Manipur: the crisis India doesn't fully confront

India's public discourse is often loud when it comes to instability in neighbouring Pakistan, especially in regions like Balochistan and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Political leaders and media panels frequently point to violence there as evidence of state failure. Yet, when similar patterns emerge within India's own borders, particularly in Manipur, the response is far more restrained. The contrast is difficult to ignore.

Manipur's crisis did not begin recently. The region has a long history of insurgency, political neglect and heavy militarisation. For decades, armed groups have operated in the state, driven by demands for autonomy, identity, and control over land. In response, the Indian government relied heavily on security measures, including the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), which gave wide powers to the military. While this helped contain some insurgent activity, it also created deep mistrust between local communities and the state.

The current phase of violence began in May 2023, when tensions between the Meitei community in the valley and the Kuki-Zo tribal groups in the hills turned into open conflict. The immediate trigger was a demand to grant Scheduled Tribe status to the Meiteis, which tribal groups feared would threaten their land rights. What followed was not a short clash but a prolonged breakdown of order. Villages were burned, communities were divided, and thousands of people were forced to flee their homes.

Since then, Manipur has remained unstable. Large numbers of people continue to live in relief camps, unable to return safely. Armed groups are active, and parts of the state are effectively divided along ethnic lines. This is not just a security issue; it is a deep political and social crisis.

The April 7, 2026 bombing in Bishnupur district shows how fragile the situation remains. In a midnight attack in Tronglaobi Awang Leikai, a home was struck and two children were killed while they slept. The incident shocked local communities and led to protests, clashes and renewed restrictions. Curfews were imposed, security forces were deployed, and internet services were shut down in several areas.

This response has become typical. When violence breaks out, the state focuses on immediate control - sending forces, restricting movement and limiting communication. These steps may reduce short-term tension, but they do not address the underlying causes of the conflict. Ethnic divisions, political grievances and questions of land and identity remain unresolved.

The repeated use of internet shutdowns is also significant. While they are officially meant to prevent the spread of rumors, they also limit the flow of information. This reduces public awareness and weakens national attention. As a result, the crisis in Manipur often remains on the margins of public debate, even when the human cost is high.

This is where the contradiction in India's position becomes clear. It is quick to criticise instability in other countries, but slower to confront similar challenges at home. In Manipur, there are armed groups, civilian casualties and mass displacement - conditions that would normally draw strong criticism if seen elsewhere. The difference lies in how much attention they receive.

The human impact of the conflict is severe. Thousands of families have lost their homes. Many continue to live in temporary shelters with limited resources. Children have seen their education disrupted and their sense of safety disappear. Growing up in such conditions leaves long-term effects that cannot be easily reversed.

There is also a growing lack of trust in institutions. Laws like AFSPA, along with years of conflict, have shaped how people view the state. Many feel that their concerns are not fully heard and that accountability is limited. Without trust, even strong security measures cannot bring lasting peace.

What is missing in Manipur is a clear political effort to resolve the conflict. Security actions alone are not enough. There is a need for dialogue between communities, fair handling of grievances, and transparent communication from the government. Without this, each new incident risks restarting the same cycle of violence and response.

The April 7 attack should have been a moment for deeper reflection. The killing of children in their own home highlights how serious the situation has become. But instead of leading to a sustained national conversation, the issue faded quickly from wider attention.

Manipur is not a distant or isolated problem. It is part of India, and its stability matters for the country as a whole. Ignoring it or treating it as a temporary disturbance will only allow the situation to worsen.

A lasting solution requires more than control. It requires acknowledgment, political will, and a commitment to address the root causes of conflict. Until that happens, Manipur will remain unstable, and the gap between India's external criticism and internal realities will continue to grow.