Why are Central Forces Being Villainised in Conflict-Torn Manipur?
Hidden Narratives Fuelling the Cycle of Violence in the Northeastern State
Vishal Arora
An Indian Army soldier stands beside a ruined Kuki-Zo family home in Imphal.
Photo by Vishal Arora, Newsreel Asia
In Manipur, a state in India’s northeast, violence has sharply escalated, claiming at least 200 lives since 3 May. Tasked with restoring order, the Indian Army and the Assam Rifles paramilitary force find themselves at the centre of a targeted hate campaign. Led by one faction in the ethnic conflict, this campaign is fuelled by disinformation, a form of false information that not only exacerbates the ongoing strife but also hampers any efforts towards its resolution.
The majority Meitei community alleges that the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army are biased in favour of the Kuki-Zo tribe, the other key faction in the conflict. After visiting Manipur four times since the beginning of the unrest, I find this claim lacking empirical evidence. It appears to be based on a misrepresentation of the situation as a mere “clash” between equals.
While the underlying conflict may indeed be a clash of interests, the violence itself doesn’t fit that description. Rather, it appears to be a one-sided campaign in which one community is specifically targeting another.
The conflict centres on issues of identity and land, pitting the Meiteis, who mainly live in the Imphal Valley, against the Kuki-Zo tribes, who occupy the surrounding hills. Tensions flared following a recent Manipur High Court directive. The court instructed the Meitei-dominated state government to consider extending special benefits and quotas—exclusive to tribal communities—to the Meiteis. Such a move would also enable the majority community to buy resource-rich land in Kuki-Zo territories. Reports suggest that the incumbent state government had been supporting the Meitei community in the conflict even before the outbreak of violence.
The tribal community, fed up with the longstanding attempts of successive state governments to lay claim to their land for resource exploitation projects, organised a peaceful rally on May 3 to protest the court order. A minor clash erupted between Kuki-Zo protesters and a crowd led by the Meitei extremist groups Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun in the tribal-majority Churachandpur district. The violence quickly escalated, engulfing the entire state.
By the evening of May 6, the death toll had risen to at least 55, with a majority being from the Kuki-Zo community, as reported by the BBC. I’ve also witnessed multiple videos showing Kuki-Zo individuals being lynched, hacked or shot, and their homes set ablaze. It seems what ensued after the initial skirmish on May 3 was not simply an escalated “clash.” Rather, it appeared to be a targeted campaign of violence against the Kuki-Zo community.
A Kuki-Zo woman at a Churachandpur memorial displaying photos of 140+ community members killed in recent violence.
Photo by Vishal Arora, Newsreel Asia
Public videos showed Manipur Police constables, who are Meitei, with mobs involved in arson and assaults against the Kuki-Zo community. After a video of two Kuki-Zo women being paraded naked and one being gang-raped went viral, gaining global media attention, the victims also accused police constables of being mere bystanders.
In the initial days of the unrest, Meitei mobs looted thousands of rifles, small arms, ammunition and explosives from police stations. These are purportedly being used in assaults on the Kuki-Zo community. Although Kuki-Zo individuals also engaged in arms looting, their actions were on a significantly smaller scale.
Kuki-Zo individuals vandalised Meitei residences in Churachandpur, a situation I have personally witnessed, mirroring similar actions by Meiteis in the Imphal Valley. However, there are no existing reports with evidence of Meiteis being harmed by the Kuki-Zo community in Churachandpur.
Nearly five months later, the death toll has topped 200, as per the BBC. At least 137 of them are confirmed Kuki-Zo, according to the Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum.
I’ve yet to encounter any Meitei group publicly disclosing the number of casualties within their majority community. Nonetheless, it’s evident that both Meitei and Kuki-Zo lives were lost, extending beyond the initial bout of violence.
Meiteis were primarily killed as they ventured into Kuki-Zo villages bordering Meitei areas to launch attacks, allegedly with the support of Manipur Police and other state forces, according to sources within the security establishment. These Meitei individuals met resistance from Kuki-Zo “village volunteers,” armed young people defending their communities in Churachandpur and other Kuki-Zo regions. This may also account for the absence of publicly disclosed casualty figures from Meitei groups.
No official figures have been made public, but it’s likely that the majority of Meitei casualties took place near the Churachandpur border and along the peripheries of other Kuki-Zo regions. Notably, these Meiteis were not local to those specific areas.
