The promises of IDPs’ return made throughout 2025 remain largely unfulfilled, not for lack of planning or resources, but because they preceded political agreement on the nature of coexistence.
TFM Desk
The Weight of Unresolved Conflict
As Manipur entered 2025, the state carried the heavy burden of nearly two years of ethnic violence between the Meitei/Meetei and Kuki-Zo communities—a conflict that had literally reshaped geography, shattered communities, and created one of India’s most severe internal displacement crises since 2023. This year-ender story chronicles how these fault lines continued to define every aspect of public life, from economic policy to humanitarian response, as the state navigated a fragile path between promised reconciliation and persistent division.
A Chronology of Hope and Stalemate
January-March 2025: A Landscape of Separation
The year began with what many analysts termed “de facto segregation”—districts had become largely homogeneous along ethnic lines, with Imphal Valley predominantly Meitei and hill districts like Churachandpur and Kangpokpi predominantly Kuki-Zo. The most visible manifestation of this divide was the politically motivated “buffer zone” manned by central security forces along the foothills separating the valley from the hills. An estimated 60,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) remained in camps, but these were not mixed shelters; they were ethnically specific camps, with Meiteis displaced from hill areas housed in valley schools and community centres, and Kuki-Zos displaced from the valley housed in hill-area facilities.
April-June 2025: Political Promises and Ground Realities
In April, Cheiraoba, the Manipuri New Year, arrived with traditional prayers for renewal, but the exchange of festive foods between communities—once commonplace—was virtually nonexistent. During this period, significant political promises emerged. Following visits by central government officials, a Three-Phase Return and Rehabilitation Plan was announced with ambitious timelines: pilot returns in July, substantial movements in October, and camp closures by December.
However, community responses diverged sharply. Valley based organisations emphasized the need for “secure returns” to hill villages with central security guarantees and the disarming of “illegal armed groups.” Kuki-Zo leadership autonomy arrangements under the Sixth Schedule for Kuki-Zo majority areas. This fundamental disagreement on the political framework for coexistence stymied progress before rehabilitation could even begin.
July-September 2025: Humanitarian Interventions and Community Responses
July saw the launch of the first phase of the return plan, but it quickly stalled. A pilot effort to return 150 Meitei families to Moreh township faced protests and security concerns. Simultaneously, efforts to facilitate the return of Kuki-Zo families to Imphal’s peripheral areas remained still.
Mid-year did bring one significant intervention: the October announcement of GST reductions on traditional products. While framed as economic policy, this had ethnic dimensions. The sectors benefiting—handlooms (predominantly Meitei), bamboo crafts (mixed but hill-centered), and processed foods (both communities)—represented a conscious effort to stimulate economic activity across communal lines. Yet implementation faced hurdles: weavers in the valley reported difficulty sourcing certain dyes traditionally brought from hill areas, while Kuki-Zo artisans faced challenges transporting products to national markets via Imphal.
October-December 2025: Recognition Amidst Stagnation
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s October Mann Ki Baat recognition of Manipuri innovators was carefully curated to represent both communities: Moirangthem Seth (Meitei, solar energy), Margret Ramtharsiem (Kuki-Zo, handicrafts), and Chokhone Kricheina (Naga, floriculture). The Prime Minister’s praise for “traditional knowledge with modern vision” subtly acknowledged Manipur’s diversity while attempting to transcend ethnic divisions through shared economic aspiration. The attempt requires steps beyond tokenism.
Yet, as the year wound down, the humanitarian situation grew more complex. The November shift to Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) for relief—providing Rs. 84 per person per day—was criticized by both communities, though for different reasons. Valley representatives argued it incentivized prolonged displacement, while Kuki-Zo leaders contended the amount was insufficient given price inflation in isolated hill areas. The December deadline for camp closures passed unmet, with approximately 45,000 IDPs still in temporary shelters as winter set in.
The Central Dilemma: Competing Visions of Justice and Security
The Meitei-Kuki-Zo divide in 2025 represented more than ethnic tension; it reflected fundamentally incompatible narratives about the conflict’s origins and solutions:
The Valley Perspective centered on territorial integrity and uniform citizenship. Political discourse hinged and emphasized the “illegal” nature of armed Kuki-Zo groups, the need for a single law (opposing separate administration demands), and the right of all Manipuris to live anywhere in the state. Their rehabilitation framework prioritized security-first returns with central forces protecting returnees.
The Kuki-Zo Narrative focused on the much imagined historical marginalization and self-preservation. Kuki-Zo organizations pointed to disproportionate representation in government, historical land rights, and the need for constitutional protections. Their rehabilitation conditions centred on political guarantees first—constitutional recognition and autonomy arrangements—before discussing physical return.
Between these positions stood the IDPs themselves, whose primary concerns were often more immediate: the condition of their homes and farms, the safety of their children in schools, and the viability of livelihoods upon return. Their voices were frequently overshadowed by more polarized political leadership on both sides.
The Search for Frameworks: Beyond Immediate Rehabilitation
The events of 2025 revealed that sustainable solutions required moving beyond humanitarian management to address deeper political and constitutional questions:
- Asymmetric Federalism: Scholars increasingly pointed to India’s existing models of asymmetric federalism—special constitutional arrangements for regions like Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, and Mizoram—as potential frameworks. The question was whether Manipur’s complexity required internal asymmetry, with different governance arrangements for different regions within the state.
- Layered Citizenship: The conflict challenged the notion of uniform state citizenship. Some peace proposals in 2025 explored concepts of layered rights—state-level rights combined with community-specific cultural and land rights—that might accommodate both Meitei concerns about mobility and Kuki-Zo concerns about preservation.
- The “Return vs. Relocation” Debate: A philosophical divide emerged between those advocating for physical return to original homes as the only legitimate form of rehabilitation, and those considering voluntary relocation with compensation as a pragmatic alternative given the depth of territorial separation that had occurred since 2023.
- Truth and Acknowledgment Processes: Beyond physical rehabilitation, community dialogues increasingly highlighted the need for acknowledgment of losses on all sides—of lives, homes, sacred sites, and historical artefacts destroyed in the violence. The absence of such acknowledgment, many argued, made technical solutions to displacement fundamentally unstable.
Entering 2026 with Unanswered Questions
As Manipur concludes 2025, the state faces a paradox. Economic interventions like GST reforms have created potential bridges, and local innovations across communities demonstrate shared human resilience. Yet political processes remain deadlocked in mutually exclusive demands, and humanitarian timelines have proven unrealistic against the reality of fear and mistrust.
The IDP crisis that began in 2023 has evolved into what one UN rapporteur termed “protracted community-based displacement”—not merely temporary sheltering but the creation of parallel societies divided by ethnicity, geography, and narrative. The promises of return made throughout 2025 remain largely unfulfilled, not for lack of planning or resources, but because they preceded political agreement on the nature of coexistence.
Manipur enters 2026 with its fundamental questions unanswered: Can a state maintain territorial integrity while accommodating profound internal diversity? Can communities that have experienced traumatic violence create shared futures without justice for the past? And can India’s democratic frameworks, designed for integration, flex sufficiently to accommodate Manipur’s painful complexity?
The 2026 calendar of festivals—Sajibu Cheiraoba, Eid, Diwali, Christmas—awaits a state that can celebrate them as shared occasions rather than parallel observances. The path toward that future remains Manipur’s greatest and most urgent challenge.