Written by: Daryl Elijah , Karamala Areesh Kumar
In Tronglaobi, a village in Manipur’s Bishnupur district, what seemed like a normal night immediately became one engulfed in flames when militants threw an explosive projectile that tore through a civilian home, killing two children—a four-year-old boy and his five-month-old sister—while critically injuring their mother. This tragedy, followed by fresh violence across the state and clashes between civilians and the police, comes on the heels of a new government taking office after the lifting of nearly a year-long President’s Rule, accompanied by claims of growing stability and peace. Recent developments have not only shattered these claims but have also revealed a conflict that has persisted and become more complex over time.
What began in 2023 as a Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe status quickly escalated into a perpetual cycle of violence, driven by grievances over identity, territorial sovereignty, and political representation, among many other factors. These grievances have gradually become symbols of the hill-valley divide in a state where communities are forced to live in segregated zones, with interaction remaining contentious and limited. This prevailing spatial division has only made the road to meaningful dialogue and action even more difficult and fraught with flashpoints for violence that have already claimed hundreds of lives and left tens of thousands displaced, residing in relief camps far removed from homes they are unable to return to. Moreover, the Tronglaobi tragedy is just one of many instances in which the lines between civilians and combatants are becoming increasingly blurred.
While the conflict has primarily been framed as one between the Kuki-Zo tribal groups and the Meitei community, the past few months have seen this axis expand. The flare-up of tensions between Naga and Kuki-Zo groups in districts such as Kangpokpi indicates the re-emergence of even older fault lines in the state. The involvement of additional actors and their unresolved grievances in an already volatile situation further complicates any possibility of a negotiated settlement.
Most importantly, the current situation demonstrates the inadequacy of containment measures such as curfews, the deployment of central forces, and internet restrictions, which appear more short-term and reactive than capable of producing any meaningful structural change. Communication gaps, rampant misinformation, and the absence of anticipatory measures to address public responses have not only contributed to perpetuating violence in the state but have also caused the conflict to gradually shed its bilateral nature and evolve into a multi-actor crisis. This short-sighted approach has also overlooked and excluded smaller communities such as the Meitei Pangals, or Manipuri Muslims, who make up 8.40% of the population. Despite the formation of a new government and the state’s new Chief Minister, Yumnam Khemchand Singh, hosting what was described as the first direct Meitei-Kuki meeting on March 21, 2026, little has changed since then, with key underlying questions remaining unanswered.
What can be done differently, as a conflict seemingly two-sided and fuelled by geographical imbalances evolves into a convoluted web of tensions, both new and old, is a recalibration of strategies that shifts from peacemaking to peacebuilding.
The immediate need of the hour is to establish a structured, time-bound peace process that does not assume voluntary participation from all stakeholders but is designed in such a way that tangible outcomes, such as access to development funds or guarantees related to land and security, serve as incentives for participation rather than remaining outside the process.
Given the limited perception of neutrality and trust in the current government, the involvement of civil society actors and community leaders, such as church networks, is crucial, alongside the inclusion of conditional guarantees, including assurances regarding the safety of negotiators and clear commitments that sensitive issues will not be altered unilaterally.
Jointly monitored zones should be established in which balance is prioritised, and the assumption that “more security automatically leads to more stability” should be avoided, as prolonged conflict can result if the local population is alienated by what they may perceive as the overmilitarisation of their homelands.
Sequencing is critical to the government’s future steps, as an immediate political settlement is highly unlikely amid ongoing violence. Instead, the peace process in Manipur should be incremental, beginning with localised ceasefire agreements, safe movement, relief distribution, and securing key transport corridors.
The need of the hour in a state that has been engulfed in violence for over three years—and where the principled distinction between civilians and combatants grows worryingly blurrier by the day—is not the imposition of unrealistic expectations of rapid resolution or continued reliance on reactive measures. Rather, it must be a targeted restructuring of how the Manipur government responds: not merely putting out a fire when it burns, but embedding long-term mechanisms that prevent the fire from recurring in the first place.
Daryl Elijah is a Student of International Relations, St. Joseph’s University, Bengaluru 560027. He can be reached at: [email protected].
Karamala Areesh Kumar is Head, Department of International Relations, Peace and Public Policy (IRP & PP) at St. Joseph’s University, Bengaluru 560027. He can be reached at: [email protected].