The prevailing 'animosity' in the present state of Manipur involving primarily the Nagas, Zomi/Kuki group and the Meities (Manipuris) is not necessarily a new phenomenon. The 'clashes' among them, could be traced way back into the days of history. This hostile relationship in the past now seems to be only reverberating in the present time with more 'venom'. Placing these three 'nationalities' under a single administrative set-up called Manipur state further exacerbates it. Despite numerous fervor requests and appeals to maintain peace and harmony to exist among these various groups, the communal distrust goes unabated. The cliché 'Chingmi-Tammi amatani' does not help either. Rather this sort of slogan, which ostensibly aimed at defusing tension, is seen as an ideology of the dominant people or the majority to promote their hegemony over the other communities through passive but effective means. In Manipur, one has and is still witnessing the gross 'misunderstanding' between Naga-Kuki, Naga-Meitei not to forget the Meitei-Pangal clashes. As though, this is not enough, there seems to be now tension building up between the Meities and Zomi/Kuki Groups. Of course now, Nagas and Kukis seems to be rather on a 'good' terms. But the hostility between the Nagas and Meities, Kukis/Zomi and Meities still remain and it can anytime result into a full-bloom conflict.

Now, what one can probably ask is that why there is a horde of detestation among the different groups in such a tiny place surprising called 'Manipur'? I presume that the primary reason can be attributed to the differences in what I would broadly called 'culture' of different groups. I am not denying that the divergent political aspirations of the Nagas, Kukis/Zomis and Meities are not playing any role at all in creating antagonism. No doubt, the conflicting political goals might ignite the communal clashes but eventually, the 'cultural sameness' can be invoked to bring about the better understanding and peace. For instance, the Naga-Kuki bloody clash was put to an end by primarily appealing to the shared Christianity principles, and having a common 'tribal identity and way of life and thinking'.

In arguing for peaceful 'living together' of different communities in Manipur, it has now become a tradition to revived back 'those' nostalgic yester-years when all the people were living side by side with peace and without hostility. This is the famous argument of those people who are vociferously building up coalition to protect what they called the age-old territorial boundary of Manipur thereby almost making us to believe that Manipur with its present boundary-extents had been in existence since time immemorial as it is now. But the writings in history have clearly shown us that the encounters between the Meities and the Nagas and Kukis were not always peaceful one. It was frequently accompanied by hostility and confrontations.

Various Historians and Academicians that the Meities prior to the arrival of Vashnavism were 'like' the Nagas and the Kukis have argued it. The advent of Vashnavism (Hinduism) to the lands of the Meities drastically changed their indigenous culture and instead got it attuned with the Hindu culture, tradition and practices like the Caste system. Not only that, during this period their racial configuration was also 'altered' after 'intermingling' with the migrant people from Bihar, Bengal etc. On the other hand, the Nagas and Kukis embracement of Christianity though make a great impact on their way of life and their world-view; they did not discard wholly their indigenous culture and traditions. Till now, they are still preserve and exhibits those culture and traditions. Because of their stark dissimilarities with the Hindu Indians, they have been subsumed under the 'political' status called 'tribals' while the Meities were accommodated as Hindus.

These resulting differences played a great role in stimulating the antagonism existing among different communities in Manipur. The cultural dissimilarities cannot be taken as simple as that. Culture plays an important part in a particular understanding of situations. It also influences the way how people think and their perceptions and world-views. The cultural differences among the various communities in Manipur strengthen and reinforce the already existing disparities. Of course, the similarities in culture and religion might not succeed in preventing the clashes between communities e.g. Naga-Kuki clash, but it can enormously help in confidence-building measures, subside the hostility and may eventually help in ending the confrontations.

I am not trying to argue that the present hostility between the Nagas-Meities and Kukis-Meities will continue unabated because of the dissimilarities in culture. What I want to emphasize is that appealing to age-old relationships, culture and the concept of 'one people' to end these hostilities is simply inadequate and will not achieve its intended aims which have been proved time and again. What is instead important is 'respecting the differences' and not necessarily engage in the process of homogenization and assimilation. For example, Nagas or for that Kukis have their own history, which has to be respected instead of trying deliberately to undermine their identity. The same goes for the other communities. It is also essential not to force the other communities to comply with the culture and norms of the dominant Community especially if the cultures happen to be grossly different.

'Respecting the differences' might lead to more trust and increase the networking among the different communities, which is indeed very important for enhancing societal dealings. The greater networking among the different communities, it weans the people away from hostilities and confrontations based on communal lines. To build this networking, respecting the differences among the various communities have to be essentially respected. Needless to mention though, disrespecting the differences might lead to small-scale antagonism initially but may soon reverberated resulting into massive hostility among the various communities, which seems to be precisely happening in Manipur.

Of course, the notion of 'respecting the differences' might induce a community, to invoke its own history to achieve its long-pursued political aspiration. But this is inevitable taking into account the history and the fact that 'some people' were 'forced' to be part of the state of Manipur. Despite this, respecting the various differences existing among the communities in Manipur seems to be an only effective strategy available to put a hold to communal hostility. Disrespecting the differences persistently might further fuel the communal hostility, which has every potential to turn into a full-scale conflict and may prove utterly disastrous.