Home

Featured Articles

May 03, 2025
Ankita Dutta

Manipur in Mourning: A Story of Pain and Hope

“Why did it happen to us? Out of nowhere, how could things go so bad, so fast?” – lamented many a traumatised victim with whom we had the chance to interact. They had lost everything they owned in the violence that engulfed Manipur on this day exactly two years back. The multi-layered crisis was certainly not triggered suddenly or spontaneously. It sparked numerous viewpoints documented in the form of articles, books, and pamphlets. Several, including Nandita Haksar’s Shooting the Sun, have identified the Meiteis’ demand for ST status as the immediate trigger. A distinct view, prevalent in writings by CHIKUMI (Chin, Kuki, and Mizo) and non-Manipuri writers, focuses on the perceived “discrimination” against Kuki-Zo communities by the “Meitei-led Government”. This alleged neglect manifests in development gaps, autonomy denial, and political exclusion, further fuelled by anxieties about demographic changes. They blame the Central Government and the “Anti-Kuki” State Government for complicity and inaction, criticising the media for simplifying the conflict’s deeper roots. While some suggest “Separate Administration” for the Kuki-Zo people, others have emphasised broader solutions like redressal of historical injustice, development projects in the Kuki-Zo areas, and fair representation. Inclusive politics and socio-cultural diversity are deemed crucial for reconciliation. Most importantly, addressing issues such as poppy cultivation, land encroachments, and illegal settlements, etc., is extremely important for ensuring lasting peace in the state. The Manipur crisis of May 3, 2023, is an extremely painful event that found its parallel in Chahi Taret Khuntakpa when the Burmese had attacked Manipur by killing its people, and burnt their houses and temples to drive them out of their own homeland. During the Anglo-Manipuri War of 1891, the British did not attack the people of Manipur, nor did they burn their houses. But, as the ancestors of today’s Manipuris had experienced during Chahi Taret Khuntakpa, illegal immigrants from Myanmar had attacked them this time with sophisticated weapons. The immigrants attacked them and burned down their houses without any provocation. The economy was the most affected, with thousands of homes and properties destroyed beyond recovery and several thousand people still subject to abject poverty. The crisis gave an opportunity to the people of Manipur and across the world to realise that we are living in a dangerous environment amidst not one, but many civilisational enemies. Because of their long and glorious history as manifested in the Puyas, the Manipuris perhaps thought that they were and are still a great, indefeatable people! But, they were very much mistaken. Illegal immigrants and their powerful militant groups taught them a hard lesson, waking them up from their deep slumber. At the behest of the World Meitei Council (WMC), the crisis also brought together our Manipuri brothers and sisters from all over the world including the United Kingdom, Australia, Italy, the Middle East, and the United States to face the challenges that threaten their very existence in the sacred land of their own forefathers. These are people from diverse professional backgrounds who have undertaken the initiative to lead Manipur from the front at this time of crisis. They have worked hard with a sense of responsibility and dedication so as to enable the common Manipuri people to present their side of the story at international forums, including the UN. They are the real heroes working silently to save their homeland. However, simplified interpretations that are to be found in many writings on the Manipur violence have tried to reduce the conflict to issues like ST inclusion for the Meiteis, perceived discrimination of the tribals, and development gaps, overlooking other crucial factors. Regrettably, the world was inundated with a false narrative perpetuated through various platforms soon after the violence began. The fact that the violence was engineered by a certain section of the people to fulfil their dream of the establishment of a “Separate Homeland” can no longer be overlooked. For a group of people who were migratory by nature, they never owned any “Ancestral Land” in Manipur, Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Tripura. History is witness to their trajectory of migrations and violence in the entire Northeast. They were forced to settle in an administrative circle and abandon their migratory habits in the modern era. However, inner behavioural traits do not entirely vanish. Like dormant genes in our bodies, these traits somehow manifest, and their predatory actions led to various conflicts over encroachments in the lands of the indigenous landowners. It is therefore no surprise that these people have had a history of violence with almost every single tribe/community in the North-East. And they had been preparing for since long time to take over lands in Manipur, though these attempts, clothed in fancy-sounding constitutional jargon, have failed time