Manipur, Kashmir, and the BJP’s Politics of ‘One Nation, Unequal Attention’

The BJP’s central government’s uneven handling of the two recent internal security crises—the ongoing ethnic conflict in Manipur (since May 2023) and the Pahalgam terror attack (May 2025)—reveals a dissonance between its proclaimed ideas of ‘One Nation’ and the reality of unequal political attention.

While it is true that one is a terror attack and another is an ethnic conflict, both constitute an internal security challenge that demands robust and timely central responses. But the asymmetric response raises a critical question: What drives the central government's divergent strategies?

Manipur: Two Years of Violence, Silence, and Political Apathy

In Manipur, more than 250 people have been killed and tens of thousands displaced, triggering a humanitarian crisis of staggering proportions. Owing to the failure of the state machinery, there were growing calls for the Centre to intervene by imposing President’s Rule. Yet, the Centre’s initial response was limited to deploying paramilitary forces, while the prime minister maintained his stoic and strategic silence.

But almost two years later, President’s Rule is imposed (Feb. 2025), but only after an explosive audio clip allegedly of CM N. Biren Singh was leaked in which he admitted to starting this violence, using state weapons against the Kuki-Zo, colluding with banned militants, and acting with Home Minister Amit Shah’s tacit approval (as per the audio). This revelation rendered Singh’s position untenable, leading to his resignation. Only after this intervention has the state seen a fragile calm, maintained through a buffer zone dividing the two warring communities. Yet, lasting solutions remain elusive.

Kashmir: Swift and Befitting Response

In stark contrast, the Centre responded to the May 2025 Pahalgam terror attack with immediate and decisive action. Operation Sindoor, launched within days, targeted nine suspected terror locations across Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Jammu & Kashmir. To the joy of every Indian, the mission was a success.

Beyond its military action, it also has cultural and symbolic meaning. That is avenging the brutal killings of the husbands before their wives.

In addition to the military action, India also initiated a series of diplomatic offensives against Pakistan, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty.

Divergent Strategies: But Why?

The Northeast in general and Manipur in particular have long occupied the geographical and political periphery of India. Many in the region lament that they are not even acknowledged in the national anthem—a symbolic reflection of systematic neglect.

Beyond this, the BJP’s delayed and subdued response to the Manipur crisis may be explained, in part, by political calculus. In 2023 (May), the party was preoccupied with Karnataka state elections. This left a little room for substantive attention to the violence unfolding in Manipur. Moreover, proclaiming president’s rule would mean admitting the BJP’s governance model failure of ‘double-engine sarkar.’ It would also mean letting go of the BJP’s hard-earned political victory in Manipur since it last ruled the state in the 1970s. This can be the reason why they underplay the scale of violence, suppress media coverage, and frame the conflict as a localized inter-community dispute rather than a systematic collapse or state complicity.

Moreover, the BJP’s ideological moorings in Hindutva may have influenced its apparent indifference. The dominant Meitei community, largely Hindu and led by the BJP chief minister, stood accused of leading the violence. The Kuki-Zo, by contrast, are tribal Christians who traditionally lie outside the cultural imagination of Hindu nationalism. One wonders if all these are a part of the project of ‘Saffronization.’

Kashmir, however, holds central significance in the BJP’s national narrative. As a contested borderland with a Muslim-majority population and a history of Pakistani-backed militancy, it fits squarely within the BJP’s ideological frame. The Pahalgam attack presented a familiar binary: Muslim terrorists versus Hindu victims. This alignment enabled the party to deploy powerful religious, nationalistic, and security-oriented narratives.

As critics often claimed, the BJP has a record of leveraging Kashmir crises for electoral gains, particularly in the Hindi heartland. The 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 Balakot airstrikes, for instance, were widely credited with enhancing Prime Minister Modi’s image as a strong leader, bolstering the BJP’s landslide victory in 2019.

With elections looming in Bihar later this year and several others in 2026, the critical mind is tempted to think if the response to Pahalgam may well serve as another chapter in this playbook.

Way forward

At this point, one wonders if crisis and its response in a democratic India have become a site for an ‘electoral success vending machine’ by the ruling regime. Rather, it must be based on a commitment to constitutional duty and principles of equal national concern.

The Modi government still has an opportunity to chart a corrective course in Manipur. National unity must be more than a slogan—it must translate into consistent and equal concern for all citizens, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or electoral utility.

Are we less Indian because we do not put sindoor?

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