When violence erupted across India’s Manipur state in May 2023, the crisis quickly spiralled into one of the country’s most severe episodes of ethnic conflict in recent decades. Clashes between the Meitei and Kuki communities led to hundreds of deaths, the burning of villages, and the displacement of tens of thousands of people. News coverage and political debate have largely framed the violence as a confrontation between these two dominant ethnic blocs.
However, beyond these headlines, the binaries of Meitei versus Kuki or Naga versus Kuki ethnic groups obscure another reality that rarely receives attention. Across Manipur’s hills and borderlands live dozens of smaller communities whose villages often sit on the fault lines of competing territorial claims. Their political voice is limited, and when violence escalates between larger groups, they often become invisible casualties of conflicts they did not initiate (Singh & Garai, 2026). Their exclusion may be one of the least examined obstacles to sustainable peace in the state.
A Structurally Divided State
Manipurs’ political instability cannot be understood without acknowledging its layered ethnic composition. The population is broadly organised into three major groupings: the Meitei (including Meitei Bamons and Meitei Pangals) concentrated in the Imphal Valley, and multiple tribal communities inhabiting the surrounding hill districts, commonly aggregated under the labels “Naga” and “Kuki.”
Thirty-four communities are officially recognised as Scheduled Tribes under Article 342 of the Constitution of India (Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 2021), while the Meitei are classified as non-tribal (Meetei, 2016). More than 30 languages are spoken across the state, with Manipuri (Meiteilon) serving as the official language and Lingua franca (Devi & Singh, 2015). This diversity is often celebrated culturally; however, politically, it is structured through institutional asymmetry.
Although the hill districts constitute more than 90 percent of Manipur’s landmass, the Imphal Valley remains the administrative and economic centre. Valley populations enjoy stronger integration into state institutions and better access to infrastructure and education, whereas hill communities rely more heavily on customary governance systems (Kipgen, 2021). Developmental disparities persist, particularly in terms of healthcare, infrastructure, and employment.
These inequalities are not recent developments. The British colonial administration formalised separate governance arrangements for the hills and valleys, embedding differentiated political trajectories (Naorem, 2006). After statehood in 1972, Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) were established under Article 371C, but they remain widely regarded as fiscally and administratively weak (Kipgen, 2021). Land regulations further reinforce this division: non-tribals cannot purchase land in the hills, whereas tribals may acquire land across the state (Singh, 2014).
Peace efforts that ignore these structural asymmetries risk addressing symptoms rather than causes. For instance, major peace initiatives in Manipur, such as negotiations with the National Socialist Council of Nagalim and the Suspension of Operations agreement with Kuki armed groups, have primarily focused on dominant ethnic actors, leaving smaller communities with little representation in formal dialogue processes.
Ethnonationalism and the Consolidation of Power
Ethnonationalism in Manipur serves both as an expression of identity and as a political instrument. Scholars such as Connor (1970) and Le Bossé (2021) argue that deep psychological attachment drives ethnonationalism to collective identity. In Manipur, colonial administrative separation fostered a bifurcated political consciousness (Naorem, 2006), which was later amplified by competing territorial imaginaries, such as Nagalim and Kukiland (Meetei, 2016).
Land became more than just territory; it became a sacred inheritance tied to survival. However, as Green (2006) and Yang (2000) note, ethnicity is a historically fluid and socially constructed concept. Treating ethnic blocs as fixed and homogenous erases internal diversity and reinforces rigid political binaries. Smaller tribes are often the first casualties of such rigidity.
The Hidden Hierarchies Within Ethnic Politics
Colonial-era umbrella categories, such as ‘Naga’ and ‘Kuki’, consolidated dozens of distinct tribes under broader labels (Oinam, 2003; Zehol, 1998). Postcolonial elites mobilised these identities to strengthen territorial claims. Communities, including the Anal, Moyon, Monsang, and Maring, were later integrated into the Naga fold despite earlier associations with Kuki conglomerations (Kipgen, 2011). Such shifts reveal the political nature of ethnic alignment.
However, for smaller tribes, inclusion within larger blocs can dilute cultural autonomy and political specificity (Singh & Garai, 2025). While dominant groups negotiate autonomy and territorial recognition, micro-minorities struggle to articulate developmental and security concerns. Peace negotiations that treat ethnic blocs as internally unified entities risk reproducing their hierarchy. For example, negotiations between the Government of India and the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN-IM), such as the ceasefire agreement of 1997 and the Naga Framework Agreement of 2015, have treated the Naga as a single political actor despite the presence of diverse tribes with uneven power dynamics.
Conflict and the Marginalisation of Micro-Minorities
Major episodes of violence, such as the Naga–Kuki clashes of the 1990s and the Meitei–Kuki violence of 2023, are typically framed as confrontations between dominant identities. However, many smaller communities occupy overlapping territories at the centre of competing claims (Akhup, 2012). During crises, their neutrality and strategic positioning are frequently questioned (Samson, 2015). National and regional media coverage in 2023 essentially presented the unrest through a Meitei–Kuki binary, further marginalising smaller voices (The Hindu Bureau, 2023).
This narrative exclusion mirrors institutional exclusion. Autonomous District Councils lack reserved mechanisms to ensure the representation of micro-minorities (Singh & Garai, 2025). Development schemes often treat “tribal” communities as a homogenous category, overlooking disparities in population size, political access, and administrative reach (Siamkhum, 2017). Meanwhile, the bifurcated land governance regime leaves smaller communities vulnerable to selective interpretations and displacement (Singh & Garai, 2026).
Although Scheduled Tribe status offers constitutional safeguards, India does not recognise a distinct category for smaller ethnic minorities, leaving micro-minorities exposed to broader majoritarian politics.
Beyond Ceasefires: Building Inclusive Peace
The crisis in Manipur is frequently addressed as a law-and-order issue. While security deployments and emergency relief provide immediate containment, they do not dismantle entrenched hierarchies. Sustainable peace requires structural inclusivity.
First, smaller tribes need guaranteed representation in Autonomous District Councils and advisory bodies.
Second, land governance reforms must ensure transparency, documentation, and inclusive dispute resolution.
Third, development planning must move beyond a homogenised ‘tribal’ category and adopt differentiated approaches that reflect demographic and institutional realities.
Civil society also plays a critical role. Conflict-sensitive journalism must move beyond reductive binary thinking. Dialogue platforms must include micro-minorities. Documentation and advocacy must amplify experiences that are currently unrecorded.
Peace Requires Justice at the Margins
Peace built solely on the balancing of dominant blocs will remain fragile. When smaller communities are excluded from representation, land security, and development planning, distrust deepens. When their identities are absorbed into larger political projects, diversity becomes a vulnerability rather than a strength.
Manipur’s repeated cycles of violence suggest that managing majoritarian rivalries is not enough. Lasting peace depends on dismantling the hierarchies embedded in governance. Justice for the smallest communities is not a secondary issue. It is the foundation of peace.
Keywords: India, Manipur, ethnic, tribal, minorities, peace, conflict, conflict resolution, colonialism, British, Indian constitution, communities, community, tribes
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.
