When wounds whisper: Listening to Manipur’s unspoken appeals for peace

Dr Raj Singh
The conflict that erupted between the Meitei and Kuki communities on 3 May 2023 has scarred Manipur far beyond numbers and statistics. Yes, more than 200 people have died. Yes, over 60,000 remain displaced in relief camps scattered across the valleys and hills. But behind these stark figures are faces - children who ask why they can’t go home, elderly parents who wonder if they will ever see their neighbourhoods again, and youths silently absorbing traumas they cannot yet articulate.
To the naked eye, the violence has stopped. But peace has not begun. And that is where we must go beyond the obvious. What is obvious is that Manipur is tired - tired of burning, tired of blaming, tired of barricades separating human beings who once shared workplaces, markets, jokes, and everyday life. What is less obvious is the subtle shift happening underneath: a softening of tone, a quiet yearning for normalcy, and scattered gestures that hint at reconciliation. These may appear insignificant to the impatient, but they are rare shoots in a scorched landscape.
Yet gestures alone cannot build peace. Sometimes, performing peace can be more damaging than not attempting it at all.
The Litan Visit: A Gesture That Raised More Questions Than Hope
Former Speaker and Minister Y Khemchand’s unannounced visit to a Kuki relief camp at Litan, Ukhrul District, was ostensibly a peace mission. He spoke of reconciliation and reaching out in goodwill. Yet the Kuki Inpi, Ukhrul, responded with measured disapproval, calling the move “opportunistic” and conducted without taking the community into confidence. But what is striking is not the disapproval. It is the tone. The Kuki Inpi statement lacked anger.
There was no invective, no rejection of dialogue, no harsh political rhetoric. Instead, it conveyed something subtle : an openness to peace, but only with sincerity, transparency, and collective participation. In fact, their mild tone could be interpreted as an invitation - try again, but do it properly; do it with us, not around us.
This is where Manipur’s peace process is stuck: between desire and distrust, between gestures and genuine effort.
To unlock this stalemate, Manipur must reimagine how peace is initiated, led, and sustained.
Why Manipur Needs People-Led Peace, Not Performative Outreach
Conflicts do not persist simply because grievances exist. They persist because people stop listening, stop trusting, and stop believing that the other side has any goodwill left. In such a climate, even a well-meant gesture can look like manipulation. And that is exactly where Manipur stands now.
Peace in our context cannot be a one-person mission or a hurried, unannounced visit. It must be:
1) Participatory
2) Transparent
3) Collective
4) Rooted in sincerity
The most powerful peacebuilders in fractured societies are not politicians. They are the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), elders, women’s groups, church bodies, Meira Paibis, village authorities, youth groups, and respected public figures who carry moral credibility. They speak not for votes but for values.
When they reach out, people listen differently. When they apologize, they are believed. When they cry, the other side sees their humanity. The path to peace in Manipur does not lie merely in high-level talks or occasional outreach trips. It lies in hundreds of seemingly small, deeply human acts that slowly rebuild trust.
What Is at Stake If We Fail to Act?
A prolonged freeze in relations may feel like stability on the surface, but underneath lies a dangerous sedimentation:
1) Communities will become permanently segregated.
2) Children growing up today may never know a shared Manipur.
3) Youth may drift towards radicalization, shaped by a narrative of betrayal.
4) The economy, dependent on border trade, tourism, and mobility, will remain stagnant.
5) Social capital, the invisible glue that holds societies together, will erode beyond repair.
In truth, neither community benefits from staying apart. The only thing that grows in separation is mistrust. If we fail at peace, we fail at our future.
Lessons from Successful Peace Processes Around the World
Peace is neither abstract nor utopian. The world offers many well-documented examples of formerly warring groups restoring trust through community-led dialogues.
1. The Nagaland Peace Process (India)
While not perfect, much of Nagaland’s progress lies in the work of the Naga Mothers’ Association, Church groups, and tribal bodies, which built bridges long before the government held talks. Their motto, “Shed No More Blood,” became a moral framework that softened hardened positions.
2. Colombia’s Peace with FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia)
Decades of violence ended not only through negotiations but through Truth Commissions and Community Reintegration Programmes led by civil society. Victims were heard, grievances acknowledged, and reintegration humanized the enemy.
3. Northern Ireland’s Good Friday Agreement
Peace became possible only when Protestant and Catholic civil society groups initiated cross- community dialogues, formed citizen forums, shared cultural events, and organized youth exchanges, thereby creating space for empathy to grow.
4. Rwanda’s Post-Genocide Gacaca Courts
Community-based traditional justice systems created local ownership of reconciliation, enabling people to confront painful truths in culturally rooted ways.
Across all these examples, the guiding lesson is consistent: Peace succeeds when the people, not governments alone, lead the effort.
A Framework for a Genuine Manipur Peace Initiative
If Manipur is serious about reconciliation, it must adopt an approach with four pillars:
1. Joint People’s Peace Committees (JPPCs)
These should include representatives from Meitei and Kuki CSOs, women’s groups, Church bodies, Meira Paibis, student unions, and elders. The committee should meet regularly and issue joint public statements to shape narratives of empathy, not hatred.
2. Truth-telling and Acknowledgement Platforms
Peace cannot be built on denial or silence. Community dialogues must acknowledge suffering on both sides - burnt homes, lost lives, displaced families. Shared grief is a bridge.
3. Exchange Visits Mediated by Neutral Bodies
Rather than isolated political visits, planned and mutually agreed CSO-led delegations should visit relief camps, churches, temples, and village councils. This creates predictability, transparency, and trust.
4. Youth Peace Ambassadors Programme
Young leaders from both communities should be trained in conflict resolution, negotiation, and intercultural communication. They can carry forward the message of coexistence into the next generation.
The Moral Work of Reconciliation
Peace is not an event; it is moral labour. It demands courage - not the courage to fight, but the courage to trust again.
The Kuki Inpi’s mild tone toward Khemchand’s visit is not a rejection. It is a hint. It suggests a slightly open door. It invites an approach rooted in humility and respect.
What Manipur needs now is a collective moral awakening:
1) Let the CSOs speak.
2) Let elders lead.
3) Let public figures model humility.
4) Let politicians follow, not script - the movement.
Meiteis and Kukis once shared friendships, markets, workplaces, and dreams. These memories did not vanish; they simply slipped underground. Peace is the work of digging them up again.
A Final Invitation
It is time to step beyond suspicion, beyond fear, beyond superficial gestures.
Let the people of Manipur claim peace as their own. Let the voices of love, reason, and memory drown out the whispers of division.
Let us think beyond the obvious - and act beyond it too, because peace will not arrive through symbolism; it will arrive through sincerity.
Manipur is bruised, but it is not broken. And the first step toward healing is seeing, at a deeper level, that the other side is waiting for peace just as much as we are.