Haokholal Kipgen
The ethnic conflict that erupted in the northeastern Indian state of Manipur in May 2023 became one of the most devastating episodes of ethnic violence in contemporary India. Initially triggered by the demand for Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for the dominant Meitei community, the crisis soon escalated into a prolonged conflict between the valley-based Meiteis and the hill-based Kuki tribes. The violence resulted in hundreds of deaths, the displacement of over 60,000 people, the destruction of villages and places of worship, the militarization of civilian life, and deep ethnic segregation across the state. The conflict also exposed deeper structural contradictions rooted in Manipur’s political history, ethnic geography, constitutional arrangements, and postcolonial governance. This article argues that the violence was not merely a spontaneous ethnic riot triggered by administrative developments, but the outcome of historical grievances, ethnic majoritarianism, asymmetrical power relations, and competing claims over land, indigeneity, and political sovereignty in India’s borderlands.
Historical Roots: Hill-Valley Divide in Manipur
The roots of the Manipur conflict lie in the historical division between the Imphal Valley and the surrounding hill regions. Before British colonial intervention, the tribal Kuki and Naga communities existed as independent socio-political entities, governed by traditional chieftainship systems within their respective chiefdoms (Kipgen, 2026). Following their traditional animistic faith before their conversion to Christianity, the tribal communities remained untouched by the spread of Hinduism into the Imphal Valley. The conquest of the Meitei Kingdom in 1891 and the subjugation of the tribal Kukis after the Anglo-Kuki War (1917–1919) enabled the British to unify. They institutionalized the pre-existing administrative and political distinctions between the Meitei-dominated valley and the tribal-inhabited hill regions through differentiated systems of governance. Coupled with the colonial frontier policy of “divide and rule,” colonial knowledge production through ethnographic classifications, census enumerations, and linguistic categorizations transformed previously fluid ethnic identities into rigid political categories and institutionalized territorial divisions.
The Imphal valley was administered more directly through the Manipuri monarchy and the Durbar, while the hills were governed indirectly through the traditional tribal chiefs under special regulations (Piang, 2019). This produced divergent political trajectories and uneven incorporation into colonial governance structures. After Manipur’s merger with India in 1949, these colonial distinctions persisted within the framework of the Indian Constitution. The hill areas received constitutional protections under Article 371C and related legal mechanisms that restricted the transfer of tribal lands to non-tribals. These protections were intended to preserve indigenous autonomy and prevent demographic dispossession. However, many Meitei organizations increasingly viewed these constitutional arrangements as discriminatory because Meiteis were legally prohibited from purchasing land in the hills, whereas tribal populations could settle in the valley. These structural tensions were further exacerbated by Manipur’s demographic and spatial configuration, whereby the valley region, constituting approximately ten percent of the state’s total geographical area, accommodates the majority of the population and functions as the principal political, economic, and administrative center of the state. In contrast, the hill districts, inhabited predominantly by tribal communities, account for nearly ninety percent of the territorial expanse. As population density increased in the valley and land scarcity intensified, political debates over access to territory became increasingly contentious. However, Land in Manipur is not merely an economic resource but a symbol of ethnic survival and political autonomy. Consequently, any real or perceived threat to existing territorial arrangements has profound political implications.
Scheduled Tribe Status and Constitutional Politics in India
The Scheduled Tribe category in India was designed as a constitutional mechanism to protect historically marginalized indigenous communities through affirmative action benefits in education, employment, political representation, and land protection. Importantly, in many tribal regions of Northeast India, ST recognition is closely tied to territorial rights and safeguards against external encroachment. In Manipur, tribal communities such as the Kukis and Nagas enjoy protections that prevent non-tribals from purchasing land in the hill districts. These protections are considered essential for preserving indigenous identity, culture, and demographic security. Consequently, the prospect of extending ST status to the Meitei community, which is the dominant majority in the state, raised profound concerns among tribal populations. Supporters of the Meitei ST demand spearheaded by the Schedule Tribe Demand Committee of Manipur (STDCM) argued that the Meitei are also part of the same linguistic and racial group (Mongoloid) to which the hill tribes belong, practice animism (Sanamahi Faith), are only partially Hinduised, and are the first settlers of Imphal Valley (Piang, 2014). They also claimed that rapid demographic change, migration, and economic pressures threatened Meitei identity and land ownership, arguing thus that constitutional protections available to tribal groups should similarly be extended to Meiteis. However, tribal communities viewed the demand differently. The Meiteis already dominate Manipur’s political institutions (occupying 40/60 seats in the state legislature), bureaucracy, educational infrastructure, and economic resources. They are widely regarded as a socially progressive and comparatively advanced community that does not substantially lag behind other advanced classes and castes in India. They also possess a recorded history spanning several centuries, along with a highly developed language with its own script recognized under the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, features commonly associated with socially advanced communities (Haokip, 2015). Furthermore, the community inhabits the fertile Imphal Valley, which is well connected to the outside world through three National Highways and an airport, and is distinguished by a rich cultural and historical heritage. Collectively, these characteristics identify the Meiteis as a progressive and forward community, seemingly inconsistent with the criteria specifications adopted by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs for according a community ST status:
The criteria followed for specification of a community, as scheduled tribes, are indications of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with the community at large, and backwardness.
