The Hindu Editorial Analysis
16 May 2025
The paradox of the approach to the Manipur issue
(Source – The Hindu, National Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS 2: Governance | Internal Security | Centre-State Relations | Ethnic Conflicts and Policy Response
Context
- Manipur has witnessed prolonged ethnic violence between Meiteis and Kukis, with over 250 lives lost and thousands displaced since May 2023.
- Despite military presence and administrative interventions, the conflict remains unresolved, raising concerns over New Delhi’s approach to internal security and human rights.
- The editorial critiques the contradiction between India’s militarized policy stance and the need for political reconciliation.
Introduction
In Manipur, security forces are deployed, but security is absent.
The Centre’s approach has prioritized military control over political healing, reflecting a larger pattern of central engagement in the Northeast—a policy that sees security as supremacy, not reconciliation.
This paradox undermines India’s internal peace strategy and risks deepening alienation among ethnic groups.
The Core Issue: Militarized Governance
1. Delayed Political Engagement
- The Centre’s initial delay in politically engaging with the crisis—despite visiting security installations—highlighted a lack of seriousness about inclusive resolution.
- This mirrored previous patterns in the Northeast, where military containment often replaces political dialogue.
2. Outsourcing of Security and Policing
- Following the May 3 violence, the government relied heavily on village-based militias (VDFs, VBIGs), contributing to further ethnic polarization.
- Such reliance outsources state responsibility, emboldens armed groups, and leads to cycles of retaliatory violence.
The Broader Pattern in Northeast Policy
1. Echoes from the Past
- India’s Northeast, historically treated through the lens of national security, has seen ad-hoc, militarized interventions.
- The same playbook was used for groups like the NSCN, ULFA, and PLA, but without long-term conflict resolution.
2. Ignoring Root Causes and Autonomy Demands
- Ethnic demands, particularly around land ownership, identity, and autonomy, remain unresolved.
- Fencing of the India-Myanmar border and pushback against refugee flows show a desire for isolation, not integration.
Security Without Justice: The Dilemma of Ethnic Demands
1. Use of AFSPA and Arms Act
- Reimposition of President’s Rule and coercive laws like AFSPA reinforce the perception that Delhi values order more than justice.
- The failure to simultaneously pursue reconciliation, disarmament, and rehabilitation of displaced communities deepens mistrust.
2. Silence on Humanitarian Accountability
- The Centre’s response has lacked transparency on mass displacements, relief measures, and responsibility for excesses.
- This selective silence erodes public trust and fails to heal trauma or prevent future unrest.
Conclusion
In Manipur, a military presence alone cannot ensure peace.
The Centre’s approach must shift from security containment to inclusive governance. Without genuine political dialogue, accountability, and sensitivity to historical grievances, peace will remain elusive.
India’s internal security in the Northeast cannot be built on fear.
It must be grounded in justice, autonomy, and empathy—values central to any true democratic federation.