Deconstructing the Dominant Narrative: Rethinking the Conflict in Manipur

The prevailing narrative among sections of the Meitei community regarding the ongoing ethnic violence in Manipur casts the conflict as a deliberate scheme by Kuki elites. This perspective frequently employs charged terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and asserts that the violence, which began on May 3, 2023, in the Kuki-majority district of Churachandpur, was instigated with the objective of destabilizing and ultimately fragmenting the state.

This dominant framing, however, merits rigorous scrutiny. While it is true that the initial flashpoint occurred in a Kuki-dominated area, the emphasis on this singular event oversimplifies the complex and deeply rooted issues underlying the unrest. The critical question is not merely where the violence began, but under what conditions it was allowed—if not enabled—to erupt and spread.
A deeper reassessment is needed—one that moves beyond a reductive attribution of blame and instead examines the broader socio-political dynamics that have fueled the conflict.

Two key points challenge the dominant Meitei narrative.

First, limiting the scope of the conflict to the events of May 3 is analytically inadequate. The escalation must be situated within a longer history of marginalization and systemic discrimination against Kuki communities. Reports of targeted attacks on Kuki settlements, the demolition of churches, the forced displacement of entire villages, and the use of dehumanizing rhetoric in public discourse point to a longstanding pattern of hostility. These are not isolated incidents; they suggest a deeper, institutionalized exclusion that predates the current cycle of violence.

Second, forensic findings—most notably from ‘TruthLabs’—complicate the dominant account. These investigations reportedly implicate several high-profile individuals from the Meitei political and militant spectrum, including former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, Member of Parliament and titular King Leishemba Sanajaoba, and valley-based armed groups such as Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun. Allegations of collusion between these actors and elements within the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) raise serious questions about the neutrality of the state and the role of political patronage in the perpetuation of violence.

Such revelations fundamentally undermine the credibility of the dominant narrative. Far from being a neutral account, it increasingly resembles a political strategy—one aimed at deflecting attention from systemic aggression and shielding key actors from scrutiny. The narrative thus functions as a tool of political control and selective accountability.

The growing divergence between official narratives and emerging evidence calls for urgent and critical reflection. The path to justice in Manipur cannot be found in polarized binaries or politicized blame. Instead, it demands a comprehensive and multidimensional analysis—one that grapples with historical grievances, institutional shortcomings, and the volatile interplay of identity and power.

Only through such an approach can we hope to achieve genuine accountability and a sustainable resolution to a conflict that has long been misrepresented and misunderstood.

(The Author is a Member of Kuki Organization for Human rights Trust).