The prolonged crisis in Manipur has forced society to confront questions that were long taken for granted, particularly the meaning of identity and belonging. For decades, the term “Manipuri” functioned as an inclusive civic identity, presumed to encompass Meiteis, Nagas, Kukis and Pangals alike. Today, amid deep mistrust, violence and political paralysis, that assumption no longer holds unquestioned legitimacy. The suggestion that “Manipuri” be understood primarily in a linguistic sense, while identities are articulated as Meitei of Manipur, Naga of Manipur, Kuki , Analyse, Thadou, Aimol , Maring , Kom etc. of Manipur and Pangal of Manipur, reflects a significant shift in political consciousness that deserves serious examination rather than dismissal.
Political scientists have long argued that identities are not fixed but socially constructed and renegotiated over time. Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined communities” reminds us that nations are sustained not only by territory but by shared narratives. When those narratives fracture, the nation itself enters a crisis of meaning. Manipur’s present turmoil illustrates this vividly. The collapse of trust between communities has weakened the shared imagination of a common political future, replacing it with competing memories of injustice and fear.
From the perspective of consociational theory, as articulated by Arend Lijphart, deeply divided societies require explicit recognition of group identities rather than their suppression under a vague majoritarian label. The insistence on a single homogenising identity, even if historically well intentioned, can become counterproductive when communities perceive it as erasure rather than inclusion. In this context, redefining “Manipuri” as a linguistic or cultural category, while openly acknowledging distinct community identities within Manipur, may reduce anxiety rather than intensify fragmentation.
Critics fear that such reframing risks accelerating balkanisation. That concern is not unfounded, particularly in a region with a history of insurgency and competing territorial claims. However, political theory also warns against the opposite danger. Charles Taylor’s politics of recognition argues that misrecognition or non-recognition inflicts real harm by imprisoning people in a false, distorted identity. When communities feel unheard or misnamed, resentment hardens, and reconciliation becomes elusive.
The current crisis has also exposed the failure of the state to act as a neutral guarantor of security and justice. The prolonged silence, selective responses and administrative inertia have contributed to what scholars describe as a legitimacy deficit. In such conditions, society inevitably turns inward, redefining identity as a means of self-protection. The call to speak of “communities of Manipur” rather than an undifferentiated Manipuri identity should be read as a symptom of this breakdown, not its sole cause.
Peacebuilding theory offers important insights for moving forward. Johan Galtung distinguishes between negative peace, the mere absence of violence, and positive peace, which requires the removal of structural and cultural violence. Manipur’s challenge is not only to stop bloodshed but to address the underlying narratives that justify exclusion and fear. Redefining identity, if done with sensitivity, can be part of dismantling cultural violence by allowing each community to feel seen without denying the shared political space of Manipur.
John Paul Lederach’s conflict transformation framework further suggests that sustainable peace emerges from changes in relationships, perceptions and discourse, not only from political agreements. Language matters because it shapes how communities perceive one another. Small, thoughtful changes in terminology can open space for dialogue, provided they are guided by mutual respect and not weaponised for political mobilisation.
Manipur was once an independent nation-state with a complex mosaic of peoples bound by history, trade and shared geography. Preserving that legacy today requires honesty about diversity rather than nostalgia for unity that no longer exists in practice. and restraint.