Critics, therefore, argued that granting ST status to the majority community would further consolidate Meitei dominance while undermining the constitutional safeguards protecting tribal populations. The debate over ST status is also inseparable from larger questions of political power and ethnic hierarchy. For the Kuki and Naga communities, the issue was not simply affirmative action but the future control of land and resources, as well as political autonomy. The fear was that ST recognition would allow Meiteis to legally acquire land in the hill districts, accelerating demographic transformation and weakening tribal territorial control.
The Rise of Ethnic Majoritarianism in Manipur
Over the past several decades, Meitei political discourse has increasingly emphasized notions of demographic vulnerability, territorial integrity, and cultural nationalism (Singh & Maibam, 2025). These narratives were reinforced by anxieties surrounding migration from neighboring Myanmar and fears of losing political dominance.
Ethnic majoritarianism in Manipur differs from conventional majority politics because it combines demographic dominance within the state with a sense of perceived insecurity. Despite controlling the state apparatus, sections of the Meitei population increasingly framed themselves as victims of constitutional discrimination. This produced a political discourse in which demands for greater constitutional privileges were justified as necessary measures for cultural survival. The rise of majoritarian rhetoric was further intensified by the broader political climate in India under the Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party government. Contemporary Indian politics has increasingly witnessed the consolidation of majoritarian nationalism centered on cultural homogenization and civilizational narratives. The rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Manipur since 2017 has also coincided with the resurgence of Meitei ethno-nationalist revivalism and the emergence of organizations such as Arambai Tengol and Meitei Leepun. These organizations have either been publicly endorsed by, or are alleged to maintain close associations with, former BJP Chief Minister N. Biren Singh and the titular King of Manipur, Leishemba Sanajaoba, who also serves as Manipur’s sole representative in the Rajya Sabha of the Indian Parliament (Thapar, 2023). The rise of Hindutva politics in Northeast India demonstrates how Hindu nationalist organizations have attempted to integrate the region into broader narratives of Indian civilization while simultaneously accommodating local ethnic aspirations. This version of nationalist discourse, which is strongly advocated under the BJP, distinguishes between indigenous religions that originated in India’s sacred geography and “foreign religions” whose holy lands lie outside its borders. In this framework, the revival of Sanamahi, an indigenous Meitei religion alongside rising majoritarian Meitei ethnonationalism, is being eulogized as part of India’s civilizational heritage, particularly for its resistance to Christian conversion. In contrast, the Kukis, who are predominantly Christians, are viewed as adherents of a “foreign religion”, excluded from the national-cultural mainstream. This discursive construction not only facilitates the “othering,” political and cultural marginalization of the Kukis, a subnational minority in Manipur, but also reinforces the ideological convergence between Hindu nationalism and Meitei subnational majoritarian assertion (Baruah, 2024). This process contributed to the political consolidation of Meitei nationalism within larger national frameworks. The rhetoric of protecting indigenous civilization, combating illegal immigration, and preserving territorial integrity became increasingly prominent in political discourse. At the same time, Kuki communities were increasingly portrayed in sections of public discourse as “outsiders,” “illegal immigrants,” or threats to territorial integrity. Such narratives intensified social polarization and legitimized exclusionary politics. The construction of Kukis as “outsiders” ignored the long historical presence of Kuki communities in Manipur and reduced intricate patterns of migration, settlement, and indigeneity into simplistic narratives of illegitimacy. This discursive othering played a significant role in preparing the ideological ground for violence.
