In Manipur, ‘Peace’ Must Not Be Sought at the Cost of Justice

What’s Wrong With the ‘Move On’ Route to Normalcy?

Commentary, By Vishal Arora
February 28, 2025

An effigy bearing the words “Peace is Dead” in Manipur’s Churachandpur district. Photo by Vishal Arora

Manipur’s Governor appears to be calling for peace without addressing justice, accountability or institutional reforms, despite the previous state government being accused of supporting one side and enabling the systemic targeting of one community. The Governor’s current stance suggests an expectation for the people of Manipur to simply “move on,” as if the past can be set aside without justice or accountability.

Days after President’s Rule was imposed in Manipur, the Governor called for groups from both the majority Meitei and minority Kuki-Zo tribal communities to surrender weapons within seven days. The outcome of this call is something we will examine later in this piece.

While this is not a bad move in itself, no assurance has been given to the victims—tens of thousands of people directly affected by the violence, which included brutal murders, rape, vandalism or displacement. Beyond them, the over 3.7 million people of Manipur, including the Nagas, have also suffered indirectly due to economic hardships, restrictions on movement, prolonged disruption in education, and difficulty in accessing healthcare.

Let’s start with an analogy to understand what a “move on” strategy truly means.

Imagine a district where a gang, backed by the local police, goes on a rampage—burning homes, killing hundreds and forcing thousands to flee. The people plead for help, but the authorities either look away or actively support the gang. Months later, after the gang has inflicted most of the destruction, the district magistrate finally steps in and says, “Let’s not dwell on the past. Everyone should forget and move on for the sake of peace.”

But who benefits from this? Certainly not the victims, whose homes remain in ashes and whose families are still missing. Certainly not the rule of law, which has been rendered meaningless. And certainly not the district’s future, because now everyone knows that those who use violence with the right backing can act with impunity.

Non-Compoundable Crimes

Further, the repercussions go beyond that district, considering the crimes involved. In law, certain crimes are classified as “non-compoundable”—meaning serious offences where prosecution continues even if the victim wants to withdraw the charges—because those crimes threaten the fabric of society and cannot simply be “forgiven” by the victim.

A victim may choose to forgive for personal reasons, but letting go of non-compoundable crimes isn’t peace from the State’s point of view—it’s surrender to injustice.

This is why, in legal terms, non-compoundable offences—such as murder, arson, sexual violence and rioting with deadly weapons—are prosecuted by the State and not the victim and regardless of whether the victim wants to “settle” the matter. The rationale is that these crimes undermine public order, legal integrity and the State’s responsibility to uphold justice. If they go unpunished, it sends the message that lawlessness is tolerated.

Therefore, the violence in Manipur, involving numerous non-compoundable crimes such as mass killings, large-scale destruction of homes and rape, is not just a private dispute between two communities in the state—it is a crime against the national society. Even citizens in Delhi, Bengaluru, Pune or elsewhere are affected because it sets a dangerous precedent: that it is possible to kill, destroy and displace people without facing accountability.

The violence in Manipur has resulted in at least 258 deaths, according to conservative estimates, and has destroyed thousands of homes while displacing tens of thousands of people. 

State’s Complicity

The State’s complicity or inaction makes it even more critical to ensure accountability because it erodes trust in institutions meant to protect all citizens. Sadly, calls for accountability in Manipur have come from private citizens, human rights groups, and activists—not from the central government, which imposed President’s Rule only after the party in power at both the Centre and the state evidently lost its majority in the state legislature.

The “Manipur Tapes,” leaked recordings being examined by the Supreme Court thanks to private petitioners, in which former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh is purportedly heard boasting about his alleged role in the ethnic violence, suggest the possibility of State backing for one side in the conflict. Moreover, it was Human Rights Watch that first called for an investigation into police bias during the violence.

By not assuring prosecution of the perpetrators and instead advocating a “move on” approach, the government is apparently emboldening the forces that were blamed for the violence.

Emboldened

A delegation of the armed Meitei group Arambai Tenggol (AT) met the Governor on Feb. 27 to discuss the way forward for peace in Manipur. While the group surrendered 246 weapons, this amounts to only about 5 percent of the 6,000 looted arms from the Imphal Valley, as reported by The Indian Express. 

NDTV quoted an AT spokesperson as saying after the meeting, “We have some terms and conditions regarding the arms. If they are fulfilled, we will all surrender the weapons, no problem... Let us stay with peace and calm, like before. Everything is possible… The Governor is hopeful peace will come soon, and asked for our cooperation. Once the process of surrendering weapons is complete, the highways are opened, and people move freely, peace and calm will come.”

During the violence, the Kuki-Zo community blamed AT for carrying out deadly attacks against them, and according to reports in various newspapers. In their numerous visits to Manipur since the violence began on May 3, 2023, members of the Newsreel Asia team have also heard reports from sources in the security establishment and local residents, including those in Meitei areas, about the role of AT.

In January 2024, the group summoned all the elected Meitei legislators of the state for a meeting to deliberate on the defence of Meiteis in the conflict. The meeting saw the lawmakers being coerced into endorsing the group’s demands. The situation escalated when Congress MLA K. Meghachandra Singh was assaulted for suggesting the state government’s responsibility for the troubles. Two other MLAs were also roughed up, with Meghachandra requiring brief hospitalisation.

Further, a case (RC-03-2024-NIA-IMP) has been registered with the National Investigation Agency (NIA), described as “Attack and firing on Manipur Police by a large number of Arambai Tenggol led by Korou Nganba Khuman.”

Despite this, and with no mention of accountability by the authorities, the AT spokesperson gave the impression through his statements to the media that the group has demands and conditions for disarmament.

Applicability of Amnesty

Amnesty programs—legally based on the President’s and Governors’ authority to grant amnesty under Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution, respectively—are understandable as an alternative to pure force, which may not always be desirable. However, any amnesty plan must have clear, measurable objectives to justify the trade-off involved.

For example, amnesty programs for Maoists in states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, and Maharashtra aim to weaken the movement by encouraging surrenders, rehabilitation and reintegration. Through these programs, the government seeks to break the insurgency’s ranks by persuading lower-level cadres to surrender, thereby isolating the leadership and weakening its operational capacity.

However, unlike the Maoist rebellion—where the State fights an ideologically driven group—ethnic violence in Manipur involves alleged State complicity, targeted attacks on Kuki-Zo communities, and deep-rooted historical grievances. Granting amnesty in such cases can have serious consequences.

Granting amnesty to perpetrators of ethnic violence—especially those who were supported, or appeared to be supported, by the State—sends the message that such violence is a legitimate political tool. This increases the likelihood of future conflicts, as groups learn that mass violence can lead to power or immunity. When aggressors are pardoned while victims are denied justice, it entrenches a lasting power imbalance and normalises impunity. In the absence of justice, the targeted community may see self-defence or retaliation as its only recourse.

Peace is not merely the absence of violence. True peace requires justice; without it, any temporary calm is fragile, and violence may return with even greater force—not just within that society but also in other communities beyond the state. At stake in Manipur is not just that state’s interest, but that of the entire nation.