Beyond Ethnicity: Rethinking the roots of Manipur’s ethnic conflicts
|
Rabikan Kshetrimayum
The unfortunate violent clash on 7th February ’26 between Kuki and Tangkhul Naga communities in Litan Sareikhong village, Ukhrul district once again remind us that the mainstream narrative surrounding Meitei-Kuki conflicts requires deeper and more nuanced understanding. Much of the public discourse on the ongoing violence has been framed in terms of ethnic mistrusts and law-and-order breakdown. While ethnicity is undoubtedly central to the crisis, one must look beyond ethnicity to political economy of the land, capital and identity. Because beneath this violence lies a harder question : who owns land, who controls it and who benefits from increasing land scarcity ? Manipur’s geography encodes asymmetry : while the valley, home largely to Meitei and Meitei Pangal, constitute only a tenth of the State’s total geographical area but contains sixty percent of the total population, the surrounding hills, inhabited predominantly by Naga and Kuki-Zo communities, account nearly ninety percent of the territory and enjoy Constitutional protections that restrict land transfer to non-tribal groups. For generations, land has historically formed the foundation of each community’s history, belonging, identity and political claims. Yet in this age of neoliberalism, land is capital and it has moved beyond identity with increasing commodification, monetisation and scarcity.
Karl Marx, writing in the nineteenth century, was clear that capitalism rests on control over the “means of production”, placing labour and capital at the centre of capitalist production. Today, in the era of Artificial Intelligence and digital economy, labour may be automated but land remains fixed. Data centres, semiconductor plants, mining zone, logistic corridors, forest reserves, tourism and border infrastructures all require land. David Harvey argues that contemporary capitalism is marked by “accumulation by dispossession” that is accumulation through continual reorganisation of resources to sustain economic expansion. Accumulation by dispossession processes, as per Harvey, include the commodification of land and conversion of various forms of property rights (commons, collective etc.). For instance, communities experiencing eviction, forest demarcation or land acquisitions, even when State action is legal, may interpret the moves as dispossession.
Manipur is very much part of this dynamics as she is positioned as a gateway to Southeast Asia within India’s Act East Policy. It would not be wrong to say that these anxieties about land scarcity and economic change are constantly being expressed through the language of ethnicities. Debates over ST status, forest encroachment, illegal immigrants and border fencing cannot be separated from this dynamic of land questions. In recent years, the growing emotivecall for Ema Leibak (Motherland in Meitei), Zalengam (Land of Freedom in Kuki) and Nagalim (Greater Nagaland for Nagas) reflect more than cultural assertion. These expressions signify concern and insecurity over ownership, belonging and control over land and its future value. What is commonly narrated as a mere ethnic rivalry is, in reality, a contest over who owns and controls land in a rapidly changing political economy. When the violence first erupted between Meitei and Kuki, the major flashpoints were Moreh, Kangpokpi, Imphal and Jiribam though it started in Torbung area in Bishnupur district. This geography is not accidental; each of these locations holds significant economic value. Moreh, situated along the India-Myanmar border, functions as a crucial trade hub and gateway to Southeast Asia. Control over Moreh means influence over cross border trade and strategic connectivity. Kangpokpi is located along the National Highway-2 which is considered a lifeline of Manipur as disruptions there directly affect supply chains and fuel access. Imphal, the State capital, is not merely an administrative centre, but also an economic nerve centre of Manipur. Likewise, Jiribam, located on NH-37, is a strategic economic gateway to mainland India through Silchar, Assam. This pattern suggests that the conflict’s hotspots coincide with economically strategic spaces.
This perspective does not dismiss the role of governance failures or historical grievances. Rather, it suggests that any permanent solution must address structural land issues. First, land governance must be transparent and consultative. For instance, aged old tribal customary laws need reforms so as to serve the changing socio-economic needs. The objective should not be to discard the tradition, but reinterpret it in the light of Constitutional values and present realities. Second, development planning in the regions should prioritise distributive justice rather than prioritising extraction or short-term gains. Third, a mechanism should be established for inter-community land dialogue. Finally, policy discourse must shift from a narrow law and order lens to a political economy framework that acknowledges how global capitalism reshapes local conflicts.
Manipur’s tragedy is not simply a story of communities divided by hatred but also a story of a region negotiating rapid change without adequate institutional mechanisms. Economic integration without proper conflict-sensitive governance can harden ethnic boundaries, particularly in diverse States like Manipur. To move beyond violence, India should move beyond a narrow ethnic lens and address the structural intersections of land, capital and identity.
