The Northeastern Indian state of Manipur is at a critical juncture between the remnants of violence and fragile peace. Since the 2023 ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, large-scale clashes have decreased, but underlying tensions remain. Displacement continues, mobility is restricted, and daily life is divided along ethnic lines. This calmness is a precarious management of unresolved crises. Stephen John Stedman’s ‘peace spoilers’ framework is relevant here. Stedman identifies spoilers as actors with specific demands, ‘greedy’ actors driven by financial incentives, and ‘total’ spoilers rejecting settlements (Stedman, 1997). These spoilers hinder peace, showing that instability can benefit some politically and economically.
Conflicting factors, including border insecurity, politicized migrant narratives, illegal economies, militarized responses, interethnic tensions, and ambiguous state involvement, fuel Manipur’s crisis. Recognizing and addressing these issues is crucial for lasting peace in Manipur.
Borderlands Without Borders
Historically, Manipur’s border with Myanmar has been a social area, not a strict geopolitical line. Both sides have ethnic populations with familial, commercial, and cultural ties predating the state borders (Baruah, 2005). However, since Myanmar’s 2021 military coup, this flexibility has been increasingly securitized. Thousands fled to Manipur because of the ensuing violence (Indian Council of World Affairs, 2025). Security and demographic threat rhetoric redefined what could be considered a humanitarian issue. Narratives depict these people as ‘illegal immigrants’ disrupting local stability or as co-ethnic refugees needing protection. These tales, as peace spoilers, are political tools rather than objective descriptions (Stedman, 1997). By portraying identity as in peril, they increase fear, limit compromise, and make moderation more difficult.
Narco-Economy and the Political Economy of Instability
Manipur’s proximity to the Golden Triangle, a major narcotics-producing area, exacerbates border issues. It is a key drug transit corridor from Myanmar to India (Government of India, NCB Reports 2024; The Economic Times, 2026). Scholars have noted that criminal networks exploit weak governance, involving armed actors, informal protection, and local power brokers (Hazarika, 2024). Stability aids regulation, and volatility creates opportunities. Stedman describes these actors as ‘greedy spoilers,’ whose peace commitment varies according to their financial interests (Stedman, 1997). The narco-economy in Manipur disincentivizes normalization, making instability advantageous for some groups.
Militias and Fragmented Authority
The erosion of trust in state protection has led to the emergence of local militias and community defense groups (Singh & Garai, 2025). Initially established in response to insecurity, these entities have fragmented Manipur’s territory and society. The valley and hill regions now function as segregated areas with restricted movement and reinforced boundaries. Civilian militarization has created multiple power centers beyond formal state control. These groups’mobilization reinforces divisions, complicates the return of displaced populations, and increases disarmament costs. Achieving peace requires security guarantees and restructuring local power relations—an outcome none of the actors sees as beneficial.
Emerging Inter-Ethnic Frictions: The Naga–Kuki Dimension
Although often seen as a binary confrontation, recent Naga-Kuki tensions have shown the conflict’s expansion and fragmentation. These frictions stem from overlapping territorial claims, competing customary authorities, and historical mistrust. Recent Ukhrul violence, including the March–April 2026 clashes in Sinakeithei with armed exchanges, fatalities, and house burnings, highlights how quickly tensions escalate (Singh, 2026; Ukhrul Times, 2026).
This indicates that Manipur’s conflict is no longer a single inter-ethnic axis but has diffused into multiple arenas. This shift transforms it from a bipolar confrontation to a complex, multi-layered field—what Bourdieu (1990) calls a social field with actors competing for power, legitimacy and control. This is significant within the peace spoiler framework, increasing the number of actors whose interests may not align with a settlement, complicating negotiations (Stedman, 1997). As alliances shift, instability is sustained and reproduced through the competition of insecurities.
