Can the Perpetrator Be the Arbitrator? Examining India’s Role in the Manipur Crisis

The prolonged unrest in Manipur has raised several critical questions about the role of the Indian government in resolving the crisis. For over a year and a half, the state has been embroiled in violence, primarily between the Meitei and Chin-Kuki communities. Civil society organizations in Manipur have repeatedly alleged that the Indian government, under the guise of neutrality, is waging a proxy war against the Meitei community by using Kuki narco-terrorists as its instruments. This claim challenges the credibility of the government as an impartial mediator in resolving the ongoing conflict.
The allegations stem from various actions—or inactions—on the part of the Indian government. Suspicion deepened when reports indicated that armed Kuki groups, operating under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement with the government, were allegedly involved in violence against the Meitei community. Civil society groups have accused these groups of engaging in narco-terrorism, poppy cultivation, and orchestrated attacks while enjoying government protection. The social media admissions by some Kuki militant leaders, claiming responsibility for acts of violence, only amplify these allegations. Despite these public declarations, the government has been criticized for its lack of decisive action against the perpetrators, further fueling the belief that it is complicit in the violence.
If these accusations hold weight, the fundamental question arises: Can a government accused of waging a proxy war against one of the parties in the conflict be expected to act as a neutral arbiter? This is not merely a rhetorical question but a practical and ethical dilemma. The resolution of the Manipur crisis requires an impartial approach rooted in justice, fairness, and accountability. However, if the government is perceived as favoring one side or, worse, as an active participant in the conflict, any attempt at mediation is bound to fail.
For the Meitei community, the stakes are particularly high. They feel cornered not only by the violence but also by the lack of trust in the institutions meant to safeguard their rights. Civil society organizations have pointed out that the Indian government’s approach to Manipur seems to align more with the interests of Kuki groups, which they claim are seeking a separate homeland through violent means. This perceived alignment undermines the government’s credibility and its ability to act as a fair mediator.
At the heart of this issue lies a broader political question. If the Indian government is indeed complicit in the violence, either directly or indirectly, its actions could be viewed as an extension of a larger agenda to destabilize Manipur. Whether this agenda is rooted in geopolitical considerations, economic interests, or other motivations, the result is the same: a deepening crisis and a fractured state. For the Meitei community, this is not just a matter of survival but also a struggle to protect their cultural, territorial, and political integrity.
The government’s inconsistent narratives regarding the violence further erode its credibility. Union Home Minister Amit Shah initially attributed the violence to demands for the inclusion of the Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe (ST) list, triggered by a Manipur High Court order. Later, he shifted the blame to illegal immigrants from Myanmar. In a subsequent interview, he described the conflict as an ethnic clash. This ever-changing narrative raises doubts about the government’s intent and its grasp of the ground realities in Manipur.
Given these circumstances, expecting the Indian government to act as an impartial judge in resolving the Manipur crisis seems paradoxical, if not outright impractical. Trust is the cornerstone of any conflict resolution process, and the government has done little to earn it from the Meitei community. If anything, its actions have only deepened the divide and fueled skepticism.