In recent years, the northeastern Indian state of Manipur has descended into a violent crisis, driven by ethnic tensions between the Meitei community, predominantly Hindu, and the Kuki-Zo tribes, largely Christian. What initially started as a dispute over affirmative action policies has spiraled into a complex and brutal conflict, displacing tens of thousands of individuals and claiming the lives of many. The state has become a microcosm of how security and administrative failures can allow a region to descend into chaos. The administrative loopholes, coupled with a lack of decisive leadership, have contributed significantly to the deterioration of peace and security, further exacerbating an already volatile situation.

The roots of the conflict in Manipur are deep and multifaceted. It began in May 2023 when the Meitei community sought Scheduled Tribe status, a move that was met with fierce opposition from the Kuki-Zo tribes. The situation rapidly escalated when the demand triggered violent protests, and clashes between the two communities spiraled out of control. As violence spread, insurgent groups resurfaced, and the involvement of militant groups from Myanmar, armed with sophisticated weaponry, further fueled the violence. These groups, who had previously been in the region during the insurgencies of the 1990s, returned with renewed vigor, exacerbating the conflict. By the end of 2024, security forces were stretched thin, and the state was forced to rely on military intervention to restore order. Despite these measures, the security situation remains precarious, with sporadic clashes continuing to erupt.

The security challenges in Manipur are directly linked to a series of administrative failures at both the state and central levels. One of the most glaring issues is the delayed response by the state government to the unfolding crisis. Despite early warnings and intelligence reports about potential clashes, the state government failed to take proactive measures. The reluctance of the administration to act decisively in the early stages allowed the situation to spiral out of control. By the time action was taken, the violence had already taken root, and the state’s security forces, overwhelmed and ill-equipped, struggled to control the escalating violence.

Equally concerning is the failure of governance and law enforcement agencies to control the influence of radical groups operating within Manipur. Insurgent groups such as the Arambai Tenggol have wielded significant power, even summoning elected officials to meetings under duress. The failure to assert authority over these groups has undermined the government’s credibility and further compounded the security crisis. This has left the local population vulnerable to the whims of these armed factions, eroding trust in the state’s ability to protect its citizens. What is even more troubling is that in some cases, security forces have been accused of siding with one ethnic group over the other, further politicizing the crisis and heightening the ethnic divide.

Moreover, the humanitarian response to the crisis has been woefully inadequate. More than 60,000 people have been displaced, and many have sought refuge in poorly managed relief camps that lack essential resources. Displaced families often rely on local NGOs and community efforts for basic needs, revealing a significant gap in the state’s relief efforts. The lack of a coordinated, efficient response from the state has only deepened the suffering of these displaced populations. What’s worse is the inconsistent distribution of aid, with some regions receiving significantly less support than others, highlighting the regional disparity in response efforts.

The resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh in February 2025, following mounting pressure, and the imposition of President’s Rule in the state is a clear indication of the failure of the political leadership in managing the crisis. While these measures have temporarily placed the administration under central control, it remains to be seen whether this will lead to lasting peace or further prolong the instability. The imposition of direct rule from New Delhi should not be seen as a panacea but rather as a reflection of the deep-rooted administrative failings in Manipur that were allowed to fester for far too long.

Ultimately, the crisis in Manipur is a tragic example of how administrative negligence, poor governance, and the lack of proactive security measures can lead to the collapse of peace and security in a region. The ongoing violence, displacement, and humanitarian crisis underscore the need for urgent and comprehensive reforms. These reforms must include an overhaul of the security apparatus, a more coordinated humanitarian response, and most importantly, a political strategy that includes all ethnic groups in meaningful dialogue. Manipur’s future will depend on the state’s ability to address these administrative loopholes, restore trust in governance, and ensure that peace is not just an aspiration, but a tangible reality. Without such efforts, the region will remain trapped in a cycle of conflict and instability.