Amit Shah’s Role in the Manipur Conflict, Krishna’s role in Mahabharata: A Balancing Act or Strategic Ambiguity?

The epic Mahabharata portrays Lord Krishna as a central figure to whom all paths ultimately lead. In the current socio-political crisis in Manipur, Union Home Minister Amit Shah seems to have assumed a similarly pivotal, albeit controversial, role. Much like Krishna, Amit Shah appears to straddle both sides of the ongoing ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki communities. This dual alignment has raised questions about the Centre’s intentions and the efficacy of its interventions.
The Manipur conflict has divided the state along geographical and ethnic lines. The Meiteis, predominantly in the Imphal Valley, and the Kukis, largely inhabiting the hills, have both accused each other of atrocities. The Centre, led by Amit Shah, has been navigating this fraught situation, attempting to maintain a semblance of impartiality. However, its actions—or lack thereof—have often been interpreted as favouring one side over the other by both the sides.
On the one hand, some observers have pointed out that there is some sort of between the centre and Meiteis politically. The BJP-led state government under Chief Minister N. Biren Singh has been accused of being overtly pro-Meitei by the Kukis. They have accused that there is a refusal from centre’s part to take decisive action against Meitei.
On the other hand, the deployment of central armed forces and their alleged collusion with the Kukis have created a counter-narrative. The Meiteis accuse the Centre of turning a blind eye to their plight while simultaneously accusing the armed forces of shielding Kuki perpetrators.
This duality has made the Centre a target of suspicion from both communities, amplifying the crisis instead of alleviating it. Amit Shah’s handling of the conflict has mirrored Krishna’s enigmatic role in the Mahabharata. In Krishna’s case, his impartiality and ultimate commitment to dharma were unquestionable.
But Amit Shah’s role, far from being divine, is rooted in real politik. His attempts to mediate have included dialogues with both communities at superficial level, the announcement of judicial probes, and promises of rehabilitation for displaced individuals. Yet, these efforts have largely failed to address the root causes of the conflict, leaving both sides dissatisfied.
Amit Shah’s strategy seems to be that of strategic ambiguity. By keeping both sides engaged without fully committing to either, the Centre may be attempting to maintain its political foothold in the region. This approach, however, risks alienating both communities in the long run. The Meiteis, who form the majority and are key to BJP’s political base in Manipur, may grow disillusioned if the Centre fails to meet their expectations. Simultaneously, the Kukis, already feeling marginalized, might interpret this as further evidence of the BJP’s indifference to their grievances.
The Centre’s dual approach also highlights deeper structural issues. The lack of a coherent policy framework for addressing ethnic conflicts has left the government reliant on ad-hoc measures. Moreover, the BJP’s emphasis on a strong centralized leadership has often come at the cost of empowering local governments and community leaders, exacerbating the disconnect between Delhi and the Northeast.
The implications of this approach extend beyond Manipur. The perception that the Centre plays both sides could set a dangerous precedent for handling ethnic conflicts in other parts of the country. Trust in the government’s ability to act as an impartial mediator is crucial in such situations. If that trust erodes, the consequences could be far-reaching, undermining the very fabric of India’s federalism.
While Amit Shah’s role in Manipur may bear superficial resemblance to Krishna’s in the Mahabharata, the outcomes are starkly different. Where Krishna’s interventions led to resolution and dharma, Amit Shah’s actions have so far deepened divisions. If the Centre genuinely aims to restore peace in Manipur, it must move beyond symbolic gestures and ambiguous strategies. Concrete measures, including a transparent investigation into the violence, meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders, and equitable distribution of resources, are essential. Without these, the Centre risks being remembered not as a unifying force but as a perpetuator of discord in one of India’s most troubled states.