Manipur: Vacuous Symbolism and the Limits of Political Reconciliation
On September 13, 2025, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made his first visit to Manipur since ethnic violence erupted in May 2023. The visit represented a carefully orchestrated gesture of federal outreach. The Prime Minister’s itinerary sought a balance between Churachandpur, a Kuki-Zo stronghold, and Imphal, the Meitei-dominated capital, to project an image of neutrality. His message emphasized peace, reconciliation, and development, reinforced by the announcement of projects worth ?8,500 crore. However, this symbolic initiative for unity encountered a deeply divided reception, exposing a profound trust deficit and underscoring how the crisis has transcended humanitarian concerns to become an entrenched political divide.
The visit faced overwhelming rejection from the Kuki-Zo community, which marked it as a “Black Day.” Protests in Churachandpur, including the vandalism of official banners, highlighted a community in mourning that dismissed developmental promises as inadequate, without genuine political dialogue. Their resistance reflects a complete psychological rupture from the state of Manipur. This sentiment was starkly articulated when Kuki-Zo legislators asserted that coexistence with the Meiteis had become untenable, declaring that the communities could only exist as “good neighbours, never under the same roof again,” directly challenging the Prime Minister’s call for harmony.
This ongoing crisis stems from decades of underlying tensions. Historical divisions over land, resources, and identity exploded following a Manipur High Court order recommending Scheduled Tribe status for the Meitei community. Tribal groups perceived this as a dire threat to constitutional protection of their lands. The ensuing “Tribal Solidarity March” on May 3, 2023, escalated into devastating violence, claiming over 260 lives, displacing 60,000 people, and destroying thousands of homes and churches. A pivotal escalation occurred with the looting of state armouries, which saturated the region with sophisticated weapons and shifted the conflict into an armed impasse.
In the wake of the violence, Kuki-Zo political aspirations have undergone a profound transformation. Before May 2023, their demands focused on enhanced autonomy within Manipur. The magnitude of the violence – characterized by the community as state-sponsored “ethnic cleansing” – has redefined their objectives. Now, they unequivocally seek a separate Union Territory with its own legislature, framing it as essential for their “peace, survival, and security.” This consolidated demand, conveyed to the Prime Minister by elected Kuki-Zo Members of Legislative Assembly and civil society organizations, represents a mainstream political goal forged in the crucible of trauma.
This aspiration directly conflicts with the Meitei community’s unyielding commitment to Manipur’s territorial integrity. Prominent Meitei organizations, such as the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity, refute the Kuki-Zo narrative by blaming the strife on “illegal immigration” from Myanmar and “narco-terrorism.” Their core demand is the implementation of a National Register of Citizens to counter demographic shifts, and they harbour deep mistrust toward pacts with Kuki-Zo armed groups.
This impasse features two communities locked in zero-sum pursuits that are fundamentally incompatible.
Navigating these opposing forces, the central government is pursuing a strategy of delicate equilibrium. The recent extension of the Suspension of Operations pact with Kuki-Zo groups illustrates this approach. The accord embeds a core ambiguity: it upholds the “territorial integrity of Manipur” to placate Meiteis while pledging a “negotiated political settlement,” which Kuki-Zos view as an opening to advance their UT demand.
This intentional vagueness serves as a temporary measure to curb violence but risks igniting future unrest when divergent expectations collide.
The security situation now mirrors a de facto partition, with central forces patrolling buffer zones separating ethnically divided hills and valleys. The spread of looted arms has bolstered militias on both sides, rendering disarmament contingent on a broader political accord. The outlook suggests a prolonged, low-intensity conflict, as the Centre’s strategy prioritizes military containment over substantive resolution.
In essence, Manipur’s crisis has evolved beyond a mere law-and-order challenge into a critical examination of India’s federal framework, necessitating a constitutional and political remedy that mere development initiatives cannot provide.