The Immediate Trigger, State Failure, and the Crisis of Governance
The immediate catalyst for the 2023 conflict was a directive issued by the Manipur High Court in April 2023 recommending consideration of the Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe status. Tribal organizations interpreted the order as a direct threat to constitutional protections and indigenous land rights. In response, the All Tribal Student Union Manipur (ATSUM) organized the “Tribal Solidarity March” on 3 May 2023 across Manipur’s hill districts. The march aimed to protest the proposed inclusion of Meiteis in the ST category and defend existing constitutional safeguards. However, a Meitei counter-blockade on 2 May 2023 and the attempted burning of the Anglo-Kuki War Centenary Gate at Leishang village (On 3 May 2023) triggered violence in Churachandpur and Imphal before it spread across the state (Chongloi, 2023). The speed and scale of the violence indicated that underlying tensions had already reached critical levels. Entire villages were burned, thousands of homes destroyed, and places of worship targeted. Armed civilian groups emerged, and ethnic segregation intensified as communities fled mixed localities. The conflict soon evolved into a prolonged armed confrontation between ethnic militias and civilian defense groups. The humanitarian consequences were catastrophic as thousands were displaced into relief camps, educational institutions shut down, economic activity collapsed, and public trust in state institutions deteriorated sharply. The violence also exposed severe failures in governance, policing, and conflict prevention. Importantly, the conflict cannot be reduced to a singular judicial event. The High Court order acted as a trigger intersecting with decades of unresolved grievances, ethnic anxieties, and political polarization. The ST demand became the symbolic focal point through which broader fears of dispossession and domination were articulated.
One of the most striking aspects of the Manipur conflict was the perceived inability or unwillingness of state institutions to prevent escalation. The state government failed to act impartially, and security responses were uneven across communities. Allegations of bias, selective policing, and institutional complicity deepened mistrust among tribal populations, revealing broader structural weaknesses in governance within conflict-prone frontier regions. While security institutions maintain a heavy presence, civilian governance remains weak, fragmented, and distrusted. The conflict also highlighted the dangers of ethnicized state institutions. When state agencies are perceived as aligned with one ethnic group, minority populations increasingly lose faith in democratic processes and seek security through ethnic mobilization. Many Kuki communities argued that the state apparatus had become dominated by Meitei majoritarian interests. The militarization of civilian society further intensified the conflict as access to weapons, the formation of armed village defense groups, and the collapse of interethnic trust transformed local disputes into sustained armed confrontation. Ethnic segregation gradually became normalized as communities withdrew into territorially homogeneous enclaves, reinforced by the creation of “buffer zones” between the conflicting groups and monitored by both state and central paramilitary forces, thereby institutionalizing ethnic separation. Simultaneously, the erosion of public trust in state institutions accelerated the breakdown of intercommunal relations and intensified demands for separate political and administrative arrangements.
The conflict also revealed the limits of constitutional multiculturalism in deeply divided societies. While the Indian Constitution recognizes diversity through federalism and affirmative action, these mechanisms often struggle when competing ethnic groups perceive constitutional arrangements as zero-sum contests. The ST controversy illustrated this dilemma clearly. For the Meiteis, constitutional exclusion from ST status symbolized insecurity and vulnerability. For tribal communities, inclusion of the Meiteis threatened the very protections designed to safeguard marginalized indigenous peoples. The Constitution thus became the site of competing anxieties rather than consensual accommodation.
