When Narratives Trump Facts – The Media's Role in Manipur's Crisis

Manipur has witnessed recurring crises, unrest, and political instability since the 1960s. The state has experienced President’s Rule eleven times—the highest number among all Indian states since Independence. The most recent imposition came on 13 February 2025. This record alone reflects the deep-rooted political instability that has long characterized Manipur. The present crisis, therefore, is not an entirely new phenomenon; rather, it is connected to the unresolved structural and political realities that define the state.

The three major communities of Manipur—the Kuki, Naga, and Meitei—have coexisted for decades. Today, however, relations among them have deteriorated to a point where each increasingly views the other as a liability. This perception has been reinforced by sections of civil society organizations (CSOs) from all sides and further amplified by sections of the media. Such narratives widen the distance between communities and contribute to making the state more volatile.

When Narratives Override Facts:

It is unfortunate that sections of the media have increasingly assumed the role of investigator, prosecutor, and narrator all at once. Rather than reporting facts objectively, some media platforms now actively shape narratives surrounding incidents and conflicts. Had the media functioned as it once did—committed primarily to truth and accountability—justice might not appear so distant.

Even more concerning is the growing tendency to present unverified incidents as facts while actual facts remain buried beneath layers of speculation and misinformation. When communities themselves become consumers of these narratives, they often embrace and defend them as expressions of patriotism. In reality, such propaganda fosters mistrust, resentment, and hatred.

From television debates and print journalism to digital media and social media platforms, multiple channels now contribute to shaping public perception. Narratives can be transformed from truth to falsehood—or vice versa—within hours. This is a dangerous development in a society that relies on the media as one of the pillars of democracy.

A recent example is the statement made by Michal Lamjathang during a television discussion, where he alleged that the 13 May ambush incident was carried out by Kuki militants. Though presented as an assumption, the narrative was later cited by the United Naga Council (UNC) as though it were an established fact. Such incidents demonstrate how speculation can quickly evolve into accepted public narratives without proper verification.

At the same time, several civil society organizations have also contributed to escalating an already fragile situation. For instance, the United Naga Council (UNC) and the Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM), both apex organizations representing their respective communities, have found themselves at odds over the issue of six Liangmei hostages. KIM’s denial of knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the hostages was not accepted by the UNC, which continued to hold the Kuki community responsible. Such a growing trust deficit between influential organizations only creates more room for confrontation and prolongs tensions.

Equally troubling is the emergence of unverified and largely unrecognized organizations issuing public statements on sensitive matters. Groups such as the Joint Tribe Council and FNCC have released statements that many regard as lacking legitimacy, yet their narratives continue to circulate widely. Whether an organization is formally recognized or not, the promotion of unverified claims is dangerous. Likewise, established organizations that endorse narratives originating from questionable sources contribute to the spread of misinformation.

In today's environment, people are eager to follow developments as they unfold hour by hour. From teenagers to elderly citizens, almost everyone receives news through their mobile phones. This has created an era where virtually anyone can become a self-styled reporter with a smartphone and an internet connection. Individuals can share opinions, shape narratives, and influence public perception from the comfort of their homes. While access to information has become easier than ever, so too has the spread of misinformation, particularly when audiences fail to verify sources.

Rebuilding trust through responsible communication:

Manipur today stands deeply divided. Repairing the damage caused by years of mistrust and conflict may not be possible within a short period. However, rebuilding trust among communities through commitment, dialogue, and resilience can help heal the wounds, even if complete recovery remains distant.

In an age where news spreads like wildfire within minutes, even minor errors or unverified content can cause significant harm. A notable example was the incident of 3 May 2023, when a Meitei social media user based in CCP falsely claimed that Kuki individuals had raped Meitei women. The unverified allegation spread rapidly, triggering widespread public anger and contributing to heightened tensions.

Youth organizations and student bodies also have an important role to play in educating the public about the dangers of irresponsible social media use. Appeals by Kuki civil society organizations urging the public to avoid provocative and misleading comments on social media serve as positive examples. Similar initiatives from organizations across all communities would be beneficial in promoting responsible public discourse.

Most importantly, media houses must exercise greater responsibility when selecting participants for widely viewed television discussions. Individuals like Ashang Kesar and Michal Lamjathang Haokip known for their inflammatory rhetoric, communal narratives, or divisive speech should not be given platforms that amplify tensions. It is the responsibility of media institutions to promote peace, harmony, and constructive dialogue rather than provide space for narratives that deepen misunderstanding between communities.

Conclusion:

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, it is equally important to recognize that this right is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restrictions intended to protect public order, social harmony, and the rights of others.

Whether in print media, television, digital journalism, or social media, individuals must exercise responsibility in what they write, say, and share. This is not merely a legal obligation but a social norm that encourages awareness, accountability, and respect for the impact that words and narratives can have on society.

At a time when Manipur remains fragile and divided, responsible communication is not simply desirable—it is essential.

(Views expressed are personal)