The violent conflict in Manipur is not only a regional problem; it has also emerged as a horrific example of ethnic and political conflict that even cannot be controlled. But the question on everyone’s mind is: Speaking of politics, what is behind it—who is the puppet master? Although the root causes of violent conflicts include historical factors, political misperformance, and extra-regional interference, much more needs to be stratified.

Explaining the History of Social Unrest in Manipur

Manipuri is a region in India that is culturally very mature, and, at the same time, the region has been a land of ethnic conflict for many years. The obvious one is the social split between the Meitei, who live mostly in the valley bottom, and the hill-dwelling tribal Kuki-Zomi people. These have comparatively different and distinguishable social cultures and languages, but rivalry lines have increased over time.

The recent tension resulted from the campaign by the Meitei community for ST (Scheduled Tribe) status, which gives a group preference.But frequency and fervour, with which the skirmishes are taking place, categorise the violence, not as an impulsive reaction.

For Aleut, it is an ethnic divide, and for civil authorities of non-Aleut communities, it is a political opportunity.

Therefore, there is no reason why violence should have escalated as soon as ethnic tension was at the forefront. Indeed, some indicators suggest political opportunism as having a hasty driver. The BJP government in the state of Manipur has been accused of partiality in favour of the dominant community of the region, which is the Meitei. Some felt this has resulted in the minority groups, especially the tribal groups, being seen as strangers who should despise the dominant party.

However, at the national level, the central government has been blamed for reportedly being slow in the fight against the outbreak. The leaders of those societies also came out to stage anti-violence statements; however, any observed initiative to restore order to the societies was considered to be taken in slow motion. This raises the question: This raises the question: For political motives, what was the unrest encouraged to remain smouldering?

External Influences: Are There Foreign Hands?

The geographical location of Manipur as one of the states located in the extreme north-eastern region of India makes it a soft state prone to interferences from its outside regions. It borders Myanmar, a country that’s not void of internal conflict within its boundaries. According to some published sources, many of the militants from Manipur have links with organisations from the neighbouring country.

Furthermore, it was suggested that China, which uses disruption in the northeastern states of India, may have played a role in provoking tensions. Thus, the more one destabilises a border state, the better for China. Much as this is speculative, one must consider external factors.

Failures of Governance

A rather alarming and apparent fact about the violence witnessed in Manipur is the lack of governance at various tiers. Elements of the local administration appeared to have been unprepared to address the protesting, and law enforcement agencies complained of having been part of the problem.

The following are other controversies: the internet was also banned to curb the spread of fake news, but this was also put in place. Perhaps it helped stop the spread of rumours among citizens, but at the same time, the citizens were totally isolated from the outside world, and there was no supply of real or accurate information. This only served to deepen the existing parity of generations and even communities and authorities.

Role of Social Media

In the Manipur violence row, the use of social media is again a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it will help draw attention to those who are affected. On the other hand, it has turned into a place for the creation of fake news and propaganda. People have a strong tendency towards sharing fake news, altering images and videos, and making provocative posts, which has substantially stoked the tensions.

This begs the question: who benefits from this chaos? Although it is tempting to pin the problem on rogue individuals spreading fake news, group exercises in narrative management cannot be altogether discounted.

Lessons from History: A Warning Sign

Manipur’s violence is not an isolated event; the violence that unfolded in Manipur is not the first of its kind.

The Assam riots of 2012 and an ongoing conflict in Kashmir are good examples of how unaddressed grudges result in a long-lasting crisis.

This view should therefore alert Manipur. It plays an important role in emphasising the importance of effective cooperation of different authorities and the necessity of qualitative changes in the distribution of the state’s resources and power, as well as attention to the conflicts of the past.

Conclusion

The killings in Manipur are a painful lesson in how a society’s anger develops and seeks an outlet in a very short time. Thus the apparent proximity of many of the signals to this feeling may be as proximal too, while the causal roots can be both political, social, and even external. Getting to know who effectively stands behind such actions is not merely an intellectual search—it is a necessary prerequisite to averting incidents in the future.

The people of Manipur need peace, and it becomes the responsibility of the government, civil society organisations, and every stakeholder to stand for the people’s voice, their complaints, and their future. The question remains: will something be done after it, or will Manipur continue to cry for help unabated?