[Answered] The PM’s visit to Manipur is part of a process to heal a strife-torn state. Critically analyze the role of high-level political intervention in resolving civil unrest and addressing the root causes of conflict.

Introduction

Civil unrest in India, from Punjab militancy (1980s) to Manipur’s ethnic violence (2023–25), shows that high-level political intervention can catalyze reconciliation, peace-building, and institutional reforms when backed by inclusive dialogue and structural solutions.

Role of High-Level Political Intervention

1. Symbolism and Healing Touch: Prime Minister’s visit to Manipur (Sept 2025) signaled empathy and recognition, addressing both Kuki-Zo grievances (development deficit, healthcare) and Meitei aspirations (valorization of heritage, contributions to national security). Symbolism matters in divided societies, Nelson Mandela’s inclusive leadership helped dismantle apartheid-era mistrust in South Africa.
2. Confidence Building and Legitimacy: Governor Ajay Bhalla’s articulation of Churachandpur as a space of “rich cultural diversity” signaled inclusivity. Similar confidence-building was evident in Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s “Insaaniyat, Jamhooriyat, Kashmiriyat” doctrine during his 2003 Kashmir outreach.
3. Policy Interventions and Developmental Push: Launch of infrastructure projects, women’s hostels, and healthcare centers align with the “peace dividend” theory—economic development reduces incentives for conflict. Case: The Mizoram Accord (1986) combined political autonomy with development, ending decades of insurgency.
4. Security Stabilization: Enhanced deployment, retrieval of looted weapons, and renewed Suspension of Operations (SoO) with armed groups reflect the “securitization followed by reconciliation” approach. Example: President’s Rule in Punjab (1990s) paved way for normalcy before democratic restoration.

Limitations and Challenges

1. Risk of Symbolic Overreach: High-level visits may be perceived as optics without sustained follow-up, creating disillusionment. Example: Visits to Kashmir often failed to translate into durable conflict resolution.
2. Deep-Rooted Ethnic Faultlines: Meitei–Kuki-Zo conflict is rooted in land rights, Scheduled Tribe status debates, and migration concerns. Without structural reforms (land regulation, Free Movement Regime management), peace remains fragile.
3. Over-Centralization vs Federal Sensitivity: Excessive centralization risks undermining state institutions. Durable peace requires empowering local stakeholders, civil society, and traditional leaders. Case: Bodo Accord (2020) emphasized local councils and participatory governance.

Addressing Root Causes of Conflict

1. Inclusive Dialogue Platforms: Institutionalize peace committees involving both Meiteis and Kukis for long-term reconciliation.
2. Socio-Economic Integration: Focused investments in border areas, education, and healthcare to reduce developmental asymmetry.
3. Identity and Autonomy Accommodation: Explore federal solutions—greater autonomy for hill districts while preserving state integrity.
4. Regional Security Lens: Fencing, biometric monitoring, and reviewing the Free Movement Regime with Myanmar to address illegal migration, without alienating border communities.

Conclusion

As John Paul Lederach’s “Conflict Transformation” framework notes, peace requires symbolic gestures, structural reforms, and inclusive participation. High-level interventions must move beyond optics, embedding reconciliation into institutions for lasting conflict resolution.