Escalating Tensions and the Risks of Political Misreading

Recent reports of attacks on Tangkhul civilians have raised serious concerns about the evolving dynamics of the ongoing ethnic conflict in Manipur. The incidents, reportedly involving armed Kuki militants, come at a time when a new political arrangement has taken shape in the state under Chief Minister Nongthombam Biren Singh’s successor, Khemchand Singh, with Nemcha Kipgen appointed as Deputy Chief Minister. The timing of these developments has led to growing speculation about whether militant groups are attempting to recalibrate their strategy in response to the shifting political landscape.
For years, the conflict in Manipur has largely been viewed through the lens of the Meitei–Kuki divide. However, the recent targeting of Tangkhul civilians suggests that the conflict’s contours may be widening. The Tangkhuls, a major Naga community, have historically maintained a distinct political position in the hill politics of the state. Any attempt to draw them directly into the current cycle of violence risks expanding what is already a deeply fractured situation.
One interpretation circulating in political and civil society circles is that certain armed groups may believe they have already achieved a degree of strategic advantage over the Meitei side and are now focusing on consolidating or advancing their political objectives. These objectives are widely linked to the demand for a separate administrative or political arrangement for Kuki-Zo areas. Such a perception, whether accurate or not, can become dangerous if it encourages further escalation or attempts to intimidate other hill communities perceived as obstacles to that goal.
The political backdrop adds another layer of complexity. In a letter dated February 2, 2026, Arun Singh, National General Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party, reportedly assured that a negotiated political solution for the Kuki-Zo people under the framework of the Suspension of Operations Agreement would remain a priority. The letter was addressed to Nemcha Kipgen and was linked to her support for the formation of the new government and acceptance of the Deputy Chief Minister’s post. Such assurances, while part of ongoing peace negotiations, inevitably shape perceptions among various stakeholders on the ground.
At the same time, statements from several Kuki civil society organisations and other actors have been sharply critical of positions taken by sections of the Naga community, including Tangkhul groups. This emerging narrative risks framing the Tangkhuls as a political barrier to the aspirations of the Kuki-Zo movement. If such perceptions take root among militant actors, it could explain why Tangkhul civilians are increasingly becoming targets.
This trajectory is deeply troubling. Turning the conflict toward additional communities will not bring political resolution; it will only multiply grievances and deepen mistrust among the hill peoples themselves. The hill districts of Manipur are home to diverse tribal groups whose histories, territorial claims and political aspirations do not always align. Attempting to secure political concessions through coercion or intimidation of neighbouring communities is likely to provoke further fragmentation rather than unity.
The state government led by Khemchand Singh faces an immediate challenge in this regard. Ensuring the protection of all civilians, including Tangkhul communities in vulnerable areas, must be treated as a priority. Equally important is the responsibility of the Union Government to ensure that ongoing negotiations under the Suspension of Operations framework do not unintentionally embolden armed actors or create perceptions of selective political favour.
Peace in Manipur cannot be built through the logic of dominance by one group over another. Any durable settlement must recognise the complex mosaic of communities in the state and address their concerns through transparent dialogue rather than militant pressure. The recent targeting of Tangkhul civilians should therefore serve as a warning: when violence begins to spread across new fault lines, the conflict moves further away from resolution and closer to a prolonged and unpredictable instability.