A troubling signal for indigenous unity in the Northeast

The sudden resignation of Ashang Kasar, President of the Indigenous People’s Forum Manipur (IPFM), following intimidation from the United Naga Council (UNC), marks a worrying turn in the already fragile ethnic dynamics of Manipur and the broader Northeast region. Kasar’s decision to step down just ahead of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples not only reflects the underlying tensions between tribal communities but also raises serious concerns about the future of indigenous solidarity in the region.
The IPFM, as the Manipur chapter of the Northeast Indigenous People’s Forum, was intended to serve as a platform to bring together various indigenous groups across the region. Its primary goal was to foster mutual respect, peace, and cooperation in addressing the shared socio-political and economic challenges that indigenous communities face. That its president was forced to resign due to pressure from an apex body of one community signals a breakdown in this ideal.
Manipur, already reeling from a prolonged ethnic conflict, is now witnessing a deeper fragmentation of indigenous identities. The rise in exclusivist narratives, the assertion of one group’s supremacy over another, and the unwillingness to accept collective forums like IPFM reveal a dangerous trajectory. In this environment, efforts to forge inter-community cooperation are being undermined by entrenched political interests and ethnic nationalism.
The Northeast is home to a rich mosaic of indigenous peoples, each with its own language, customs, territory, and political aspirations. While this diversity is its strength, it is also the root of frequent conflict when dialogue breaks down and identity politics takes precedence over inclusive governance. In recent years, identity-based demands—whether for autonomy, recognition, or rights—have become increasingly politicised, leading to mistrust among communities that once coexisted with mutual respect.
In Manipur’s current crisis, the lack of a neutral platform where all voices can be heard equally has only worsened the divide. Forums like the IPFM had the potential to provide that space. Kasar’s resignation, therefore, is not just a personal or organisational matter—it is a symptom of a larger erosion of trust between communities that were supposed to stand in solidarity.
What is most alarming is the chilling effect this incident may have on future indigenous cooperation. If leaders and peace-builders feel unsafe or are silenced by intimidation, the space for dialogue and reconciliation shrinks even further. This, in turn, benefits those who thrive on division and conflict.
The time has come for the region’s civil society, academic institutions, and elder statesmen to rise above ethnic lines and reassert the shared interests of the indigenous peoples of the Northeast. Political bodies, too, must act responsibly and not weaponise identity. The Centre and state governments must also ensure that peace-building forums are protected and allowed to function without fear or favour.
The Northeast cannot afford to let its diversity become a fault line. The fate of its indigenous peoples lies not in isolation, but in unity through dialogue, mutual respect, and the courage to stand together—even in disagreement.