Unraveling the Enigma: Decoding Manipur’s Persistent Ethnic Conflict

The ongoing events in Manipur, reminiscent of Rousseau’s philosophy, seem to persist due to a lack of governmental engagement and a conspicuous absence of effective governance. Historically, global experience suggests that such occurrences often stem from governmental shortcomings in maintaining social order. Surprisingly, in Manipur’s case, the Indian State possesses ample capacity to quell conflicts, yet there is a notable reluctance to intervene and guide the populace towards harmonious coexistence.
One of the government’s greatest social absurdities lies in its failure to address the conflict and foster unity among citizens. Numerous instances highlight the absurdity of the situation. Firstly, the coexistence of two separate security forces, both Central and State, operating within the same jurisdiction. Secondly, these forces operate independently, often with conflicting agendas and minimal coordination. Thirdly, media reports have exposed instances where Central Forces refrained from intervening in inter-ethnic violence, citing a lack of directives from higher authorities.
These examples unequivocally demonstrate the Government of India’s indifference towards curbing inter-ethnic violence in Manipur, adopting an attitude of “who cares?” Similarly, at the provincial level, the government seems incapacitated to address the issue, lacking directives from higher authorities, compounded by the shared party affiliation between the Central and Provincial governments.
Consequently, rather than pursuing a structured approach to crisis resolution, the government’s actions appear disjointed and ineffective. This raises critical questions about the government’s motives: Why does it permit the continuation of inter-ethnic violence? What outcomes does it anticipate? What does it seek to gain from these outcomes?
The prolongation of the conflict, now extending over a year, has inadvertently fueled ethnic tensions, enabling the government to exploit the resulting divisions for its benefit. The government’s passive stance towards conflict resolution suggests a deliberate withdrawal, perhaps driven by a desire to perpetuate divisions and maintain control.
Reflecting on the government’s behavior reveals a stark contrast between its professed ideals of unity and the reality of Manipur’s diverse and discordant landscape. This discord is evident across various indicators, including geography, demographics, and religion. Even within the Hindu Meeteis/Meiteis community, there exist unique deviations from the government’s principle of unity, violating the notion of uniformity.
Furthermore, despite its small size, Manipur’s diverse populace continues to assert its distinctiveness, challenging the government’s vision of homogeneity. These discrepancies undermine the government’s aspiration for peace, perpetuating the cycle of conflict in Manipur.