The picturesque state of Manipur, nestled in India’s northeast, has become the epicentre of a protracted conflict that has claimed lives, displaced thousands, and left the region politically and socially destabilizing. For decades, Manipur has been marred by tensions between its ethnic communities, but recent developments suggest that the conflict may have deeper and more insidious roots. A press release by the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) on January 13 raises alarming questions about the role of Indian security agencies and their alleged nexus with Chin-Kuki armed groups, further complicating the fragile situation.
COCOMI’s accusations shed light on a disturbing reality that Indian security agencies, far from being neutral arbiters, appear to be actively fueling the conflict in Manipur. The organization alleges a “strategic nexus” between these agencies and Chin-Kuki militants, suggesting that what is presented as an ethnic struggle is, in fact, a calculated proxy war orchestrated by the Indian state. The most glaring example of this alleged collusion occurred on December 18, when supplies intended for a Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp were reportedly diverted to Molhang Kuki Village, a stronghold of Kuki militants. Two trucks meant for the CRPF were allegedly rerouted, raising serious questions about the intentions and priorities of the security forces. This incident is not an anomaly but part of a broader pattern of state-sponsored destabilization aimed at controlling the region through divide-and-rule tactics.
Such manipulation is not an isolated case. Similar tactics have been used in other parts of India’s northeast, including Nagaland and Mizoram, where the government historically played off ethnic divisions to maintain control. This strategy, reminiscent of colonial-era divide-and-rule practices, deepens the rift between the Meitei and Kuki communities. By selectively supporting one faction while marginalizing others, the Indian state has exacerbated existing tensions, thereby solidifying its grip on the region.
India’s approach to the Manipur crisis mirrors the colonial tactics employed by the British, who manipulated ethnic and religious divisions to maintain their hold over India. The Indian state’s selective support for certain factions, such as the Kukis, while marginalizing others like the Meitei community, only entrenches ethnic fault lines. This strategy is far from accidental; it’s a deliberate attempt to keep the region fragmented, ensuring that no single group can challenge the central government’s authority. The Kukis, many of whom trace their lineage to the Chin-Kuki-Mizo ethnic group, have faced allegations of harbouring transnational agendas aligned with Myanmar’s insurgent groups. Simultaneously, the Meiteis have voiced fears of demographic and political marginalization, with their claims ignored in favor of fostering divisions that prevent unity.
Rather than addressing these concerns through dialogue, the Indian state has chosen to exploit them to perpetuate conflict, creating a political environment where the state retains a monopoly on power. This pattern of militarization and manipulation is not new to the region. The introduction of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) in 1958 provided security forces with sweeping powers to combat insurgency. However, AFSPA has since become a tool of oppression, enabling widespread human rights abuses and further alienating the local population. The allegations of Indian security agencies actively working with armed groups in Manipur underscore a continuation of this exploitative approach, where state interests are prioritized over the well-being of the people.
The human cost of the conflict in Manipur is staggering. Over 60,000 people have been displaced, forced to live in overcrowded relief camps under deplorable conditions. Entire villages have been razed, leaving families torn apart and communities engulfed in mutual suspicion. Yet, the Indian government has shown little urgency in addressing this humanitarian crisis. Instead of fostering peace and reconciliation, its actions have exacerbated the violence, leaving Manipuri society fractured and vulnerable.
The crisis is compounded by the apparent complicity of Indian security forces in exacerbating the conflict. The alleged rerouting of supplies to Kuki militants raises serious questions about the neutrality and intentions of India’s security apparatus. This, combined with the historical use of militarization to suppress dissent, reveals a troubling pattern of state neglect and manipulation. The Indian government has been content to allow the region to remain destabilized, focusing instead on controlling the narrative and maintaining its geopolitical interests.
COCOMI’s allegations of state complicity further erode trust in the government’s ability to act as a neutral and responsible authority. For the Meiteis, the alleged nexus between security forces and Kuki militants validates their fears of systemic bias. For the Kukis, it reinforces their perception of victimhood and fuels their natural resolve to seek autonomy. This cycle of mistrust and retaliation has become a self-fulfilling prophecy perpetuated by a state apparatus that appears more invested in control than resolution.
Rather than upholding the principles of democracy and impartial governance, the Indian state has consistently used militarization, selective support for certain groups, and the exploitation of ethnic divisions to serve its broader political objectives. This manipulation has resulted in a humanitarian disaster and a fundamental breach of the state’s constitutional duty to protect all its citizens impartially.
The allegations against Indian security agencies represent a grave betrayal of the state’s constitutional duty to protect all citizens impartially. The international community must demand a transparent investigation into these claims, and pressure must be placed on India to address its role in perpetuating the crisis. Calls for greater scrutiny from human rights organizations and international bodies are essential to ensure that the actions of the Indian government do not go unchecked. India’s portrayal of itself as the world’s largest democracy rings hollow when viewed against the backdrop of its treatment of the northeast, where ethnic minorities are subject to military occupation and gross human rights violations. Given the Indian government’s history of ignoring calls for accountability, skepticism about the likelihood of a fair inquiry is warranted. New Delhi has long treated the northeast as a peripheral outpost, its people as pawns in a larger geopolitical game. The current crisis in Manipur directly results from this neglect and exploitation.
Manipur’s crisis is a microcosm of the larger challenges facing India’s northeast. Decades of state neglect and a deliberate strategy of divide and rule have left the region mired in conflict and underdevelopment. The allegations of a strategic nexus between Indian security forces and Chin-Kuki militants expose the depths of this dysfunction, highlighting the urgent need for accountability and reform. As the violence continues to displace and devastate, the Indian government’s role in perpetuating the conflict cannot be ignored. The unscrupulous actions of the Indian government in Manipur are not only devastating for this region but also an eye-opener for the rest of the minorities living in India.
