Manipur’s unfinished crisis: A ticking time bomb beneath suppressed silence
|
Dirinamai Liangchi
Two-and-a-half years have gone by since the ethnic conflict escalated, and despite the deployment of more than 70000 paramilitary forces, Manipur still has not returned to complete normalcy. Different political analysts have offered various theories, but the crux remains this: while the Meitei community has often been placed in the spotlight for alleged human rights violations, this narrative has tended to single them out, even though tensions and acts of wrongdoing have been committed by both the Meitei and Kuki communities. In the course of the conflict, some section of Kuki (refugees) has derived relative benefits, in advancing a narrative of indigenous identity within Manipur, whereas the Nagas have emerged as the most disadvantaged party.
The problem lies in the intricacies of Manipur’s ethnic configuration, which remain deeply unresolved. Imposing President’s Rule may have quelled some immediate violence, but it is, in many ways, an eyewash, a surface-level fix that fails to confront the ticking time bomb beneath. If the root causes are not addressed, the situation could explode again any moment.
Even before 2023, tensions between the Kuki and Naga communities had already reached a threshold limit, largely due to the creation of the controversial Kangpokpi district. The Ibobi-led Congress Government unilaterally and authoritatively carved out the Kangpokpi district from Naga ancestral land despite three MoUs signed between the United Naga Council, the Government of Manpur, and the Government of India, all of which explicitly stated that a Sadar Hills/Kangpokpi district would not be created without the consent of the indigenous Naga people. By disregarding these agreements, the communal Congress Government deepened mistrust and pushed the region to the brink of ethnic confrontation.
Amid this growing tension, sections of the Kuki community were reportedly preparing for a broader confrontation, first with the Nagas, and subsequently with the Meiteis. However, events unfolded in an unexpected sequence, and the conflict erupted in a sudden and dramatic turn, reshaping the trajectory of the crisis.
THE KANGPOKPI QUESTION: A STRUCTURAL INJUSTICE
When Kangpokpi was carved out from Senapati district by Ibobi, nine subdivisions were also created. Out of which, only one subdivision, (the Island subdivision), was allocated to the Naga, the original land-owners. The other eight subdivisions were formed in areas heavily dominated by Kuki communities. Ridiculously, three subdivisions were created within just a 17-kilometre radius of the district headquarters, while indigenous Naga communities located 58 kilometres away from the so-called district headquarters were completely overlooked. Thus, more remote and potentially more deserving areas remain marginalized and under-administered.
Such skewed administrative planning not only undermines the spirit of governance for “administrative convenience,” but a mockery and an insult to the indigenous Naga communities who have guarded these lands for generations.
SYSTEMATIC ERASURE AND SILENCING
There is also serious concern about systematic misrepresentation. For instance, when Vungsuanmang Valte, an Executive Engineer, Sadar Hill Division, PWD, Govt of Manipur, wrote a concept note for a bridge at Makui village, he claimed that Kangpokpi district is inhabited mostly by Kuki, Nepali and Meitei communities and omitted the Naga population altogether. This was not a one-off oversight. It reflects a pattern: in public communication, development planning, and even official posters, the original Naga identity is erased or downplayed.
DEMOGRAPHIC MARGINALIZATION
The Naga People’s Organisation, Kangpokpi (NPOK) has repeatedly warned that with the creation of Kangpokpi and the influx of non-Naga populations, indigenous Nagas risk being demographically overwhelmed. The NPOK states that the Nagas of Kangpokpi, who were “the first and original settlers,” now feel reduced to a minority in their own land, due to illegal settlements, unrecognized villa- ges, and demographic imbalance.
A BREWING FLASHPOINT
These unaddressed land and administrative grievances do not merely fuel tension, but they are flashpoints for renewed violence. Favoring newcomers or politically aligned groups over original inhabitants is not just unfair; it becomes a structural provocation. In Kangpokpi, this favoritism is visible in how subdivisions were drawn, how villages are recognized.
Unnatural growth of Kuki villages under Kangpokpi The erasure of Naga identity in official documents, like the Vungsuanmang concept note, is emblematic of systemic sidelining. When indigenous claims are written out of official narratives, their political, social, and economic future is undermined. The ongoing protests, curfews, and land disputes prove that the issue is far from settled. The President’s Rule may have provided temporary silence, but not stability.
