State Repression in Manipur: Arrests and the Weaponization of Fear

On January 16, 2025, the Manipur Police arrested two individuals, Khangembam Sanaton Singh (51) and Thokchom Tiken Singh (43), near Machang Bakery in Uripok Mayai Leikai, in the Imphal West district. Branded as members of the banned Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP), they are accused of extorting local shopkeepers and small businesses. However, in a region where dissent is often criminalized and opposition voices silenced under the guise of “insurgency,” such arrests warrant careful examination.

The Indian state has long justified its military and police operations in Manipur as essential for maintaining law and order. Yet, for decades, these actions have functioned as tools of oppression, particularly against indigenous communities and their rightful aspirations. The arrests of Sanaton and Tiken contribute to a broader narrative where dissent is equated with criminality, stifling opportunities for dialogue and justice.

On the same day, security forces reported the recovery of a substantial cache of arms and ammunition in the Bishnupur and Thoubal districts. The seized items reportedly included a mortar tube launcher, sniper rifles, grenades, and communication equipment. While these findings are presented as evidence of ongoing “insurgent activities,” such operations often serve to reinforce the state’s propaganda, legitimizing its militarized control over the region.

The practice of labeling individuals as insurgents or extortionists is a long-standing tactic in Manipur. For decades, the Indian state has employed these allegations to undermine voices of resistance and dismantle community networks. The criminalization of dissent has become a defining feature of New Delhi’s strategy in the Northeast, where any opposition to its policies is frequently met with arrests, extrajudicial killings, and intimidation.

Sanaton and Tiken, like many others before them, have become pawns in a broader strategy of repression. By labeling them as members of a banned organization, the authorities divert attention from the systemic issues that plague Manipur—issues such as economic exploitation, cultural suppression, and political marginalization. The true crime in this situation is not extortion, but rather the state’s refusal to address the legitimate grievances of its people.

Manipur has endured decades of intense militarization under the repressive Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), which grants Indian security forces extensive powers, including the authority to arrest, search, and even kill with impunity. This law has transformed Manipur into a region where fear dictates everyday life. Families live in constant anxiety over potential raids and disappearances, while young men and women are frequently harassed or falsely accused of being part of so-called insurgent groups.

The ramifications of militarization in Manipur are profound and multifaceted. Each arrest, such as those of Sanaton and Tiken, underscores the profound impact on families and the broader community, leaving them to navigate the pervasive violence imposed upon them. The recovery of alleged weaponry in the Bishnupur and Thoubal districts exacerbates a pervasive atmosphere of fear; these events frequently align with state efforts to legitimize military actions rather than engage with the underlying causes of social unrest.

Under New Delhi’s governance, Manipur’s cultural heritage and natural resources have been subject to systematic exploitation. Infrastructure projects and development initiatives often prioritize extraction and economic gain instead of the welfare of local populations. Consequently, the residents of Manipur find themselves deprived of the benefits purportedly associated with development, grappling with issues such as poverty, underemployment, and the persistent challenges of living in a militarized environment.

In this framework, the state’s portrayal of insurgency serves as a strategic mechanism to suppress dissent and tighten control over the region. By framing Manipur as a nexus of armed resistance, the Indian government diverts attention from its own shortcomings in addressing the community’s legitimate demands for justice and self-determination.

The arrests of Sanaton Singh and Tiken Singh, along with the alleged recoveries of arms, are not isolated occurrences but rather indicative of a broader pattern of state repression in Manipur. These actions call attention to the urgent necessity for accountability and justice. It is imperative for the international community to acknowledge the grievances faced by the people of Manipur and to hold the Indian state accountable for its oppressive policies.

The struggle in Manipur should not be misconstrued as a threat to national security; rather, it represents a pursuit of dignity, cultural identity, and the fundamental right to self-determination. Arrests intended to suppress this struggle highlight the resilience of resistance within the community. The people of Manipur deserve a future free from fear, exploitation, and repression. It is incumbent upon the global community to stand in solidarity with them and demand an end to the cycle of violence perpetuated by the Indian state, holding the Indian government accountable for its inhumane actions.