Contents
Introduction
The prolonged ethnic conflict in Manipur, completing two years in May 2025, has exposed systemic and strategic lacunae in India’s national security and internal stability framework. Over 250 lives lost, thousands displaced, and rampant violence underscore a grave humanitarian and national security crisis. Yet, the Union government’s response — marked by political silence, security deflection, and ethnic bias — reflects a paradox in India’s approach to internal conflicts, particularly in the Northeast.
The Paradox of National Security in Manipur
While the government reacts swiftly to cross-border threats, as seen after the Pahalgam terror strike (2024) or the Balakot strikes (2019), internal ethnic conflicts like in Manipur are often treated as localized law-and-order issues. This contrasts sharply with the “security-first” posture adopted in Kashmir or against Naxal insurgency.
- Misplaced National Security Framing: The violence was primarily framed as an infiltration threat by “lungi-clad Kuki militants” from Myanmar. This oversimplified, ethnicized narrative served more to inflame ethnic majoritarian sentiment than reflect actual threat dynamics.
- Ignoring Valley-Based Insurgent Groups (VBIGs): The resurgence of VBIGs, previously neutralized in Operation All-Clear (2004), is conspicuously ignored. The outsourcing of law and order to armed valley-based militias such as Arambai Tenggol shows a severe abdication of state responsibility.
- Failure of Arms Recovery: Out of over 6,000 looted weapons and 5 lakh rounds of ammunition, only around 4,000 weapons have been surrendered, often ceremoniously and without legal follow-through. This undermines long-term peace and fuels the ethnic security dilemma.
Wider Implications for the Northeast
- Obsolete Security Measures: The focus on border fencing (₹31,000 crore) and revoking the Free Movement Regime (FMR) along the India-Myanmar border has met resistance from the Naga and Mizo communities. It ignores people-to-people ties and undermines Act East Policy goals.
- Political Optics over Strategic Vision: Policy responses — such as arms surrender deadlines or fencing — prioritize regime consolidation and media optics over genuine peace-building and state legitimacy.
- Lack of Trust and Institutional Capacity: The absence of credible dialogue, President’s Rule imposed only under political duress (Feb 2025), and ethnically lopsided governance have eroded public trust. Relief camps still house thousands under inhuman conditions, exacerbating alienation.
Way Forward
- Reframing National Security: Recognize Northeast conflicts as national issues, not regional disturbances. Establish dedicated Northeast Peace and Security Cells under MHA with counterinsurgency and ethnic reconciliation expertise.
- Inclusive Political Dialogue: Begin structured dialogue with all stakeholders — Meiteis, Kukis, Nagas — facilitated by neutral interlocutors, supported by institutions like North Eastern Council (NEC) and Interlocutor Panels.
- Modernize and Professionalize Security Response: Upscale intelligence-sharing, demilitarize civilian areas, and retrain police and paramilitary to handle ethnic conflict impartially.
- Socio-economic Investment: A special development package focused on reconciliation, education, healthcare, and youth rehabilitation must complement security measures.
Conclusion
The Manipur conflict highlights a deep contradiction in India’s internal security strategy — where political optics and ethnic bias override strategic clarity and humanitarian responsibility. A shift from “ad hoc political management” to “strategic peacebuilding” is essential not only for Manipur but for the larger stability of Northeast India and the integrity of the Indian Union.