Expanding Conflict, Diffusing Instability
Recent incidents, such as targeted killings and sporadic bomb attacks, along with violence spreading to new areas, show that the conflict is evolving rather than being contained. The April 7, 2026, rocket attack in Tronglaobi, which killed two children and injured their mother, highlights this shift (India Today, 2026). This attack, occurring early in the day in Tronglaobi Awang Leikai, Bishnupur district, caused civil unrest. Targeting civilians, especially children, increases fear and entrenches narratives of victimhood and retaliation, reinforcing the perception of existential threats. This illustrates a core feature of spoiler dynamics: violence need not be continuous to achieve its aims. Strategic disruptions at critical moments can derail stabilization efforts and perpetually defer reconciliation (Stedman, 1997).
The Politics of Silence
An equally critical aspect of the crisis involves the central government, led by Narendra Modi. Despite deploying security forces and intensifying border management, there is a lack of sustained political engagement and public communication. This silence may reflect the political sensitivity of intervening in a polarized ethnic landscape, where any action risks being seen as partisan. This creates a paradox in the Manipur crisis: a visible coercive state with an absent political voice.
In a peace spoiler framework, such silence may inadvertently foster spoiler activities. The absence of a political roadmap creates a vacuum in which competing actors define the conflict (Stedman, 1997). Consequently, narratives become entrenched, misinformation spreads, and mistrust deepens. For historically marginalized communities, silence can signal indifference or partiality, eroding their confidence in institutional neutrality (Baruah, 2005; Singh & Garai, 2026). However, peace requires credible signaling, inclusive dialogue, and a shared political vision.
Rethinking Peace in Manipur
The situation in Manipur challenges traditional conflict resolution paradigms. Reducing violence is necessary but insufficient; underlying instability must be addressed. The peace spoiler framework offers the following insights: instability yields benefits, identity narratives mobilize, illicit economies resist peace, fragmentation complicates negotiations, and ambiguous state signals expand spoiler opportunities. Simplifying social actors into reductive categories is problematic. Many resist peace processes because of fear, exclusion, and uncertainty.
Applying the peace spoiler framework to Manipur demands a nuanced approach. The absence of a definitive ‘total spoiler’ is a call to recognize intricate dynamics. While violence and hardline stances suggest opposition, most stakeholders have conditional objectives—seeking security, control, or recognition without rejecting coexistence. This is not a simple obstruction; it is a complex pattern of distributed spoiling, where armed factions, militias, elites, and networks subtly undermine peace efforts. In this fragmented landscape, defensive mobilization risks exclusion, and local interests hinder reconciliation. Manipur’s situation is unique: instability is fueled by overlapping spoiler dynamics where fear, mistrust, and incentives converge. Framing the conflict as a singular “total spoiler” oversimplifies and risks deepening polarization. Embracing this complexity is imperative for genuine and sustainable peace.
Conclusion
Manipur is not merely a post-conflict society inching toward peace; it is a region where peace is actively negotiated, challenged, and at times undermined. To truly understand the dynamics at play, it is imperative to recognize peace spoilers—both structural and apparent—without unjustly attributing blame to specific communities. The focus must be on the evolving circumstances that enable such disruptions and, in some cases, justify them.
This fragile state will persist until critical issues such as border administration, migratory narratives, illicit economic activities, militia influence, inter-ethnic tensions, and political leadership are decisively addressed. The instability in Manipur is not a mere consequence of violence disrupting peace; it is a systematically constructed and negotiated reality deemed essential by some. It is time to confront these challenges head-on and pave the way for a truly peaceful future.
Haobijam Brijesh Singh
Haobijam Brijesh Singh grew up in Imphal, Manipur, a conflict-affected state in northeastern India. He is a UGC-NET/JRF and Senior Research Fellowship (SRF) awardee and is currently pursuing a PhD in the Department of Sociology and Social Work at Christ University, Bengaluru. His research focuses on ethnic politics, Indigenous governance, social exclusion, and peacebuilding in multi-ethnic societies, with particular attention to smaller and marginalised tribal communities in Manipur. His work examines how micro-minorities navigate power, identity, and institutional hierarchies amid recurring conflicts and political instability. As a scholar with lived familiarity with the region and sustained academic engagement, he seeks to bridge research and policy discourse, advocating for inclusive governance and structural justice as essential foundations for sustainable peace.