and again. Thus, the only way that remained for them was to start physical violence, shift all blame to the Government of Manipur, and transform their acts of aggression and war crimes into an “ethnic clash” by provoking the “Majority” Meitei community. Then, in order to achieve their pre-conceived goal, they began following the strategy of propagating lies of victimhood through national and international media houses, begging for help in the name of “Minority”, “Tribal”, “Christians” and whatnot. By doing this, they were trying in every way possible to prove that they can never live at peace with the Meiteis and thus began going a step further in demanding a “Separate Administration” for themselves. But, they should understand that states cannot be created or divided on ethnic lines. It is untenable, obsolete, deeply problematic and stands against the spirit of Manipur, democracy, and modern society. We implore the Government of India to approach this issue with fairness and utilise the period of President’s Rule to provide the indigenous communities of Manipur with a platform to voice the truth, without giving way to political compulsions of any kind. They are the actual victims of the orchestrated violence, instigated in an extremely well-planned manner with the help of powerful militant groups. Their actions jeopardise the security of Bharat, making this a matter of utmost seriousness. But the incorrect narrative being parroted in the mainstream media since the beginning of the violence has led to consequential harm upon the indigenous communities, and the grave episodes of violence continued with no respite. It is also important to bring to light the impact of various actions undertaken by the Government of Manipur that posed obstacles in the way of the realisation of the “Separate Administration” dream, e.g. its withdrawal from the Suspension of Operations (SoO) Agreement, crackdown on land encroachments and illegal immigration. The SoO acted as a shield to deepen the separatist project, facilitating armed recruitment, arms deals, and poppy cultivation. It all began with the formation of the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum (ITLF) that meticulously appropriated terms like “Indigenous” and “Tribal” exclusively for itself. Despite its name, no Nagas, one of the indigenous tribal groups of Manipur and the Northeast, is a part of the organisation, making clear that it is a purely political platform that aims to project only a certain community as “Minority” and “Victim” in front of people from the rest of the country and the world who still do not have a clear idea of the Northeast and more so, the situation in Manipur. Their calculated deployment of rallies, social media manipulation, and violence backed by militants in collusion with their political leaders and officials poses a significant threat to inter-community relations in Manipur. It is simply their propaganda strategy of projecting the violence as a “Majority Meitei” versus a “Minority Tribal” conflict. In this regard, official recognition of the Meitei community as the indigenous/aboriginal people of Manipur, India, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) is urgently required. The UNDRIP, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007, serves as a foundational document that affirms the rights and protections of indigenous communities worldwide. It was a monumental step towards recognising and safeguarding the rights of indigenous peoples, and we look forward to the principles enshrined in the said document for guidance during these challenging times. The UN must uphold the spirit of the UNDRIP and intervene to address the dire circumstances the indigenous people of Manipur have been facing. The Declaration’s principles resonate with their situation, emphasising the importance of indigenous rights, protection from violence, and the right to live in dignity and peace. Their forced expulsion through terror and persecution in Churachandpur, Tengnoupal, and Kangpokpi districts of Manipur by non-indigenous people who now constitute the majority in these places, are important indicator of “ethnic cleansing” that potentially contributes to crimes against humanity and ‘Genocide' as decided by many international criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY). The challenges faced by Northeast India, especially Manipur, are connected to historical dynamics, demographic shifts and religious conversions, and current conflicts. The history of Manipur is replete with solid examples of how the illegal immigrants have peddled false narratives right from the time they first set foot on Manipuri territory till the violence of 2023-2024. Their aspirations for a separate entity, rooted in their historical patterns of migrations and colonial legacies, face challenges from Government initiatives like the ‘War on Drugs’ and territorial integrity efforts. The interplay of these factors, along with the SoO Agreement and drug-related issues, demands a nuanced and comprehensive approach for arriving at long-term and sustainable solutions aimed at conflict resolution and peace-building.