THE ILLUSION OF PEACE UNDER FORCE
The Government of India managed to keep the conflict in abeyance for nearly one year, but only through extraordinary and costly measures. Deploying around 70,000 paramilitary personnel for almost two years in a tiny State like Manipur is not just financially draining, it reflects the seriousness of the crisis and the absence of a real political solution. The State was kept “quiet,” but it was never truly healed.
Despite this massive security presence, the root causes, territorial claims, administrative injustice, ethnic mistrust, questions of indigenous rights, remain unresolved. The silence on the ground is not peace; it is suppressed tension.
When President’s Rule is withdrawn and a popular Government returns, the situation may erupt again. What we are witnessing now is not a settlement, but a pause enforced by force rather than justice.
THE WAY FORWARD: PEACE THROUGH JUSTICE, NOT POWER
What the people of Manipur must learn the hard way is that neglecting the rights of indigenous populations for short-term political gains leads to lasting instability. The creation of Kangpokpi and its subdivisions, done without consultation or respect for original Naga inhabitants, is not merely an administrative misstep, it is an insult, a structural injustice, and a potential trigger for renewed conflict.
Reducing this crisis to a “communal clash” between two ethnic groups oversimplifies the reality. It ignores the fact that administrative actions, such as controversial district creation, village recognition policies, and land demarcation, have played a central role in fuelling distrust and resentment. These factors have drawn Nagas, Kukis, and Meiteis into a long chain of contestations over land, power, and identity.
In other words, the conflict is structural, not merely emotional. It is political, not just cultural. It is tied to State decisions, not just community rivalries.
If these structural issues are not resolved through transparent dialogue, equitable administrative restructuring, and recognition of indigenous rights, then even 100,000 security forces will not bring real peace. The State may appear calm today, but it is standing on unsettled fault lines. Without addressing the real causes, Manipur remains a contained volcano, not a reconciled society.
(The author can be reached at [email protected])
Published with special arrangement with The Ukhrul Times
Two-and-a-half years have gone by since the ethnic conflict escalated, and despite the deployment of more than 70000 paramilitary forces, Manipur still has not returned to complete normalcy. Different political analysts have offered various theories, but the crux remains this: while the Meitei community has often been placed in the spotlight for alleged human rights violations, this narrative has tended to single them out, even though tensions and acts of wrongdoing have been committed by both the Meitei and Kuki communities. In the course of the conflict, some section of Kuki (refugees) has derived relative benefits, in advancing a narrative of indigenous identity within Manipur, whereas the Nagas have emerged as the most disadvantaged party.
The problem lies in the intricacies of Manipur’s ethnic configuration, which remain deeply unresolved. Imposing President’s Rule may have quelled some immediate violence, but it is, in many ways, an eyewash, a surface-level fix that fails to confront the ticking time bomb beneath. If the root causes are not addressed, the situation could explode again any moment.
Even before 2023, tensions between the Kuki and Naga communities had already reached a threshold limit, largely due to the creation of the controversial Kangpokpi district. The Ibobi-led Congress Government unilaterally and authoritatively carved out the Kangpokpi district from Naga ancestral land despite three MoUs signed between the United Naga Council, the Government of Manpur, and the Government of India, all of which explicitly stated that a Sadar Hills/Kangpokpi district would not be created without the consent of the indigenous Naga people. By disregarding these agreements, the communal Congress Government deepened mistrust and pushed the region to the brink of ethnic confrontation.
Amid this growing tension, sections of the Kuki community were reportedly preparing for a broader confrontation, first with the Nagas, and subsequently with the Meiteis. However, events unfolded in an unexpected sequence, and the conflict erupted in a sudden and dramatic turn, reshaping the trajectory of the crisis.