Indigenous Rights, Territorial Anxiety, and the Politics of Land
At its core, the Manipur conflict revolves around competing claims over land, indigeneity, and political authority. For tribal communities, constitutional protections over land are central to indigenous survival. These safeguards are not merely administrative privileges but mechanisms designed to prevent historical patterns of dispossession experienced by indigenous peoples globally. The fear surrounding the Meitei ST demand, therefore, stemmed from the possibility that constitutional barriers protecting tribal territories could be weakened. Given existing inequalities in economic and political power, tribal communities feared that legal access to hill lands would eventually facilitate demographic transformation and economic domination. The politics of indigeneity in Northeast India is particularly complex because multiple communities claim historical belonging. However, these claims operate within unequal structures of state power. The Meiteis, despite presenting themselves as vulnerable, remain the dominant political force within Manipur. The increasing portrayal of Kukis as “illegal immigrants” from Myanmar has further intensified these competing claims. Such narratives delegitimize Kuki historical presence and reinforce exclusionary majoritarian politics. Consequently, debates over indigeneity in Manipur have evolved into existential struggles over land, citizenship, and political future, contributing directly to the escalation of ethnic conflict with tribal groups interpreting ST demand not as a plea for protection but as an expansion of majoritarian power (Haokip, 2016). This tension reflects broader global debates surrounding indigenous rights and settler expansion. In Northeast India, ethnic conflicts intensify when economically and politically dominant groups seek access to protected indigenous territories, as constitutional safeguards in such contexts are often perceived as essential mechanisms for collective survival. The Manipur conflict illustrates how constitutional categories become sites of intense political struggle. ST status, originally conceived as a protective mechanism for marginalized communities, became the center of a violent contest over sovereignty, territory, and demographic control.
Conclusion
While the Meitei demand for ST recognition acted as the immediate trigger, the violence reflected decades of unresolved tensions surrounding land, indigeneity, political power, and constitutional protections. The conflict became so destructive because the ST demand directly challenged the fragile balance underlying Manipur’s political order. For the Kuki and other tribal communities, the extension of ST status to the dominant Meitei population threatened not only legal protections but the very foundations of indigenous territorial autonomy. In a context already marked by ethnic polarization, demographic anxieties, and majoritarian politics, the issue rapidly escalated into existential conflict. The Manipur crisis reveals the dangers of ethnic majoritarianism within multiethnic democracies. When dominant groups seek greater constitutional privileges while minorities fear dispossession, democratic institutions become sites of confrontation rather than mediation. The conflict also exposes the limitations of India’s governance framework in addressing indigenous rights and frontier politics. Moving forward, sustainable peace in Manipur requires more than temporary security measures. It demands credible political dialogue, institutional neutrality, constitutional safeguards for indigenous communities, and recognition of the historical grievances shaping ethnic relations in the state. Without addressing these structural issues, the underlying conditions that produced the conflict are likely to persist. The Manipur conflict ultimately serves as a warning about the fragility of pluralism in deeply divided societies. It demonstrates how constitutional categories, ethnic nationalism, and territorial anxieties can combine to produce catastrophic violence when democratic institutions fail to mediate competing visions of belonging and sovereignty.
References
Baruah, S. (2024). When Civilizational Nationalism Meets Subnationalism: The Crisis in Manipur. Studies in Indian Politics, 12(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230241235360
Chongloi, L. (2023, May 7). Dispelling some misleading claims about the violence in Manipur. The Wire. https://thewire.in/politics/manipur-violence-claims-counterclaims-meitei-kuki
Haokip, T. (2015). The Politics of Scheduled Tribe Status in Manipur. Society and Culture in South Asia, 1(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/2393861714550952
Haokip, T. (2016). Spurn thy neighbour: The politics of indigeneity in Manipur. Studies in Indian Politics, 4(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/2321023016665526
Kipgen, H. (2026). Colonial encounter and the hill-valley relation in Manipur: A critical analysis. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801251411705
Piang, L. L. K. (2019). Institutional exclusion of the hill tribes in Manipur demand for protection under the sixth schedule. Economic and Political Weekly, 54(15), 54–61.
Piang, L. K. (2014, 4 12). Moving Backward. Economic and Political Weekly(5), 1-4.
Singh, A. M., & Maibam, M. (2025). Examining the Rhetorics of Hindutva and Explaining Its Consolidation in Manipur. Economic and Political Weekly, 60(2025), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.71279/epw.v60i33.39201
Thapar, K. (2023). WATCH | Meitei Pride Group’s threat: ‘Kukis mainly illegal, Modi must intervene or there’ll be civil war’. The Wire. https://thewire.in/communalism/watch-meitei-leepun-pramot-singh-karan-thapar-manipur-violence-kukis.
~~~
Haokholal Kipgen is a PhD Research Scholar in the Department of History, University of Hyderabad. His research focuses on colonialism and state formation in Northeast India.