May 03, 2025
Major General Harsha Kakar

Is Pahalgam a Pak action alone?

Militarily, before any operation with severe ramifications is launched, there are certain basic pre-requisites, apart from securing the approval of the head of the institution, in this case, Gen Asim Munir. These include reconnaissance of multiple venues to determine the best, assessment of impact and likely retaliation, allocation of resources to the task, guidance in and out from an identified hideout, conduct, post-strike assessment and safe extrication. The Pahalgam operation was no less planned. It was not an incident that presented itself to a bunch of passing terrorists. It had all the markings of a military operation, worked out in detail. The government’s claim that the Baisaran meadow, where the incident occurred, was closed to tourists but had been opened illegally by tour guides without informing security forces, is no excuse for the lapse. The terrorists, who carried out the assault, had possibly been in the region for a few days. The use of bodycams is resorted to only when there is a need to broadcast the incident live to their control HQs, which would have been in Pakistan, as well as record post-strike assessment. The afternoon attack was so timed that those involved could move in, complete the task, and be back in their hideout before dark and well before the arrival of security forces. Such in-depth planning has to flow from the Pak army. Evidently, those involved were trained by them, if not their members. Subsequent signal intercepts confirmed this fact. The TRF (The Resistance Front), which claimed responsibility, is the LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) by another name, equipped, trained and employed by the ISI. But would General Munir have cleared such an operation, resulting in large casualties, inviting an Indian response, on his own? After all subsequent inputs confirm that as tensions with India built up, Munir’s family, along with those of other senior officers, flew to the safety of London. Munir, despite all his bravado and verbal screaming to an overseas Pakistani audience on Kashmir being their jugular vein and India its eternal enemy, is aware of the hollowness of his forces, lack of fuel reserves, growing insurgency in Baluchistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, from where withdrawing forces to counter India could signal a death knell. There is a possibility that high casualties in the Pahalgam terrorist strike were unexpected, but now that they have occurred, he would have to manage the fallout. Simultaneously, the Pakistan army, under his command, has suffered immense losses in counter-insurgency operations, with many reported cases of surrenders, low morale, loss of credibility and respect within the country due to it being behind the ouster of Imran Khan, who remains Pakistan’s most loved leader. Munir desperately needed something which could bind the nation together. Nothing is more binding for Pakistani’s than threats from a ‘Kafir’ India. It is this that Pakistan is currently exploiting. Interestingly, Indian actions against Pakistan, depending on the nature of success, could open doors for the re-emergence of Imran, similar to Bhutto replacing Yahya Khan after the defeat in 1971. For Pakistan, aware that India’s reaction could be strong, making a major decision to target unarmed tourists may not be logical. It would need backing from a close ally. This ally cannot be a West Asian nation, as PM Modi was sitting across the table from Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman in Jeddah, and cutting short the visit would have angered Riyadh against Pakistan. The joint statement said it all. Further, India and Pakistan will employ some quantum of military power to send their message to the other, which would remain below the nuclear threshold. A third nation is the one which would gain from an Indo-Pak military exchange? To determine the nation, we must assess some recent announcements, as well as global reactions to the Pahalgam incident. India had, post the Galwan incident, reoriented one of its strike corps from the west to the north. The message was that China is the true threat and Pakistan a ‘has-been.’ The second was announcing the raising of 72 Infantry Division specifically for Ladakh to strengthen its deployment against China. India, for the past few years, looked northwards, enhancing capabilities and infrastructure to counter China, ignoring the Pak threat. This ensured that China could no longer easily attempt misadventures against India. Finally, increased tariffs against China by Trump prompted many companies to announce their intent to move manufacturing to India, with Apple being the latest. India was also moving closer to the US while expanding its arms sales to countries in conflict with China in the South China Sea. For China, it was time to change the equation. Thus, it would have backed the strike, aware of its ramifications. In Pakistan, the major military consequence would be Rawalpindi reducing force levels in Baluchistan, opening doors for Baloch groups to expand operations, including targeting Chinese CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) and their workers. The CPEC has almost come to a grinding halt, with Pakistan having no money to fund its share. China backs the Pakistan belief that India supports the Baloch insurgency and that the road to Baluchistan is via Kashmir. Chinese support is possibly given credence by the fact that criticising the Pahalgam attack flowed from the Chinese ambassador to India and its spokesperson in Beijing, a formality. Just a few months ago, the Chinese Premier had personally written to PM Modi on the loss of lives in the Wayanad landslide. While casualties were fewer in Pahalgam than in Wayanad, but being the terrorist attack, did warranted direct communication. How would China gain from Indo-Pak tensions? India’s emphasis would partially shift from the North to the West, opening doors for China to plan additional misadventures, something India must be prepared for. It will also impact India’s economy as it escalates the crisis, depending on the levels of escalation reached. Thirdly, India would have to debate moving back additional troops deployed along the LAC to their original locations in Jammu and Kashmir’s hinterland. Finally, it would convey to global manufacturers that India is not a secure nation to shift manufacturing. While most Indian actions would have been anticipated, holding the Indus Water Treaty in abeyance came as a shock. It had survived conflicts and terrorist acts for decades. Pakistan may now request China to adopt a similar approach on rivers which flow from Tibet. The Indian decision will also impact Beijing as its companies have invested heavily in Pakistan’s dams and hydroelectric power sector. First Published at The Excelsior on 3 May 2025. Reproduced with the permission of the author.