Peace First or ‘Solution’: A False Dilemma in Conflict Resolution

The ongoing unrest in Manipur is a stark reminder that prioritizing peace should not be reduced to a chicken-or-egg debate with ‘solution’ as its counterpart. When innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire of ethno-political tensions, our foremost duty is to protect lives and restore normalcy. The recent voluntary surrender of unauthorised arms by the youth in Manipur is not just a commendable step; it is a testament to the fact that violence was never the ultimate goal. This courageous act signals the absence of a deeper sinister agenda behind the current crisis and underlines the possibility of reconciliation, provided all stakeholders commit to the path of peace.
While the surrender of arms may not be the all-encompassing solution to the crisis, it does offer a significant opening to break the cycle of fear, retribution, and uncertainty. A society where violence becomes a norm breeds resentment and irreversible divides, making long-term resolution even more elusive. Thus, prioritizing peace does not mean ignoring legitimate grievances but rather creating an environment where dialogue can thrive over destruction. If the stakeholders continue to conflate peace and solution as mutually exclusive or sequential imperatives, the very people they claim to represent will continue to suffer.
However, as the writ of law in Imphal attempts to reassert itself, troubling developments in other parts of the state cast a shadow on efforts toward reconciliation. The Coordination Committee on Tribal Unity (COTU) recently announced that free movement on highways would be restricted, branding those who defy this decision as ‘traitors.’ This stance is not just deeply saddening but also dangerously parochial. Highways are the lifelines of the region, ensuring the supply of essential commodities and facilitating connections between different communities. Blocking these routes in the name of ethnic assertion is not just undemocratic but also a direct attack on the fundamental rights of civilians.
Weaponising ethnicity to justify collective punishment and rigid territorialism is a dangerous precedent. Regardless of whether one identifies as a Kuki or a Meetei, the long-term consequences of such actions will be disastrous for all. History has repeatedly shown that conflicts fueled by ethnic divides often spiral out of control, leaving a trail of destruction that spares no one. Instead of reinforcing divisions, community leaders must shoulder the responsibility of fostering dialogue and trust. The solution to our present predicament lies not in exclusion but in an inclusive framework that acknowledges the pain and aspirations of all.
In this context, it is pertinent to ask: Can groupism, which turns common people against each other, ever be truly liberating? The answer is a resounding no. True liberation lies in overcoming the forces that seek to divide, in breaking free from the cycle of retaliation, and in striving for a future where every individual can coexist without fear. The goal should be to create a Manipur where identity is not wielded as a weapon but celebrated as a means of unity.
The choice before us is clear. We can either remain shackled by our immediate anger and historical grievances, or we can rise above them to forge a future built on peace, dialogue, and mutual respect. The voluntary surrender of arms is a significant first step, but for peace to be sustainable, every stakeholder must commit to fostering harmony rather than fueling hostility. The future of Manipur—and its people—depends on it.