Manipur’s Long Road to Peace

One evening in Manipur, an ambulance carrying an elderly patient stopped at a checkpoint between two districts. The driver hesitated before moving ahead, uncertain whether the road beyond was safe. A journey that once took less than an hour had now become a passage through fear, suspicion and invisible ethnic boundaries. Around the ambulance stood armed security personnel, deserted shops and silent divided roads that had once connected the people.

Since May 2023, Manipur has witnessed prolonged ethnic violence, displacement, destruction of homes, and deepening mistrust between communities. What initially appeared as a sudden outbreak of unrest gradually exposed a deeper crisis rooted in history, geography, identity, land rights, migration, insurgency and uneven development. The tragedy of Manipur lies not merely in the violence itself, but in the erosion of trust between communities that have shared the same land for centuries.

The state broadly consists of the Imphal Valley and the surrounding hill districts. The valley, constituting barely ten percent of Manipur’s geographical area, is inhabited largely by the Meitei community and serves as the political and administrative centre of the state. The surrounding hills are home primarily to tribal communities, especially the Nagas and Kukis, each possessing distinct cultural traditions and historical experiences.

Historically, these communities evolved through different political and social systems. The Meiteis developed a relatively centralised kingdom in the valley, while tribal communities in the hills maintained autonomous village-based structures. During colonial rule as well, the British administration governed the valley and hills separately, institutionalising distinctions that continued after independence. Over time, these separations evolved into political and emotional fault lines. Land became one of the most sensitive issues in this relationship.

Tribal lands in the hill districts enjoy constitutional protections restricting ownership by non-tribals. Tribal communities view these safeguards as essential for preserving their identity and way of life. Meanwhile, sections of the Meitei community argue that demographic pressure and restriction to the valley have created concerns regarding land availability and cultural preservation.

These anxieties intensified around the Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe status. Supporters viewed the demand as a mechanism to preserve identity and secure constitutional safeguards, while many tribal groups feared that granting ST status to the relatively dominant Meitei population could weaken protections relating to land rights and reservations in the hills.

The roots of the existing mistrust were also shaped by insurgency and ethnic movements across Northeast India. The rise of Naga nationalism, especially the demand for a “Greater Nagalim,” significantly influenced Manipur’s politics, with many viewing it as a threat to the state’s territorial integrity. Kuki groups too witnessed phases of armed mobilisation and violent clashes during the 1990s. The porous border with Myanmar further complicated the situation through movement of armed groups, illegal weapons, and narcotics trafficking, particularly after the military coup in Myanmar in 2021.

Thus, the present violence represents the convergence of historical grievances, competing ethnic aspirations, insurgency-related complexities and developmental imbalance accumulated over decades. Thousands from different communities continue to live in relief camps after losing homes, livelihoods and social networks built over generations. Schools and colleges remain disrupted, markets and businesses have suffered heavily and undoubtedly, women and children have borne the greatest burden of this instability. The prolonged nature of displacement risks creating a generation shaped more by memories of violence than by shared citizenship.

Over the last two years, both the Union and state governments have undertaken several measures to restore normalcy. Security deployments were expanded, buffer zones established, rehabilitation initiatives announced, and peace committees formed. Efforts were also made to improve border surveillance, recover illegal weapons, and initiate dialogue among stakeholders. These interventions have helped prevent wider escalation in several areas. However, peace remains fragile because the crisis is not merely administrative or territorial; it is deeply social and psychological. Lasting peace therefore requires more than security management, it requires reconciliation.

The way forward for Manipur must rest on a framework combining security stabilisation, political dialogue, constitutional sensitivity, rehabilitation, development and social cooperation.

The immediate priority must be restoring public confidence in state institutions. One of the gravest consequences of the violence has been the circulation of looted sophisticated weapons among civilian groups. The prolonged militarisation of society risks normalising armed vigilantism and deepening ethnic insecurity. Therefore, a transparent and politically neutral disarmament process is essential. Recovery of illegal arms, dismantling of bunkers, disruption of extortion networks and stronger border management along Myanmar must become immediate priorities.