The writer teaches Economics at the University of Allahabad.
The unfortunate violent clash on 7th February ’26 between Kuki and Tangkhul Naga communities in Litan Sareikhong village, Ukhrul district once again remind us that the mainstream narrative surrounding Meitei-Kuki conflicts requires deeper and more nuanced understanding. Much of the public discourse on the ongoing violence has been framed in terms of ethnic mistrusts and law-and-order breakdown. While ethnicity is undoubtedly central to the crisis, one must look beyond ethnicity to political economy of the land, capital and identity. Because beneath this violence lies a harder question : who owns land, who controls it and who benefits from increasing land scarcity ? Manipur’s geography encodes asymmetry : while the valley, home largely to Meitei and Meitei Pangal, constitute only a tenth of the State’s total geographical area but contains sixty percent of the total population, the surrounding hills, inhabited predominantly by Naga and Kuki-Zo communities, account nearly ninety percent of the territory and enjoy Constitutional protections that restrict land transfer to non-tribal groups. For generations, land has historically formed the foundation of each community’s history, belonging, identity and political claims. Yet in this age of neoliberalism, land is capital and it has moved beyond identity with increasing commodification, monetisation and scarcity.
Karl Marx, writing in the nineteenth century, was clear that capitalism rests on control over the “means of production”, placing labour and capital at the centre of capitalist production. Today, in the era of Artificial Intelligence and digital economy, labour may be automated but land remains fixed. Data centres, semiconductor plants, mining zone, logistic corridors, forest reserves, tourism and border infrastructures all require land. David Harvey argues that contemporary capitalism is marked by “accumulation by dispossession” that is accumulation through continual reorganisation of resources to sustain economic expansion. Accumulation by dispossession processes, as per Harvey, include the commodification of land and conversion of various forms of property rights (commons, collective etc.). For instance, communities experiencing eviction, forest demarcation or land acquisitions, even when State action is legal, may interpret the moves as dispossession.
Manipur is very much part of this dynamics as she is positioned as a gateway to Southeast Asia within India’s Act East Policy. It would not be wrong to say that these anxieties about land scarcity and economic change are constantly being expressed through the language of ethnicities. Debates over ST status, forest encroachment, illegal immigrants and border fencing cannot be separated from this dynamic of land questions. In recent years, the growing emotivecall for Ema Leibak (Motherland in Meitei), Zalengam (Land of Freedom in Kuki) and Nagalim (Greater Nagaland for Nagas) reflect more than cultural assertion. These expressions signify concern and insecurity over ownership, belonging and control over land and its future value. What is commonly narrated as a mere ethnic rivalry is, in reality, a contest over who owns and controls land in a rapidly changing political economy. When the violence first erupted between Meitei and Kuki, the major flashpoints were Moreh, Kangpokpi, Imphal and Jiribam though it started in Torbung area in Bishnupur district. This geography is not accidental; each of these locations holds significant economic value. Moreh, situated along the India-Myanmar border, functions as a crucial trade hub and gateway to Southeast Asia. Control over Moreh means influence over cross border trade and strategic connectivity. Kangpokpi is located along the National Highway-2 which is considered a lifeline of Manipur as disruptions there directly affect supply chains and fuel access. Imphal, the State capital, is not merely an administrative centre, but also an economic nerve centre of Manipur. Likewise, Jiribam, located on NH-37, is a strategic economic gateway to mainland India through Silchar, Assam. This pattern suggests that the conflict’s hotspots coincide with economically strategic spaces.
This perspective does not dismiss the role of governance failures or historical grievances. Rather, it suggests that any permanent solution must address structural land issues. First, land governance must be transparent and consultative. For instance, aged old tribal customary laws need reforms so as to serve the changing socio-economic needs. The objective should not be to discard the tradition, but reinterpret it in the light of Constitutional values and present realities. Second, development planning in the regions should prioritise distributive justice rather than prioritising extraction or short-term gains. Third, a mechanism should be established for inter-community land dialogue. Finally, policy discourse must shift from a narrow law and order lens to a political economy framework that acknowledges how global capitalism reshapes local conflicts.
Manipur’s tragedy is not simply a story of communities divided by hatred but also a story of a region negotiating rapid change without adequate institutional mechanisms. Economic integration without proper conflict-sensitive governance can harden ethnic boundaries, particularly in diverse States like Manipur. To move beyond violence, India should move beyond a narrow ethnic lens and address the structural intersections of land, capital and identity.
The writer teaches Economics at the University of Allahabad.