Manipur’s turmoil demands not just temporary solutions but a reimagining of India’s contract with its Northeastern frontier — one that prioritizes dignity, dialogue, and durable peace.
By Erai Moirangcha
The protracted crisis in Manipur, marked by ethnic violence, armed political movements, insurgency and alienation, underscores systemic challenges in India’s governance of its Northeastern frontier. Despite its strategic importance, the region often grapples with what scholar Sanjib Baruah terms “durable disorder” — a state where conflict becomes normalized. This is why there is a need to examine the Government of India’s perceived inability to assert “statist authority” in Manipur and the broader tendency to normalize crises in the Northeast.
This calls for a serious probe drawing on historical context, policy analysis, and regional complexities. Here, it is pertinent to recall Congress MP A Bimol Akoijam’s critique of New Delhi’s approach — “The Northeast is treated as a peripheral space, not as an integral part of India’s soul” —. This encapsulates the political alienation driving unrest and associated crisis that follows.
Historical Inattention and Structural Marginalization
The Northeast’s integration into India has been fraught with tension since independence. Manipur, annexed in 1949, witnessed the imposition of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in 1958, symbolizing a militarized approach to governance. The Act, criticized by human rights groups as a tool of repression, reflects New Delhi’s historical preference for securitization over political process and dialogue. As political analyst Namrata Goswami notes, the region’s diversity and geographic isolation have often led to its portrayal as a “peripheral” space, resulting in policy neglect.
The Government of India’s “security-first” approach in border-states like Manipur, marked by the prolonged enforcement of AFSPA, also prioritizes militarization over addressing humanitarian crises. AFSPA grants security forces sweeping powers, including immunity from prosecution, which has led to documented cases of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and enforced disappearances. Human Rights Watch (2008) notes that such impunity exacerbates civilian suffering, fostering resentment and perpetuating cycles of violence. This state of perpetual conflict where security operations overshadow urgent needs like rehabilitation of displaced communities or justice for victims. For instance, during the 2023 Manipur violence, heavy militarization failed to prevent armed ethnic confrontation and clashes, underscoring the limits of a purely security-driven strategy.
The violence since May 3, 2023, displaced over 60,000 people and saw more than 200 deaths. The muted political response highlighted a reactive governance model. Former Home Secretary GK Pillai remarked, “New Delhi often waits until Northeastern conflicts spill over before acting,” underscoring a pattern of crisis management over prevention.
Congress MP A Bimol Akoijam, in a 2023 parliamentary address, condemned the government’s inertia: “When Manipur burns, Delhi looks the other way. This is not governance; this is abandonment.” His words reflect the growing disillusionment with New Delhi’s fragmented attention to the region.
Manipur’s ethnic mosaic — comprising Meiteis, Nagas, Kukis, and others — complicates governance. Competing demands for autonomy, such as the Kuki armed insurgency or Naga peace talks, are often exploited for narrow political games. For instance, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s alliance with most regional parties has prioritized political stability or rather management over conflict resolution. This instrumentalization and weaponsization of identity politics, as argued by academic Uddipana Goswami, perpetuates divisions and stalls reconciliation. Bimol Akoijam, as a vocal advocate for his own creative interpretations of collective rights and political correctness, warned in 2023: “Imposing decisions without consulting communities is a recipe for disaster. Manipur’s diversity demands respect, not bulldozing.”
Normalizing Abnormalities
The normalization of conflict in the Northeast is starkly visible in the prolonged use of AFSPA, which remains enforced in parts of Manipur and elsewhere in Northeast despite decades of opposition. The Act’s revocation in some districts following civilian protests, such as in 2022, is sporadic and politically calculated. Economic and diplomatic initiatives like the “Act East Policy” or infrastructure projects, while beneficial, often sidestep core issues of political autonomy and justice. Scholar Virginius Xaxa argues that development in the Northeast is “top-down,” treating symptoms like unemployment without addressing ethnic aspirations. The region’s underrepresentation in India’s national media further invisibilizes crises, allowing New Delhi to frame sporadic violence as “law and order” issues rather than its own systemic failures.
Akoijam, in a 2022 interview, linked this normalization to institutional apathy: “AFSPA’s impunity is a scar on India’s democracy. When the state kills with immunity, it tells people of the Northeast they are second-class citizens.”
Geopolitical Pressures and Strategic Myopia
Manipur’s border with Myanmar adds layers of complexity, with cross-border insurgency networks and refugee influxes (e.g., Kuki-Chin communities fleeing Myanmar’s civil war). New Delhi’s focus on China’s influence in the region often overshadows domestic reconciliation. Manipur’s strategic location places it at the crossroads of India’s “Act East Policy,” yet New Delhi’s focus on countering cross-border insurgencies and Chinese influence often sidelines humanitarian imperatives. The influx of Kuki-Chin refugees fleeing Myanmar’s civil war has strained local resources generating conflicts, but the state’s response remains security-centric. Security analyst Praveen Donthi argues that this approach reflects a “strategic myopia,” where counterinsurgency operations and border fencing projects take precedence over addressing inter-ethnic tensions or providing humanitarian relief. The 2023 violence triggered by competing ethnic claims over land and identity, revealed how geopolitical priorities eclipse the Indian state’s own authority and grassroots reconciliation, leaving communities vulnerable to recurring conflict.
Thus, the crisis in Manipur is a microcosm of India’s Northeast policy failures. To break the cycle of normalized conflict, New Delhi must transition from securitization to participatory governance. This includes revoking AFSPA, accelerating peace talks with insurgent groups (e.g., NSCN (I-M), and empowering grassroots institutions. As the Justice Verma Committee (2013) emphasized, “lasting peace requires accountability and respect for human rights.”
There is a felt urgency of reimagining the Northeast region’s place in the national and international consciousness. Manipur’s turmoil demands not just temporary solutions but a reimagining of India’s contract with its Northeastern frontier — one that prioritizes dignity, dialogue, and durable peace.
………..
References
- Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press, 2005.
- Goswami, Namrata. The Naga Ethnic Movement for a Separate Homeland. Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, 2014.
- Xaxa, Virginius. Empowerment of Tribes in Northeast India. Economic and Political Weekly, 2016.
- Human Rights Watch. These Fellows Must Be Eliminated: Relentless Violence and Impunity in Manipur. 2008.
- Akoijam, Bimol. Parliamentary Debate on Manipur, Lok Sabha Proceedings, July 2023.
- Akoijam, Bimol. Interview with The Hindu, “AFSPA and the Crisis of Democracy,” September 2022.
- Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Annual Report 2022-23.