Is the Indian Govt Responsible for the Manipur Crisis?

The ongoing crisis in Manipur has caused widespread devastation, with ethnic violence, displacement, and political instability becoming the daily reality for its people. The question now being asked is to what extent the Indian government is responsible for the situation. While the conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities is deeply rooted in local history and politics, the role of the central government in either exacerbating or failing to mitigate the crisis is critical and cannot be overlooked.
Political mismanagement at both the state and national levels is a primary factor behind the prolonged unrest in Manipur. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government in the state, supported by the central leadership, has been criticized for its failure to take timely and decisive action to address the ethnic tensions between the two communities. The government’s delayed response, along with inadequate measures to bring the warring groups to the negotiating table, has only aggravated the situation.
The central government’s indifference during the early stages of the crisis has been another point of contention. Despite multiple warnings about increasing tension, national leaders remained largely silent, giving the impression that Manipur was not a priority on the national agenda. This slow reaction allowed violence to escalate, leading to significant loss of life and property. The government’s inaction created a vacuum that allowed the conflict to spiral out of control, leaving the people of Manipur feeling abandoned by those in power.
The conflict is deeply rooted in ethnic tensions, but the Indian government’s approach to handling these issues has been superficial. While deploying paramilitary forces and imposing temporary internet bans have offered some short-term relief, these measures fail to address the deeper grievances of the people. Rather than focusing on reconciliation and dialogue, the central government has often resorted to securitization, treating the crisis as a mere law-and-order issue rather than a humanitarian and political one. This militarized approach has not only failed to resolve the conflict but has also widened the gap between the communities and their government.
National security concerns have also played a significant role in shaping the Indian government’s response. Manipur’s geographical proximity to Myanmar and China has historically made it vulnerable to cross-border insurgencies, and the presence of Kuki militants from Myanmar has further complicated the situation. Reports of advanced weaponry being used by militants, such as drone bombs, have raised concerns about foreign interference, particularly from China. While safeguarding national borders is important, the central government’s long-standing militaristic approach in the Northeast has largely ignored the local complexities of the conflict.
Political calculations have further contributed to the paralysis in addressing the crisis. For the BJP, the Northeast has become an increasingly important region in electoral terms, and Manipur plays a key role in maintaining its dominance. However, the fear of alienating one community or another has led to a balancing act, with neither the central nor state government willing to take decisive action. This has created a situation where electoral politics are prioritized over peace building, allowing the crisis to worsen.
The ruling party’s preference for maintaining political control in Manipur has also contributed to instability. The failure to involve all key stakeholders, particularly community leaders from both the Meitei and Kuki sides, in peace negotiations has led to deeper mistrust. The government’s reluctance to intervene more directly in the state’s governance, likely due to fears of undermining the state leadership, has allowed the crisis to persist without resolution. Political leadership appears more focused on maintaining its hold on power than on resolving the conflict that has displaced thousands and destabilized the region.
Manipur’s location, which places it at the crossroads of India’s borders with Myanmar, China, and Bangladesh, adds another layer of complexity to the crisis. The central government’s focus on maintaining tight control over this strategically important region has often come at the expense of addressing local concerns. By prioritizing geopolitics over resolving the immediate ethnic conflict, the Indian government has contributed to the deepening of the crisis.
The ongoing crisis in Manipur highlights a failure of both state and national leadership. While the roots of the conflict are local, the Indian government’s failure to act decisively has exacerbated the situation. Political mismanagement, indifference to violence, and an overemphasis on security over dialogue have all played significant roles in prolonging the unrest. If the Indian government does not take immediate and meaningful steps to address the core issues—ethnic grievances, trust-building, and political inclusivity—the situation may continue to deteriorate.