THE KANGPOKPI QUESTION: A STRUCTURAL INJUSTICE
When Kangpokpi was carved out from Senapati district by Ibobi, nine subdivisions were also created. Out of which, only one subdivision, (the Island subdivision), was allocated to the Naga, the original land-owners. The other eight subdivisions were formed in areas heavily dominated by Kuki communities. Ridiculously, three subdivisions were created within just a 17-kilometre radius of the district headquarters, while indigenous Naga communities located 58 kilometres away from the so-called district headquarters were completely overlooked. Thus, more remote and potentially more deserving areas remain marginalized and under-administered.
Such skewed administrative planning not only undermines the spirit of governance for “administrative convenience,” but a mockery and an insult to the indigenous Naga communities who have guarded these lands for generations.
SYSTEMATIC ERASURE AND SILENCING
There is also serious concern about systematic misrepresentation. For instance, when Vungsuanmang Valte, an Executive Engineer, Sadar Hill Division, PWD, Govt of Manipur, wrote a concept note for a bridge at Makui village, he claimed that Kangpokpi district is inhabited mostly by Kuki, Nepali and Meitei communities and omitted the Naga population altogether. This was not a one-off oversight. It reflects a pattern: in public communication, development planning, and even official posters, the original Naga identity is erased or downplayed.
DEMOGRAPHIC MARGINALIZATION
The Naga People’s Organisation, Kangpokpi (NPOK) has repeatedly warned that with the creation of Kangpokpi and the influx of non-Naga populations, indigenous Nagas risk being demographically overwhelmed. The NPOK states that the Nagas of Kangpokpi, who were “the first and original settlers,” now feel reduced to a minority in their own land, due to illegal settlements, unrecognized villa- ges, and demographic imbalance.
A BREWING FLASHPOINT
These unaddressed land and administrative grievances do not merely fuel tension, but they are flashpoints for renewed violence. Favoring newcomers or politically aligned groups over original inhabitants is not just unfair; it becomes a structural provocation. In Kangpokpi, this favoritism is visible in how subdivisions were drawn, how villages are recognized.
Unnatural growth of Kuki villages under Kangpokpi The erasure of Naga identity in official documents, like the Vungsuanmang concept note, is emblematic of systemic sidelining. When indigenous claims are written out of official narratives, their political, social, and economic future is undermined. The ongoing protests, curfews, and land disputes prove that the issue is far from settled. The President’s Rule may have provided temporary silence, but not stability.
THE ILLUSION OF PEACE UNDER FORCE
The Government of India managed to keep the conflict in abeyance for nearly one year, but only through extraordinary and costly measures. Deploying around 70,000 paramilitary personnel for almost two years in a tiny State like Manipur is not just financially draining, it reflects the seriousness of the crisis and the absence of a real political solution. The State was kept “quiet,” but it was never truly healed.
Despite this massive security presence, the root causes, territorial claims, administrative injustice, ethnic mistrust, questions of indigenous rights, remain unresolved. The silence on the ground is not peace; it is suppressed tension.
When President’s Rule is withdrawn and a popular Government returns, the situation may erupt again. What we are witnessing now is not a settlement, but a pause enforced by force rather than justice.
THE WAY FORWARD: PEACE THROUGH JUSTICE, NOT POWER
What the people of Manipur must learn the hard way is that neglecting the rights of indigenous populations for short-term political gains leads to lasting instability. The creation of Kangpokpi and its subdivisions, done without consultation or respect for original Naga inhabitants, is not merely an administrative misstep, it is an insult, a structural injustice, and a potential trigger for renewed conflict.
Reducing this crisis to a “communal clash” between two ethnic groups oversimplifies the reality. It ignores the fact that administrative actions, such as controversial district creation, village recognition policies, and land demarcation, have played a central role in fuelling distrust and resentment. These factors have drawn Nagas, Kukis, and Meiteis into a long chain of contestations over land, power, and identity.
In other words, the conflict is structural, not merely emotional. It is political, not just cultural. It is tied to State decisions, not just community rivalries.
If these structural issues are not resolved through transparent dialogue, equitable administrative restructuring, and recognition of indigenous rights, then even 100,000 security forces will not bring real peace. The State may appear calm today, but it is standing on unsettled fault lines. Without addressing the real causes, Manipur remains a contained volcano, not a reconciled society.
(The author can be reached at [email protected])
Published with special arrangement with The Ukhrul Times