Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Manipur after two years and four months of silence lands in a state still bleeding from wounds left open by neglect. For many here, the delay itself is an indictment: at the peak of ethnic violence in May 2023, when homes were torched, women brutalized, and entire villages erased, Delhi’s highest office maintained a studied silence. The Centre allowed Manipur to burn, as if its pain were too distant, too inconvenient, too expendable for the nation’s conscience. That memory of abandonment cannot be erased by one high-profile visit.
The violence that erupted between Meiteis in the valley and the Kuki-Zo tribes of the hills claimed more than 250 lives and displaced nearly 57,000. Two years later, populations remain trapped in camps, families torn apart, and communities divided by barbed wire and mistrust. This is not just a local conflict but a humanitarian crisis, and the Centre’s failure to intervene decisively in its early days will forever stain its credibility. The imposition of President’s Rule in February 13, 2025 was less a solution than a reluctant acknowledgment that governance had collapsed. Delhi stepped in not out of foresight but because it could no longer ignore the spectacle of a state unraveling under its watch.
The Prime Minister’s arrival now, framed as an act of healing, risks being reduced to hollow theatre. Civil society groups and opposition voices have already warned that unless his visit delivers more than carefully staged optics, it will deserve rejection. The United Committee Manipur has articulated the prevailing sentiment bluntly: there is nothing to celebrate. To the people who lived through months of silence, a sudden burst of attention feels less like leadership and more like damage control timed to political convenience.
The timing of the visit betrays its priorities. Days before Modi’s arrival, the Union Home Ministry quietly renewed the Suspension of Operations agreement with Kuki-Zo insurgent groups, moved their arms to BSF and CRPF camps, and facilitated the reopening of National Highway-2. These steps may ease tensions in the hills and restore some economic lifelines, but they also expose the narrow focus of Delhi’s engagement. By concentrating on confidence-building with one community while avoiding the far more difficult questions of resettlement, accountability, and reconciliation, the Centre is once again treating Manipur as a bargaining table rather than a state of equal citizens. The itinerary, which includes both Imphal and Churachandpur, reinforces the perception that this visit is not about addressing Manipur as a whole but about striking a balance sheet of appeasement.
Meanwhile, the larger demands remain untouched. Meitei groups continue to resist the idea of separate administration, while Kuki-Zo organizations remain entrenched in that demand. Displaced families still wait to return home with safety and dignity. Victims of killings, arson, and sexual violence still wait for justice. The state’s broken economy cries out for rebuilding, yet there is little sign of long-term recovery plans. These are not peripheral questions. They are the essence of Manipur’s agony, and they demand answers from the highest office of the land.
What has defined Delhi’s approach so far is avoidance. Avoidance of responsibility when the crisis erupted. Avoidance of justice when atrocities piled up. Avoidance of dialogue with all communities when reconciliation was most urgent. Modi’s prolonged silence reinforced a dangerous perception: that for the Centre, Manipur is a distant frontier, expendable so long as the rest of the country remains undisturbed. If his visit now does not dismantle that perception with concrete commitments and urgent action, then it will be remembered not as a moment of leadership but as a continuation of betrayal.
The test for Modi in Manipur is simple yet profound. Will he speak to every community, acknowledge their suffering, and deliver a roadmap for justice and reconciliation? Will he ensure that displaced citizens return home, that the guilty are punished, and that economic recovery is prioritized? Or will he reduce this moment to an exercise in symbolism, soothing one faction while deepening the fractures of another? Anything less than genuine, inclusive engagement will leave Manipur convinced that its suffering remains an afterthought to Delhi’s priorities.
The people of Manipur are not asking for token gestures. They are asking for recognition as equal citizens whose lives and dignity matter as much as those elsewhere in India. If the Prime Minister cannot deliver that assurance through action, his visit will be remembered not as an act of healing but as a stark reminder that when Manipur cried out, Delhi looked away.