haokip must be heard. Even if it makes you uncomfortable. Michael Lamjathang Haokip is increasingly becoming a serious voice in Manipur’s volatile political landscape. But like any man on this planet walking the tightrope of politics, he is no saint. His past comments, written pieces and unfiltered opinions on the state of affairs in Manipur (long before his foray into politics or his entry into the BJP) are well documented and known to many. He is outspoken, often unapologetically so. He never shies away from putting his position, however strong or controversial, on the table. At the same time, he is deeply rooted in his community. He has advocated, petitioned and organised on behalf of his people with unrelenting passion. In that, he is no armchair intellectual, he is a grassroots man. But politics is a tricky trade. Now that he is a BJP member, his every word will inevitably be placed under a magnifying glass. To Meiteis who resent Modi or the BJP, he may come across as yet another opportunist. To Kuki-Zo sections who despise Biren Singh, he may appear a sycophant or worse, a “sellout”. Yet, putting aside both ends of that spectrum and choosing instead to analyse him with a lens of objectivity is not just useful, it is essential. Manipur needs people with pragmatic spine. We are desperate for principled voices, not populists. For statesmen, not political drama artists. The litmus test for any political idea, including the contentious demand to divide Manipur along ethnic lines, should be simple: Does it help the long-term growth and stability of the state/region? Or does it further divide, isolate and burn bridges? If the idea passes this test, support it. If it fails, reject it, regardless of who proposes it. In that context, discarding Michael Haokip’s views simply because they don’t fit a preferred political script would be intellectually lazy and politically damaging. His voice, especially in these times, needs to be heard, loud and clear. And let us not forget: Michael Haokip is a Thadou. And he has consistently and vehemently opposed the political project that seeks to homogenise diverse communities under the singular “Kuki” identity. Ironically, many of the most vocal advocates of this project are Thadou themselves. That alone should tell us that the debate is far from monolithic and that voices like Haokip’s are not fringe, but necessary. Let the debates rage on. Let the contradictions breathe. In that friction lies the possibility of clarity, and maybe, just maybe, progress.