Manipur’s Fragile Peace: Navigating the dialogue between Kuki, Meitei, and Naga MLAs

After nearly 17 months of escalating tension and unrest, a significant step has been taken with Kuki, Meitei, and Naga MLAs finally sitting down together for dialogue aimed at resolving the ongoing crisis in Manipur. While this long-awaited conversation signals hope for a potential solution, the issues at hand are immensely complex, and the risks of the talks backfiring remain high. With discussions involving deep-seated grievances and differing visions for the state’s future, the stakes are significant. The delicate fabric of Manipur’s multi-ethnic society must be handled with care, or it risks unraveling entirely.
The representation at the dialogue table is diverse but limited. Of the 10 Kuki MLAs, only 5 were present, while 9 Meitei MLAs and 3 Naga MLAs joined the discussions. The absence of several key voices is noteworthy, particularly given the ongoing demands from certain Kuki civil society organizations (CSOs) that have explicitly called for the replacement of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh as a precondition for dialogue. They have also pushed for a separate administration, a demand that has deeply polarized the state’s political landscape.
This brings to the fore one of the most contentious issues—the potential balkanization of Manipur. The suggestion of dividing the state into separate administrative entities has been a recurring theme in recent discussions. While some Kuki groups have been advocating for greater autonomy and even separate administration, these demands have met with fierce opposition from Meitei and Naga communities, who fear that such fragmentation would weaken the state’s unity and disrupt the fragile balance of power among its ethnic groups.
In fact, the state government had previously floated the idea of restructuring Manipur’s administration into three Territorial Councils to address some of these demands. This plan aimed at decentralizing governance and giving greater autonomy to different regions, but it was quickly met with resistance. Kuki CSOs, in particular, protested against the exclusion of Moreh—a town with a significant Kuki population—from the proposed territorial council under their jurisdiction. This flashpoint revealed the deep divisions not only between the ethnic groups but also within them. The government eventually shelved the plan, refusing to move forward with the creation of the three Territorial Councils, further highlighting the difficulty in crafting a solution that would satisfy all parties involved.
As the current round of talks unfolds, one must not underestimate the potential for further conflict. The very act of convening this dialogue could ignite unrest if participants are unable or unwilling to bridge the deep divides. If the Kuki CSOs’ demand for separate administration is put back on the table—particularly by the attending Meitei MLAs and ministers—it could lead to renewed protests, not only from the Kuki side but from Meitei and Naga communities as well. Manipur has a history of ethnic strife, and any misstep in the negotiations could further inflame tensions, especially if the interests of one group are seen as being prioritized over others.
This brings us to a critical question: how can peace be achieved when the aspirations of the state’s ethnic groups are so vastly different? The Meitei community, which holds the majority in the valley, is deeply concerned about the integrity of Manipur. Many Meitei leaders are wary of any concession that could be interpreted as paving the way for greater autonomy or the separation of Kuki-majority areas. On the other hand, Kuki leaders and CSOs, frustrated with the lack of progress on their demands for separate administration, may not be willing to settle for anything less than substantial autonomy. The Naga community, which has its own set of historical grievances and autonomy demands, adds yet another layer of complexity to these talks.
One of the key factors that could make or break these discussions is the government’s ability to strike a balance between appeasing these divergent demands while preserving the state’s territorial integrity. The Union Home Ministry’s involvement suggests that the central government is keen on finding a resolution, but it remains to be seen whether its approach will prioritize the long-term stability of the state or merely focus on quelling immediate unrest.
Any agreement that emerges from these talks must address not only the political but also the emotional dimensions of the conflict.
The challenge now lies in the hands of the participating MLAs. They must act with wisdom and foresight, for the decisions made today will shape the future of Manipur for generations to come.