Manipur crisis: Bridging divides through robust policies

The ongoing conflict in Manipur is rooted in deep ethnic divides, has turned once-thriving communities into enclaves of despair. The causes are complex, ranging from historical grievances to modern-day political and social triggers. The conflict's persistence underscores the urgent need for nuanced, inclusive, and innovative approaches to conflict resolution—ones that move beyond reactive measures and address the foundational issues driving the unrest.

At its core, the current crisis in Manipur reflects the fraught dynamics between its two primary communities: the Meiteis and the Kukis. The seeds of distrust were sown long before the recent flare-ups. Meitei allegations of illegal Kuki settlements and unchecked migration from Myanmar have fueled concerns over demographic shifts, while Kukis view such accusations as a concerted effort to delegitimize their existence. Land disputes, particularly over forest areas and poppy cultivation, have only exacerbated tensions, as has the contested control of Moreh, a crucial border town entwined in smuggling and illegal trade networks.

Adding to this volatile mix is the Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, a move perceived by Kukis as a threat to their own socio-political standing. The High Court’s directive to the state government to consider this demand further ignited tensions, culminating in a protest march in Churachandpur in May 2023 that spiraled into widespread violence. Villages were razed, communities displaced, and the state plunged into ethnic segregation, with Meiteis retreating to the valley and Kukis consolidating in the hills.

The fallout has been devastating. Manipur now exists as a patchwork of ethnicity-based enclaves, where roadblocks and checkpoints enforce territorial delineations. The initial surge of violence has given way to sporadic skirmishes in fringe areas, with both communities arming themselves and shielding their miscreants. Security forces have faced significant challenges, with polarized local police forces complicating their efforts to restore order.

The humanitarian impact is profound. Thousands languish in relief camps, deprived of basic necessities and education. The healthcare system is overwhelmed, and economic activity has ground to a halt. Frustration simmers among the displaced, creating fertile ground for further unrest.

The conflict is not limited to physical battlegrounds. Social media has become a weapon of its own, amplifying mistrust and fueling violence. Misinformation campaigns, often orchestrated by automated bots and coordinated networks, have skewed public perception. Misleading narratives, graphic imagery, and doctored content have deepened the divide between Meiteis and Kukis, with rumors often leading to preemptive attacks.

Traditional media, hamstrung by internet shutdowns and safety concerns, has struggled to counter this tide of disinformation. The vacuum has been filled by biased citizen journalists and community-specific outlets, further entrenching opposing narratives. The government’s response—imposing internet restrictions—has, paradoxically, hampered legitimate communication and relief coordination.

Recent escalations, including the use of weaponized drones and advanced weaponry, mark a dangerous intensification of the conflict. This militarization is fueled by the easy availability of arms, both from across international borders and through looted police armories. As violence persists, radical elements within both communities have gained prominence, positioning themselves as defenders of their respective groups.

The involvement of insurgent groups has further complicated the situation. Once sidelined by peace agreements, these groups have regained relevance, exploiting the unrest to assert control and resist government intervention. Meanwhile, the Kukis’ demand for the resignation of the Chief Minister reflects their deep-seated mistrust in the state government’s ability to mediate fairly.

Efforts by the Union Government to address the crisis have been substantial yet insufficient. The deployment of additional security forces, the formation of a Unified Headquarters, and targeted relief measures have provided temporary relief but failed to address the root causes. The recently adopted "Five-Way Path," which includes border fencing and strategic CRPF deployment, is a step in the right direction but lacks the contextual sensitivity required for long-term peace.

To break the cycle of violence, a multi-pronged approach is essential.

Building trust through dialogue 

Both communities must be brought to the negotiating table in a manner that respects their grievances and aspirations. Neutral mediators, possibly from other northeastern states or civil society, could facilitate these discussions.

Tackling misinformation  

The government must invest in robust fact-checking mechanisms and collaborate with social media platforms to curb the spread of false information. Simultaneously, grassroots campaigns promoting media literacy could empower citizens to critically assess online content.

Disarmament and demilitarization

A concerted effort to recover arms and dismantle armed groups is crucial. This must be accompanied by rehabilitation programs for former insurgents to reintegrate them into society.

Inclusive development initiatives  

Economic and social development must be prioritized, with a focus on education, healthcare, and livelihood opportunities for displaced populations. Special attention should be given to bridging the urban-rural divide that often underpins ethnic tensions.

Strengthening local governance 

Empowering local leaders and community representatives to manage conflict resolution and development projects can foster a sense of ownership and reduce reliance on external interventions.

Contextualizing policy frameworks  

The imposition of one-size-fits-all solutions must be avoided. Policies should be tailored to Manipur’s unique socio-political landscape, with input from local stakeholders.

Manipur stands at a crossroads. The path to peace is fraught with challenges, but it is not unattainable. By addressing the underlying causes of mistrust, misinformation, and marginalization, the state can begin to heal its wounds. This requires not just political will but a collective commitment from all stakeholders to prioritize dialogue over discord and unity over division. The stakes are high, but so is the potential for Manipur to once again become a beacon of harmony in a region too often defined by strife.