Understanding the violence in Manipur and responsibility of the Govt

Heisnam Devan Singh *

The ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur has drawn significant attention, raising questions about the effectiveness of governance in addressing such conflicts. Federalism in India allows distribution of power between the Central and State Governments, each having its own responsibilities and authority.

In the context of Manipur, the State Government operates within this federal framework, but the complexities of ethnic identities and historic grievances have led to a situation where violence persists despite the presence of a double engine Government. Double engine Government refers to the alignment of the ruling party at both the State and Central levels, which is often touted as a means to ensure better governance and development.

Proponents argue that this alignment can lead to more effective policy implementation and resource allocation. However, in Manipur, the reality is starkly different. The State has witnessed a surge in violence, particularly between the Meitei and Kuki communities, with reports of drone bombing and the use of long-range missiles by Kuki terrorists.

These attacks have not only resulted in loss of lives but also instilled fear among the civilian population, particularly in Meitei community. The use of such advanced weaponry raises questions about the sources of support for these terrorists and the extent of their capabilities.

In the face of the escalating violence, the Indian Government’s response has been criticized as inadequate and negligent. Many observers have noted a lack of decisive action to protect civilians and restore order.

The silence of the Government in the wake of such attacks has led to widespread frustration and anger among the affected community. The perception that the Government is failing to act against the Kuki terrorists has fueled a sense of abandonment among the Meitei population, who feel that their safety and security are not being prioritized. One possible explanation for the Government’s inaction is the complex political dynamics at play in Manipur.

The State has a history of political instability, with various parties vying for power and influence. The ruling party at the State level may be hesitant to take strong action against the Kuki terrorists for fear of alienating a significant voter base.

The political calculus can lead to reluctance to engage in military operations or law enforcement actions that could escalate tensions further. Additionally, the Central Government may be grappling with the broader implications of intervening in a conflict that has deep ethnic roots.

The fear of exacerbating existing divisions and triggering a larger conflict may lead to cautious approach. The Government may also invite backlash from the Kuki community, which could further complicate the political landscape in Manipur.

The international community’s response to the situation in Manipur has been limited. While human rights organizations have raised concerns about the violence and the impact on civilians there has been little pressure on the Indian Government to take decisive action. The lack of international scrutiny may contribute to a sense of impunity among the perpetrators of violence, further emboldening terrorists groups.

The alarming trend raises critical questions about the efficacy of the double-engine Government in addressing deep rooted eth-pic conflict. Moreover, the failure of the government to effectively mediate and address these grievances has contributed to the escalation of violence. While the Central and State Governments may have the resources and authority to intervene, their responses have often been reactive and rather than proactive.

The lack of comprehensive strategy to address the underlying issues of identity, representation and resource allocation has left communities feeling unheard and marginalized. The situation has been exacerbated by the Central Government’s policy, which has sometimes been perceived as favoring one community over another.

Another critical factor contributing to the persistence of violence is the role of external influences and armed groups. The presence of various Kuki terrorists groups, each with its own agenda, complicates the situation further. These groups often exploit the existing ethnic divisions to further their own interests, leading to a fragmentation of the political landscape.

The involvement of external actors, including neighboring States and transnational organizations, adds another layer of complexity to the turmoil, making it difficult for the Government to establish a unified approach to peace building. In addition to these challenges the socioeconomic conditions in Manipur play a significant role in perpetuating violence.

High level of unemployment, poverty and lack of access to basic services contribute to a sense of hopelessness among the youth, making them more susceptible to recruitment by militant groups. The failure of the Government to address these socio-economic issues has left many feeling disillusioned with the political process, further fuelling the cycle of violence.

The media also plays a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of the conflict. Sensationalized reporting and biased narratives can exacerbate tensions between communities, making it difficult to foster understanding and dialogue.

The portrayal of one community as the aggressor and the other as the victim can deepen divisions and hinder efforts to build bridges between groups. A more responsible and nuanced approach to reporting is essential for promoting peace and reconciliation in Manipur.

As the violence continues to escalate, it is imperative for the Government to prioritize the safety and security of all communities in Manipur, engage in meaningful dialogue, and address the underlying grievances that fuel the conflict. Only through a concerted effort to foster understanding and reconciliation can the cycle of violence be broken, paving the way for lasting peace and stability in the region.