The Politics of Inaction – A Crisis in Manipur

The ongoing crisis in Manipur has been marked by violence, unrest, and complex socio-political dynamics, but recent developments concerning the abduction and alleged hostage-taking of three youth add a disturbing new layer. The rescue of one of the missing youth by the Indian Army should be a moment of relief. However, reports suggesting that this individual was handed over by Kuki armed militants raise serious concerns. If these reports are accurate, the situation exposes a dangerous liaison between the Army and insurgent groups, undermining the credibility of the government’s proclaimed “zero tolerance” policy on terrorism.
The missing youth and their potential captivity under the COTU or Kuki militants indicate more than just a breakdown of law and order—it hints at a broader issue of selective enforcement. Reports suggest that the militants may be using the remaining hostages as bargaining chips, possibly demanding concessions from the government. If true, this underscores the extent of militant control in certain areas and the failure of the state apparatus to maintain authority in conflict-ridden zones.
The Indian government, particularly under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has often reiterated its stance on terrorism, stating that any such acts will be met with zero tolerance. This includes a firm crackdown on groups involved in terrorist activities, whether foreign or domestic. Yet, in the case of Manipur, there appears to be a dissonance between rhetoric and action. The militant groups—allegedly holding these two individuals as hostages—are effectively operating with impunity. Their very existence, combined with demands reportedly made through social media, constitutes a clear act of terrorism.
Why, then, is the government hesitating to take decisive action? Is there a hidden agenda? The selective engagement of security forces with certain armed factions while ignoring the continued threat posed by others, like Kuki militants, raises suspicions about political undercurrents that may be shaping the state’s response to this crisis. It is possible that the government is walking a tightrope, balancing competing interests to avoid a further escalation of violence in the region. However, this approach, where militants seem to hold more sway than the rule of law, risks not only prolonging the conflict but also emboldening terrorist elements.
Moreover, if the Army did indeed receive one hostage directly from the militants, it implies a form of tacit understanding between these groups. While pragmatic considerations might drive such exchanges, it begs the question: if the Army could negotiate for one hostage, why not all three? Could the two still in captivity be used to apply pressure on the government for certain political or territorial concessions? If that is the case, it indicates a deeper, more troubling nexus between political calculations and the handling of terrorism in Manipur.
This crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader context of ethnic tensions between Meitei and Kuki communities. The political and military inaction on Kuki armed militants might be driven by a desire to prevent a full-blown conflict between these two groups, but the long-term consequences of such appeasement could be disastrous. Allowing militant groups to maintain hostages and dictate terms is not a recipe for peace; it is an admission that the rule of law has failed.
The larger implications of this scenario are alarming. If militant groups can engage in hostage-taking, make demands, and still operate without consequence, it sends a message of weakness—not just to the people of Manipur but to all the people across India. It suggests that the government’s resolve on national security is flexible, and that terrorist acts, when performed by groups deemed politically sensitive, will not be met with the promised force.
The government must act swiftly to recover the remaining hostages, ensuring their safety and well-being. But more importantly, it must reassert its authority in Manipur by cracking down on all militant groups involved in acts of violence and terrorism, regardless of their affiliations or perceived political leverage. The crisis in Manipur has already claimed too many lives, displaced communities, and deepened societal fractures. Any further delays in dealing with the militants will only make the recovery of peace and stability more difficult.
If the government truly stands by its promise of zero tolerance for terrorism, then it must immediately take concrete action. The people of Manipur, already suffering from months of unrest, deserve justice and security. Anything less will confirm the suspicions of a hidden agenda—one where political considerations take precedence over the safety and lives of citizens. And in the end, that will be the ultimate betrayal of the values that India stands for.