At the same time, security measures alone cannot ensure peace unless communities trust the institutions enforcing them. Discussions around decentralised and community-sensitive policing arrangements, including proposals such as “One District, One Force,” reflect this challenge. While purely ethnic policing would be counterproductive, improving local confidence through better coordination between central forces, state police and local administration remains necessary. Simultaneously, the role of AFSPA must also be approached with balance and sensitivity. While security agencies view the law as necessary in insurgency-affected regions, prolonged militarisation has historically generated alienation among civilians in parts of the Northeast. Therefore, future decisions regarding AFSPA in Manipur should be guided by periodic security assessments, accountability mechanisms and gradual restoration of civilian governance wherever conditions permit.

Equally important is the rehabilitation of displaced populations. Thousands continue to live in relief camps with interrupted education, disrupted livelihoods, and emotional trauma. Rehabilitation must move beyond temporary relief toward dignified resettlement through housing, healthcare, livelihood restoration, trauma counselling and educational continuity for children.

Most importantly, Manipur requires a sustained and inclusive political reconciliation process. Lasting peace cannot emerge unless all major stakeholders: Meitei, Kuki and Naga representatives, women’s organisations, tribal bodies, youth groups, civil society institutions and governments at both levels are brought onto a common platform for structured dialogue.

In this regard, the Mizo Accord of 1986 offers an important lesson. Mizoram too had once witnessed insurgency and prolonged instability. Peace became possible when the Indian state moved beyond a purely security-centric response and initiated sustained negotiations involving all stakeholders. The accord succeeded because it combined constitutional accommodation, political participation, rehabilitation measures and respect for local identity within the democratic framework of India. Manipur requires a similarly patient and inclusive process where every community feels that its concerns regarding identity, security and political representation are acknowledged.

The present crisis has also highlighted the need for greater clarity in handling identity-based constitutional demands such as Scheduled Tribe status. In ethnically sensitive regions like Manipur, such classifications carry major implications for land rights, reservations and political representation. These demands should therefore be assessed again through transparent constitutional criteria, anthropological evaluation, socio-economic analysis and broad stakeholder consultation.

At the same time, long-term peace depends heavily on balanced development and administrative integration. Here, India’s experience in addressing Left-Wing Extremism offers another important lesson. The decline of Naxal violence was achieved not merely through security operations but through a strategy combining roads, mobile connectivity, banking access, healthcare, schools, welfare delivery and governance outreach in previously neglected regions.

Although Manipur’s conflict differs fundamentally from the Naxal movement in its ethnic and historical character, several governance lessons remain relevant. Remote hill districts continue to face infrastructural gaps, weak healthcare access, unemployment and developmental disparities that contribute to feelings of exclusion. Therefore, development in Manipur must become peace-oriented and culturally sensitive ensuring equitable benefits for both valley and hill populations. Finally, Manipur requires social healing alongside political and administrative reform. Sustainable peace cannot emerge merely through agreements signed at the top; it must also be rebuilt through people centric development encompassing economic, socio-cultural, political and educational ambits.

Also, peace in Manipur cannot mean the triumph of one community over another. It must mean rebuilding a shared belief that despite historical differences and present suffering, all communities can coexist with dignity, security and equal belonging within the constitutional fabric of India.

Perhaps then, months later, the silent divided road may slowly begin to reopen. Security checkpoints may still remain and mistrust may not disappear overnight but ambulances could once again move freely between districts, markets may cautiously reopen and children may slowly return to schools. The journey ahead for Manipur remains long and difficult yet the reopening of those roads would carry a deeper meaning. Roads do not merely connect places; they connect people, communities and futures.

Manipur’s true recovery will not be measured only by the absence of violence but by the day when ordinary citizens can once again travel across the state without fear, speak across identities without suspicion and believe that despite years of conflict they still share a common destiny within the constitutional fabric of India.

: Shivangi Kaushish