A Way Forward – Prioritising Peace and Equity in Manipur

When a state reaches the edge of despair, people naturally look to their government—both state and central—for direction, protection, and justice. In Manipur, the prolonged ethnic crisis, unchecked violence, and socio-political fracture have left the people stranded in uncertainty. As the region witnesses President’s Rule and a fragile administrative calm, the people are expecting more than routine governance—they are demanding a decisive roadmap to peace.
The recent intensification of efforts to recover looted and illegal weapons from civilians is, without doubt, a commendable step in reining in lawlessness. Disarming the general population can help control impulsive violence and may reduce the frequency of deadly clashes. However, this measure alone cannot restore normalcy unless it is applied equitably across all factions and communities. The visible tolerance of heavily armed militant groups—particularly those operating under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement—raises troubling questions. How can peace be restored when one side remains armed and the other is forcibly disarmed?
The contradiction is glaring. On one hand, the central and state authorities are seizing weapons from civilians, even those held in the name of community defence. On the other, known militant groups continue to operate with sophisticated arms, allegedly enjoying safe zones, political backing, and in some cases, impunity. This selective application of law threatens to undermine public trust in the state machinery and casts doubt on the sincerity of the government’s peace initiatives.
What Manipur needs now is a balanced, transparent, and inclusive peace process. Disarmament must not become a one-sided exercise. The government must act firmly against all armed groups—whether valley-based or hill-based—who continue to threaten the stability of the region. The existing SoO agreements must be reviewed, and any groups found violating the terms or engaging in violence must be held accountable. No political arrangement should legitimise violence or allow any group to become a parallel power centre.
At the same time, the crisis cannot be resolved through the barrel of a gun alone. Dialogue remains key. The Centre must step up and initiate a sincere, time-bound, and multi-stakeholder peace dialogue involving all communities—Meiteis, Kukis, Nagas, and others. Grievances on land, administration, security, and identity must be addressed with sensitivity and constitutional clarity.
In the absence of an elected state government, the role of the Centre becomes even more critical. It must rise above political calculations and demonstrate statesmanship. The continuation of President’s Rule should not become a tool to delay resolution but a responsibility to fast-track healing.
Manipur cannot afford to live in a permanent state of siege, where people are afraid to return to their homes, children cannot go to school safely, and communities live behind barricades. The Centre has the constitutional and moral responsibility to end this crisis—not by temporary containment but through a long-term vision that ensures justice, security, and dignity for all.
Peace in Manipur is not impossible—but it requires courage, fairness, and the political will to act now.