A fragile step toward peace in Manipur, but questions remain

The long-awaited dialogue between the Meitei and Kuki representatives in Delhi has reignited hope for a peaceful resolution to the nearly 2 year-long unrest in Manipur. While the initiative led by representatives of the Union Ministry has been cautiously welcomed by observers across the Northeast, the outcome of the dialogue has raised fresh concerns over the sincerity of stakeholders, the limitations of the process, and the silence of the Government of India on ongoing unlawful activities and constitutional violations in the state.
The very fact that the two warring communities came face to face across the negotiation table marks a rare occurrence since the outbreak of violence on May 3, 2023. Thousands have been displaced, hundreds have lost their lives, and an entire generation—especially among the youth—is growing up amidst trauma, mistrust, and armed barricades. In this context, the Delhi meeting was not just symbolic—it was necessary. Yet, if we go beyond the optics, we must ask: Did the talks really move the needle on peace?
The refusal of the Kuki representatives to sign the proposed “way forward” brought by Union Ministry officials is a matter of deep concern. Reports suggest that the draft included provisions for a gradual de-escalation of hostilities, steps toward rehabilitation of displaced persons, and institutional mechanisms for ongoing dialogue. However, the Kuki side allegedly viewed the document as “lacking clarity,” “ignoring their core demands,” and “failing to acknowledge ground realities.”
Among the primary objections was the absence of any reference to their longstanding demand for a separate administration. For the Kuki leadership, any roadmap that continues to frame the future of the community within the existing administrative framework of Manipur seems non-negotiable. On the other hand, the Meitei representatives are firm on the position that Manipur’s territorial integrity is non-negotiable. This impasse is not new—but it is now threatening to freeze the only substantive conversation attempted at the national level.
Meanwhile, the Union Government appears content playing the role of a “facilitator” rather than a decisive authority. While the Home Ministry deserves credit for bringing the stakeholders together, the Centre’s continued reluctance to take firm action against unlawful activities across both hills and valley regions sends a dangerous signal. Several Kuki militant groups under Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreements have been repeatedly accused of violating ceasefire terms, extortion, and even interfering with local governance. Simultaneously, in the valley, armed vigilante groups and radicalised mobs have created a climate of fear and lawlessness.
What is striking—and deeply troubling—is the Centre’s selective silence. Despite receiving complaints of illegal checkpoints, cross-border trafficking, and even the formation of parallel administrative structures in the hill areas, no visible punitive action has been taken. This inaction undermines the credibility of the Constitution of India and emboldens elements on both sides who thrive on conflict.
One cannot ignore the underlying message: If dialogue is to succeed, it must be anchored in the rule of law. The Government of India cannot afford to appear helpless or indifferent. Dialogue must be accompanied by disarmament, enforcement of the law, and restoration of democratic processes across all districts. The recent appointment of peace committees and civil society liaisons may appear positive on paper, but they are meaningless without the political will to ensure accountability.
The peace process also cannot be reduced to meetings behind closed doors in Delhi. It must be participatory, inclusive, and transparent. Local communities, especially displaced persons, women’s groups, and student bodies, must be consulted. Any roadmap that is negotiated without the voices of those directly affected is bound to fail.
Moreover, peace is not just the absence of violence—it is the presence of justice. If the perpetrators of violence, rape, arson, and targeted killings are not brought to justice regardless of their ethnic background, the wounds of Manipur will fester. Accountability cannot be ethnicised. The law must apply equally to all.
To conclude, while the recent Meitei-Kuki dialogue in Delhi was a step forward, it was at best a tentative beginning. It is a fragile start, not a breakthrough. For real peace to return to Manipur, the Centre must move beyond facilitation to firm and fair leadership. It must send a clear message: that no demand, no grievance, and no political ambition can override the Constitution of India.
Only then can the road to reconciliation truly begin.