By Sara Nazir
The state of Manipur, located at the strategic crossroads of India and Myanmar, and close to the China-Tibet border, is witnessing an increasingly perilous ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities. What initially appeared as localized violence is quickly morphing into a broader regional crisis with national security implications. The conflict is not just a matter of ethnic animosities but is entangled with issues of land rights, identity, and the very notion of belonging within the state of Manipur. The crisis in Manipur, once seen as an ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, has escalated into a larger geopolitical crisis with alarming implications for India’s national security.

At the heart of the current violence and division lies the rising marginalization of the Kuki community, who have been targeted by the Meitei leadership and are being accused of encroachment and illegal settlements. This dangerous rhetoric threatens to escalate tensions, pushing the state closer to the brink of civil war. Mr. Pramot Singh, the Chief of Meitei Leepun, whose recent statements shed light on the dangerous ideologies fueling the animosity against the Kukis. His rhetoric, especially in an interview with The Wire, reflects a deeply exclusionary and supremacist narrative that portrays the Kukis as "outsiders" and "foreigners" unworthy of recognition or rights within the state of Manipur.

Mr. Pramot Singh’s interview was a stark revelation of the extremist views held by certain factions within the Meitei community. Singh openly admitted to being influenced by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and their ideology, aligning himself with the political forces that he believes understand and support Meitei aspirations. This association raises significant concerns about the role of political ideologies in inflaming the situation. The BJP, as the ruling party in India, has been accused of encouraging divisive rhetoric in various parts of the country, and Singh’s statements suggest that the Meitei leadership has embraced this narrative, framing the Kukis as a threat to their identity and sovereignty.

Singh's rhetoric went beyond mere political discourse, directly inciting violence against the Kuki community. He claimed that the Kukis are "outsiders" who do not belong in Manipur, and implied that they are a foreign element disrupting the social order. This kind of language feeds into a broader narrative that seeks to erase the Kukis’ legitimate presence in the region. His assertion that the Meiteis were "fighting them like foreigners" highlights the dangerous dehumanization of the Kuki community, portraying them as invaders who must be driven out or eliminated.

It is crucial to understand the implications of such statements. When a leader of Pramot Singh’s stature openly calls for the "wiping out" of the Kukis, it legitimizes violence against an entire community. His rhetoric effectively lays the groundwork for what is essentially ethnic cleansing, disguised as a righteous struggle for Meitei supremacy. Singh’s repeated declarations in the interview that the Kukis are "illegal" and "outsiders" reflect the kind of inflammatory, xenophobic discourse that has fueled numerous conflicts around the world.

Moreover, Singh’s comments about the Kukis being "foreign interference" show the lengths to which certain Meitei leaders will go to frame the conflict in a way that demonizes the Kuki community. Such statements are not only misleading but also irresponsible, given the historical presence of the Kuki people in Manipur. To call them "outsiders" and "foreigners" is an attempt to erase their cultural and social history in the region, turning the people into scapegoats for larger political and social struggles. Singh’s comments were not just inflammatory; they were an invitation for violence.

The narrative pushed by Pramot Singh and other Meitei leaders paints the Kukis as the enemy, but this portrayal is rooted in a deeply skewed understanding of the region’s complex demographics. The Kukis, along with the Nagas and other ethnic groups, have lived in the hill areas of Manipur for generations. They have established their own distinct cultural and social identities, yet the Meitei leadership has repeatedly sought to deny their place in Manipur’s broader narrative.

For years, the Meitei community has dominated the valley region, and their growing demand for political and economic control over the entire state has led to an exclusionary ideology that targets the Kukis and other non-Meitei groups. Singh’s comments only amplify this sense of exclusion, portraying the Kukis as interlopers who must be removed for the Meiteis to thrive. This dangerous ideology feeds on historical grievances and amplifies the idea of "ethnic purity"—a concept that has led to conflict in many regions around the world.

The Kuki community’s response to the growing hostility was not an act of aggression, but rather a desperate attempt to preserve their rights and identity in a state where they are increasingly being pushed to the margins. In April, the Kuki community took to the streets in protest, a demonstration that was spurred by years of marginalization and grievances over land, identity, and rights. However, rather than addressing the issues raised by the Kukis, the Meitei leadership, emboldened by Pramot Singh’s rhetoric and their ties to the BJP, responded with violence, escalating the crisis.

Singh's remarks, particularly his call for intervention by the government, served as a pretext to justify the brutal crackdown on the Kuki protesters. What started as a call for justice quickly spiraled into large-scale violence, with the Kuki community bearing the brunt of the Meitei-led attacks. The Meitei leadership’s decision to frame the Kuki struggle as an affront to Meitei sovereignty only further exacerbated the situation, turning peaceful protests into violent confrontations.

The violence in Manipur is not just an internal issue; it has far-reaching consequences for India’s national security. Manipur is a strategically crucial state, located at the intersection of India, Myanmar, and close to China’s border. Its stability is vital for India’s military readiness and its "Act East" policy, which aims to strengthen ties with Southeast Asia. The escalating conflict threatens to destabilize the region and stretch India’s military resources, potentially weakening its ability to respond to security challenges along critical borders.

The rhetoric of hate and division espoused by figures like Pramot Singh has the potential to turn this localized conflict into a larger regional crisis, one that could draw in neighboring countries and further complicate India’s security posture. The Meitei leadership’s antagonistic stance against the Kukis risks drawing external powers into the conflict, as China and Myanmar watch the situation closely. A prolonged civil conflict in Manipur would only undermine India’s regional stability and security.

The ongoing conflict in Manipur, fueled by exclusionary ideologies and dangerous political rhetoric, has resulted in the Kuki community being victimized and marginalized. Figures like Pramot Singh, with their divisive and hate-filled language, have exacerbated the crisis, pushing the state closer to civil war, are actually the reason of creating violence between communities. The Kukis, who have been part of the region’s cultural and social fabric for centuries, are now being scapegoated and driven to the brink of displacement. If the crisis left unchecked, the Meitei leadership’s dangerous ideology could plunge Manipur into further chaos, with the Kuki community bearing the brunt of the violence and exclusion. Only through a concerted effort to recognize the rights of all communities can peace be restored to Manipur and the wider region.