The Silence of Governance in the face of extreme divisive threats

Recent events in Northeast India reveal an unsettling trend of governmental inaction amidst escalating tensions and alarming rhetoric. A case in point is the Kuki National Front’s (KNF) recent press statement directed at the Thadou community, which raises serious questions about the Indian government’s approach to maintaining unity, peace, and security in a region already fraught with complex social and ethnic divides. The KNF’s threats, including talk of extreme punitive measures, border on incitement of violence against specific communities. Such statements represent a blatant breach of peace, an open challenge to the law, and yet, no strong response has emerged from the Manipur or central governments.
At the heart of this conflict lies an identity debate where groups like KNF assert historical claims over multiple tribes, including Thadou, Gangte, Vaiphei, Paite, Simte, and Hmar, under the broader “Kuki-Zo” identity. KNF’s attempt to impose this identity upon various tribes fuels resentment and division rather than promoting harmony or progress. Such an assertion, while part of the larger and complex process of identity formation, should be subject to open discourse, not enforced by threats. However, the absence of a firm response from either the state or central authorities only seems to embolden groups like KNF, which openly violate the spirit of India’s democratic principles and freedom of association. This silence from the government emboldens armed groups, leading to further polarization and potentially irreversible damage to social cohesion in Manipur.
Meanwhile, another unsettling instance of governmental inaction lies in the silence around Mizoram’s Chief Minister openly advocating for the formation of a Christian-exclusive state by carving out sections of India. Such statements challenge the very essence of India’s territorial sovereignty and constitutional commitment to secularism, raising a critical question: does Indian law permit such seditious campaigns?
Historically, groups in the Northeast have demanded secession, citing political, cultural, or ethnic differences. While some groups engage in democratic dialogue, others have taken up arms, leading the government to impose legal measures, including arrests and counterinsurgency operations. Yet, the lack of response to statements from political leaders pushing for Christian separatism creates a dangerous precedent. It raises concerns about selective application of the law, giving the impression that some calls for autonomy are permissible based on political expediency rather than legal principles. This approach threatens to erode public confidence in a fair and consistent rule of law.
The Indian government’s lack of a cohesive response to such divisive elements undermines the state’s legitimacy in regions that have historically grappled with alienation and perceived neglect. In the case of Manipur, where the socio-political landscape is deeply sensitive, inaction only compounds the perception that the central government is either unwilling or unable to address local grievances equitably. Without visible efforts to curb aggressive rhetoric and enforce laws fairly, there is a risk of further alienation, and regional tensions will continue to fester.
This write-up calls on the Indian government and the governments of Manipur and Mizoram to act swiftly and decisively. The central government must take a firm stance against calls for separatism, whether from armed groups or elected officials, and demonstrate a commitment to upholding the nation’s unity. Likewise, the Manipur government has an obligation to ensure that armed groups do not go unchecked when they threaten communities within its borders. Action, not silence, is essential to restoring the rule of law and protecting India’s sovereignty, unity, and democratic values.
India’s commitment to unity in diversity must be upheld, not merely in rhetoric but in robust, fair, and consistent action. The government must convey that threats to any community are unacceptable, as are calls for separatism that undermine India’s integrity. A firm response is vital to reestablishing trust among citizens, especially those in marginalized and conflict-affected regions. The nation’s unity and democratic foundations depend on the strength and fairness of its governance—without these, the country risks destabilizing its foundational principles.