Context

• Two years into the devastating ethnic conflict in Manipur, the region continues to grapple with a humanitarian and political crisis that has failed to secure national urgency.
• Despite a death toll exceeding 250 and the displacement of thousands into substandard relief shelters, the central government’s response has remained tepid and largely symbolic.
• This indifference contrasts sharply with the rapid mobilisation seen in response to other security-related crises, such as cross-border terrorism in Kashmir or the Pahalgam terror strike.
• The persistent marginalisation of Manipur and broader Northeast India in the national security discourse reveals a pattern of neglect, driven more by political optics and regime consolidation than substantive policy engagement.

National Prioritisation and Historical and Strategic Disengagement with the Northeast

• National Prioritisation and Political Apathy
  • The disparity in the central government's response to Manipur’s prolonged conflict versus its quick reaction to incidents in Kashmir underscores a troubling hierarchy in India’s crisis management.
  • Prime Minister Narendra Modi's continued absence from Manipur and lack of a political roadmap illustrate a deeper unwillingness to confront the complex realities of the region.
  • While the Pahalgam incident prompted policy shifts and even an international travel curtailment, Manipur’s suffering has barely registered on the national priority list.
  • This selective urgency exposes a significant gap between humanitarian need and political will.
• Historical and Strategic Disengagement with the Northeast
  • The roots of this neglect lie in New Delhi’s historical approach to the Northeast; one dominated by a security-first mindset and an undercurrent of geopolitical disinterest.
  • Unlike Kashmir, which is seen as strategically vital due to its proximity to both Pakistan and China, Manipur poses no immediate threat to India’s territorial sovereignty.
  • This has led to a superficial engagement marked by episodic interventions rather than sustained political commitment.
  • While past insurgencies in the Northeast did receive foreign support, such linkages have weakened over time, yet the national security lens persists as the primary mode of engagement.

The Persistent Issue of Neglect

• Security Narratives and the Manufacture of Threats
  • In the absence of genuine security threats, political and civil actors within Manipur have sought to fabricate or amplify dangers to gain political leverage.
  • This includes exaggerated intelligence claims, such as the alleged threat of over 900 armed militants poised to attack Meitei villages from Myanmar, a narrative later revealed to be more strategic posturing than grounded intelligence.
  • The resulting military actions disproportionately targeted Kuki-Zomi-Hmar villages, deepening ethnic fault lines and reinforcing majoritarian insecurities rather than addressing underlying causes of the conflict.
  • Simultaneously, the more immediate danger posed by valley-based insurgent groups (VBIGs) has been largely ignored, with these groups effectively filling the vacuum left by a failing state apparatus.
  • Law and order responsibilities have informally been outsourced to these militias, destabilising the fragile buffer zone that demarcates the warring ethnic territories and undermining formal governance structures.
• Misguided Security Measures and Obsolete Strategies
  • The Indian government’s emphasis on fencing the 1,643 km India-Myanmar border, especially the 398 km stretch adjoining Manipur, reflects an outdated and misdirected security paradigm.
  • Costing over ₹31,000 crore, this initiative has met resistance from Naga and Mizo communities whose cross-border ethnic affiliations challenge such rigid geopolitical demarcations.
  • These actions, catering more to valley-based political narratives and pork-barrel interests than strategic logic, neither enhance security nor promote India’s Act East Policy aimed at regional integration and cooperation.
  • Rather than upgrading intelligence, modernizing forces, and addressing insurgent re-armament, the government’s strategy leans heavily on performative gestures.
  • Arms surrender ceremonies, such as the Arambai Tenggol’s public handover of rudimentary weapons, are portrayed as signs of progress despite the continued circulation of thousands of sophisticated weapons.
• The Fragility of Arms Management and Rule of Law
  • The failure to recover the majority of the 6,000+ weapons stolen from state armouries since May 2023 is emblematic of the State’s inability to restore control.
  • As of March 2025, less than 4,000 arms have been recovered, many of them country-made and largely ineffective.
  • The absence of follow-up enforcement or prosecution under the Arms Act suggests that such exercises are symbolic, geared more toward political messaging than real disarmament.
  • This abundance of weaponry among non-state actors ensures that ethnic tensions remain combustible.
  • The security dilemma faced by minority groups like the Kukis and Mizos is exacerbated by the lack of credible state protection, reinforcing cycles of fear and retaliatory violence.
• Political Optics over Policy Substance
  • The imposition of President’s Rule in February 2025 came not as a response to administrative failure or humanitarian urgency, but as a mechanism to sidestep internal rebellion within the ruling BJP.
  • The central government’s reluctance to decisively intervene until its own political dominance was at stake reflects a broader tendency to treat internal security crises as opportunities for regime consolidation.
  • This is seen in the emphasis on optics, arms surrender, border fencing, and communal blame narratives, rather than long-term reconciliation or institutional reform.

Pathways to Peace and Political Resolution

• Despite these grim realities, signs of an incremental return to stability provide a narrow window for genuine political engagement.
• The contrasting commemorations of May 3, one as ‘separation day’ and another as a ‘day of reflection’, reflect the deep divides but also present an opportunity for dialogue.
• For any meaningful resolution, policy frameworks must move beyond the rhetoric of national security and embrace inclusive governance, trust-building, and institutional legitimacy.
• Breaking the current impasse will require reorienting national policy to address the
• Northeast not as a peripheral appendage, but as an integral part of the Indian federation with unique cultural, historical, and geopolitical dimensions.
• This includes recognising the grievances of all ethnic groups, restoring state authority without reliance on militias, and rebuilding the credibility of democratic institutions.

Conclusion

• Manipur’s crisis stands as a stark indictment of a national security strategy driven by optics and political expediency.
• The persistent violence, human suffering, and governance collapse reflect a deeper malaise in the Indian state’s approach to its northeastern frontier.
• Moving forward, a shift from symbolic gestures to substantive policy, grounded in empathy, justice, and strategic foresight, is imperative.
• Only then can the elusive peace in Manipur become a tangible reality.