While Meitei groups have refrained from disclosing casualty figures to the media, they seem to be actively disseminating disinformation en masse within their own community.
Signs branding Kuki-Zo people as “narco-terrorists” adorn shops near Imphal airport.
Photo by Vishal Arora, Newsreel Asia
During my initial visit in May, I spoke with Meitei residents in Imphal Valley about the severe attacks on Kuki-Zo individuals. They asserted that the violence was in retaliation for Kuki-Zo members allegedly raping Meitei women and killing a young girl on 3 May. When pressed for the source of these claims, one individual presented WhatsApp videos that reported—rather than showed—the purported incidents.
As it transpires, these claims were unfounded. To date, no police complaints have corroborated these allegations. Despite the absence of evidence, the spread of misinformation has continued unabated, it seems.
During my four trips to Manipur, every Meitei cab driver I encountered spoke incessantly from Imphal airport to Kwakta, a Muslim area near Churachandpur and the furthest point a Meitei driver will take you if you’re headed to that district. They uniformly branded all Kuki-Zo as illegal immigrants from Myanmar and “narco-terrorists.” They also alleged that Kuki-Zo women were offered to Assam Rifles in exchange for favours. When pressed for the source of these claims, they asserted it was common knowledge.
Segments of the local media have also played a role in disseminating disinformation.
The Editors Guild of India recently discovered that local media in Manipur have engaged in “one-sided” reporting, frequently skewing the facts. The report also revealed that when a Meitei individual is killed during an attack on a Kuki-Zo village, certain outlets are describing it as an assault by “Kuki militants.”
Instead of implementing corrective measures, the state government—already under scrutiny for allegedly permitting the violence—accepted two police complaints against the editors involved in the mission. This raises questions about the state government’s commitment to justice and protection. In contrast, the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army seem to adhere more rigorously to these principles, a stance that neither the Meitei groups nor the state government appear to appreciate.
Under international frameworks and principles such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), armed forces are obligated to shield vulnerable communities when one targets another. Although not legally binding, R2P is a UN principle that establishes a moral imperative for states to prevent mass atrocities, including ethnic violence.
If the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army are being accused of favouring one community while fulfilling this protective role, the context and motivations behind such allegations warrant careful examination. Claims of bias could serve to delegitimise the military’s protective actions, thereby facilitating the targeting of vulnerable communities without resistance.
A displaced Kuki-Zo child. The violence has left nearly 42,000 community members internally displaced for five months.
Photo by Vishal Arora, Newsreel Asia
Meitei groups are raising questions about the Assam Rifles’ neutrality, despite benefiting from their efforts to save and protect thousands of Meiteis.
Assam Rifles personnel conducted a significant evacuation operation, rescuing 10,000 Meiteis from Churachandpur early in the conflict, even in the face of Kuki-Zo resistance.
On May 5, during the transportation of Meiteis, they encountered a Kuki-Zo crowd blocking their route. The crowd insisted that their own community be relocated first, leading to a violent confrontation that resulted in Assam Rifles opening fire, resulting in the deaths of four Kuki-Zo youngsters, including a nurse.
Subsequently, on June 18, the Assam Rifles conducted another evacuation, airlifting 22 stranded Meiteis from Churachandpur using an MI-17 military helicopter, as disclosed by a source in the security establishment.
The ongoing high tension in the region raises a crucial question: despite the deployment of over 50,000 security personnel, why do gunfights and sniper attacks continue to occur frequently? The answer appears straightforward. Reports suggest that the Meira Paibis, a significant Meitei women’s group, are obstructing movements of the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army, impeding their efforts to save lives, particularly those of the Kuki-Zo community.
Moreover, there are emerging reports of banned Meitei insurgent groups – including the United National Liberation Front, the People’s Liberation Army of Manipur, the Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup and the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak – arriving from Myanmar with the intent to attack Kuki-Zo individuals and their property. It’s worth noting that the primary mandate of the Assam Rifles is to combat anti-India insurgent groups, and it is widely considered one of the most capable forces in India’s northeast.
Removing, reducing or repositioning Assam Rifles and the Indian Army, as some Meitei groups are demanding, could increase bloodshed and set a risky precedent. Introducing a new, unfamiliar force is illogical. It only makes sense if the central government aims to appease Manipur’s majority, regardless of consequences.
I hope that’s not the case.
(The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of this media outlet or its affiliates.)
