Beyond Coexistence: A Twofold Argument for Separate Administration for the Kuki People

Introduction

Since the imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur, there has been a noticeable decline in incidents of violence, gunfire, bombings, and intercommunal killings. With this, there is a clamour for peace, reconciliation and a return to normalcy from some sections from both the divides-including civil society and political actors-urging a path forward.

Yet, beneath this surface-level calm lies a deeper reality: a widespread reluctance among large sections of both the Meitei and Kuki communities to genuinely embrace coexistence as before. More from the Kuki side. The social and political mistrust remains deeply entrenched. In this fragile context, any attempt to force unity without addressing the structural and psychological underpinnings of the conflict risks reigniting violence.

It is against this backdrop that I argue for the necessity of Separate Administration for the Kuki people-not as a divisive demand, but as a moral and political imperative grounded in justice. This article outlies two central reasons why such an arrangement is urgently needed for a durable peace.

Deep-Rooted Cognitive Gridlock and Entrenched Hostility

Firstly, there is an enduring hostility and entrenched perceptions of the Kuki people as “problematic others” within Meitei society. This nefarious and sinister ideas is carefully crafted by the ‘Luciferian intellectuals’ among the Meitei which has now become the mass conviction among the Meitei populace. This created a state of social and political cognitive gridlock. This antagonistic mindset is not limited to fringe elements but is widely shared across the Meitei elite, civil society, women’s and student’s organizations, and the broader public. The persistence of this divisive worldview, especially in the face of recent communal unrest, indicates that meaningful reconciliation remains unlikely under the current unified administrative framework.

Consequently, attempt to initiate coexistence under a unified administrative framework with such social and political mindset poses a grave risk. Without addressing this aspect of the problem, the potential for another conflict remains dangerously high. Account from sociologists shows that changing the ideas or cognitive framework of a whole society is a difficult process which might even take a generation to achieve it.

Institutional Breakdown and Erosion of State Neutrality

Secondly, the outbreak of violence and the ensuing trajectory in the last two years is a testament to the collapse of institutional integrity, dignity and neutrality of the state. The state machinery has totally failed. Rather than acting as a stabilizing force, key state institutions have become visibly compromised. Notably, the office of the Chief Minister, under N. Biren Singh, had widely displayed the case of representing the interests of the Meitei community alone, rather than all the people of Manipur. His actions-including inflammatory rhetoric and failure to de-escalate tensions-have contributed directly to the escalation and prolonging of the conflict.

Moreover, law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, have remained passive in the face of targeted violence against the Kuki or have been implicated in acts of aggression themselves. Instances of extrajudicial brutality, including beatings, rapes, and killing of Kuki civilians, have occurred under the watch of a system that has failed to offer protection, which is its primary responsibility. Beyond that, the story of police firing and taking active part in firing and attacking on Kuki civilians underscores the extent of the institutional decay.

In such an institutional ecosystem, where the state can no longer be relied upon to act impartially or uphold the rule of law, the prospect of reintegrating the Kuki with the Meitei like before is deeply troubling. Coexistence within this compromised institutional framework is not only untenable but perilous for the Kuki community.

Conclusion

Finally, the demographic and structural imbalance of power between the Kukis and the Meiteis is undeniable. All in favour of the later. Coupled with the prevailing societal mindset marked by hostility towards the tribal minority Kuki population and the visible breakdown of institutional neutrality, the present arrangement offers neither safety nor is a starter pack for any attempt to reconciliation.

As such, the two fundamental prerequisites for coexistence-mutual social acceptance and institutional reliability are absent and is unlikely to be re-established in the foreseeable future.

Due to this volatile and asymmetrical environment, continued coexistence under the current administrative structure risks further marginalization, violence, and possibly even annihilation of the Kuki people. Therefore, the immediate and pragmatic solution should be through Separate Administration-this is not as an act of division, but as a measure of protection, dignity and survival for the minority tribal Kuki people.

(The writer is a Research Scholar at Dept. Of Political Science, University of Hyderabad)