MANIPUR'S PEACE PROCESS: A FRAGILE EFFORT FROM A FRAGILE EGO!

Manipur’s Home Minister claimed in an interview that the state finds it “practically hard” to crack down on every armed miscreant and appealed to the people to “be morally sensible and responsible” since “the state cannot offer individualised protection to every citizen”. How politically real this sounds, the Home Minister has failed to critically analyse his own statements, given that it highlights a lot about the present government on several levels. Within 24 hours, Manipur faced three security emergencies, further sparking mass uproar. Alleged firing at Khangabok on the night of 18th October, following a tussle, claimed one life. The next day, two incidents rocked Imphal further: a bomb blast at Kakwa area injuring several security personnel, and the Nongshum attack killing three civilians, forcing an angry crowd to drop the bodies of two victims at the gate of the Chief Minister’s Bungalow. The incident sparked protests across the region, leading to shutdowns and condemnation from civil society organisations, public figures, and influential members.

A striking demotivating setback to the current government's moral standing is the Home Minister's claim in the media. Manipur has been facing the devastating brunt of a multi-level ethnic crisis since May 2023 involving three communities at present. Just a few days ago, the gruesome beheading during the escalation in the Kamjong area made news headlines. Manipur at present is still in a volatile state; lakhs are affected, and thousands bear the brunt in border areas, costing hundreds of lives. But at what cost? For years, calls for peace and a solution have taken to the streets of Manipur; still, the question remains: what is the government doing?

The government claims it is doing everything in its capacity, but is it enough? The Home Minister’s remark tells another story: a possible failure of the state machinery. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees “No person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to procedures established by law”. No doubt, Article 21 is not absolute during conflict; however, the state cannot abandon its protective responsibilities. And when a political representative of the state and the government makes such a public claim, three assertions follow: 1) Individualised protection cannot be equated with civilian protection. A blatant claim that it cannot ensure civilian safety, using individualised protection as a pretext, severely compromises and calls into question the core provision of Article 21. 2) The affirmative duty of a state, expanded by the Supreme Court under Article 21, to protect citizens from non-state actors, rioters, or warring factions stands diminished when tenuous claims are made publicly that the routine practicality of cracking down on armed miscreants is difficult. 3) Calling for moral responsibilities among warring factions instead of taking accountability for due diligence can point to the failure of state machinery.

If a political representative makes these claims, does the present government believe the Manipur conflict is beyond a solution? But History tells otherwise. From the Good Friday Agreement in Ireland to conflict resolutions in Switzerland and South Africa, Manipur's conflict, though politically and demographically complex with overlapping issues, can end. Peace is possible, as common sense it is. Micro-macro frameworks that combine restructuring, mediation, and grassroots mechanisms, focusing on both top-down and bottom-up approaches within multi-dimensional paradigms, are the need of the hour. This requires rigorous political engineering, which the current government may have abandoned, given the nature of the conflict that has escalated since 2023.