Cycle of violence: On Manipur, the persistence of hostilities

Ethnic quagmires are among the most difficult situations for governments to untangle, given the violence and persistence of hostilities — even for those committed to restoring peace. The reason is the intransigent nature of ethnic divides, where hostile elements resist any efforts at normalisation. Any space for empathy is restricted as every incident is ethnicised. The situation is compounded when the government of the day fails to nip the descent into ethnicised hostilities in the bud, making it even more difficult for civil society and subsequent governments to restore peace and normalcy. This is the kind of situation that Manipur finds itself in. Even a relatively moderate Chief Minister such as Yumnam Khemchand Singh, who has sought — at least through nominal gestures — to rise above the ethnic fray, has found the going tough. Violence has flared up again following a bombing attack on April 7 that killed a five-year-old boy and an infant girl in Bishnupur district. Reports of the alleged involvement of a Kuki extremist organisation in bombing attacks – denied by Kuki groups – triggered a series of protests in the valley and renewed violence led to more deaths. With disinformation and rumour-mongering adding fuel to the fire, Manipur has returned to a cycle of violence and hardening stances among groups in its persistent ethnic quagmire.

The Bharatiya Janata Party initially believed that the resignation of former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, efforts to curb violent ethnic organisations, and the passage of time would help restore normalcy. After a spell of President’s Rule, and in an apparent effort to promote a more moderate form of governance before elections are due, the BJP formed a new government under Mr. Khemchand Singh. However, the inadequate involvement of political leaders — including from the Union government — in a genuine peace-building exercise shows that the situation has not improved despite these nominal changes by the BJP. A more thoroughgoing carrot and stick approach, empowering civil society leaders willing to advance peace and punishing those promoting and engaging in violence, would have certainly helped. But political variables focused more on retaining power than achieving peace appear to have kept those seeking to advance hardline views in positions of influence on both sides of the divide. A more pro-active role by the Home Ministry and a genuine effort by the BJP to involve all political actors in easing tensions should help. This should be supplemented by a strategy that empowers security agencies to crack down on hardline elements engaging in wanton violence such as bombings. Short of these measures, Manipur will continue to convulse with recurring incidents of violence, reactions and reprisals.

Overall Analysis

The editorial examines the continuing ethnic conflict in Manipur, presenting it as a deeply entrenched and complex crisis that is difficult to resolve due to persistent divisions and recurring violence. It begins with a broad, analytical observation that ethnic conflicts are inherently resistant to resolution because of their emotional intensity and rigid group identities. The use of phrases like “ethnic quagmires” and “intransigent nature” establishes a serious and complex tone, indicating that the issue goes beyond simple law-and-order concerns.

The editorial then narrows its focus to Manipur, explaining how the situation has deteriorated due to repeated cycles of violence and retaliation. The author highlights how even small incidents quickly become “ethnicised”, meaning they are interpreted through the lens of community identity, thereby escalating tensions. The language here is critical of systemic failure — particularly the inability of authorities to control the situation early (“nip…in the bud”).

The discussion of leadership, especially Yumnam Khemchand Singh, introduces a nuanced perspective. While acknowledging his relatively moderate stance, the editorial suggests that symbolic or “nominal gestures” are insufficient in the face of deep-rooted conflict. The narrative also points to triggering events, such as the bombing incident, and emphasizes how misinformation and rumours worsen the crisis. The phrase “adding fuel to the fire” reflects how communication failures amplify violence.

In the second half, the editorial becomes more explicitly critical of political handling, particularly of the Bharatiya Janata Party. It argues that superficial measures — leadership change, temporary governance interventions — have failed to bring lasting peace. The author uses a logical and policy-oriented tone, suggesting that a more comprehensive “carrot and stick” approach is necessary. This includes both strict action against violent elements and empowering peace-building actors in civil society.

The final section stresses that political priorities, especially electoral considerations, have overshadowed genuine peace efforts. The editorial calls for stronger intervention by the central government, particularly the Ministry of Home Affairs, and advocates a proactive, inclusive strategy involving all stakeholders. The concluding lines warn that without decisive and sincere action, Manipur will remain trapped in a repetitive cycle of violence and retaliation.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Quagmire – a complex and difficult situation with no easy solution.
2. Intransigent – unwilling to change one’s views or agree on something.
3. Ethnicised – interpreted or framed in terms of ethnic identity.
4. Disinformation – false information spread deliberately to mislead.
5. Reprisals – acts of retaliation or revenge, often violent.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that Manipur’s crisis persists due to deep-rooted ethnic divisions and inadequate political response. It emphasizes that symbolic changes and reactive governance are insufficient, calling instead for a balanced, proactive, and inclusive peace-building strategy. Without this, the state risks remaining stuck in an endless loop of violence and retaliation.

Tone: Analytical, critical, and cautionary, with a strong emphasis on political accountability and urgency.