Human Security Centre Human Rights and International Security Research
By Sam Biden, Junior Fellow
13 July, 2026
Historical Evolution of the Manipur Conflict
The contemporary conflict in Manipur is rooted in a complex web of historical, ethnic, and political grievances that have evolved since Indian independence. While recent violence has been steadily rising since 2023, the more nuanced, multi-decade long dispute, driven by tensions over land, identity, and constitutional protections, underpin a much greater conflict that dates to the colonial period. British administrative policies established separate governance systems for the state’s hill and valley populations, institutionalising distinctions between the predominantly Meitei population residing in the Imphal Valley, and tribal communities, including the Kuki, and Nāga peoples, concentrated across the surrounding hill districts. In practice, this administrative separation laid the foundations for competing political identities that continued to shape post-independence governance.
Following India’s independence in 1947, these colonial-era divisions became increasingly embedded within Manipur’s political framework. While the hill tribes were granted Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, providing access to reservations in education, public sector employment, and political representation, the Meiteis were excluded despite having previously been recognised as a tribal community under the British Raj. Consequently, demands by sections of the Meitei community for inclusion within the ST framework have become one of the state’s most contentious political issues. Given that the Meiteis constitute more than half of Manipur’s population, tribal communities have consistently argued that extending ST status would fundamentally alter existing systems of political representation, and resource allocation.
More broadly, these disputes over ST recognition developed alongside a growing dissatisfaction regarding Manipur’s political relationship with what was at the time, the newly formed Indian Union. Delays in granting Manipur full statehood fostered perceptions of political neglect among sections of the population, contributing to a broader narrative that the state’s interests had been subordinated to those of New Delhi, rather than the smaller ethnic factions with deep-rooted, cultural ties to northern India. Although Manipur formally attained statehood in 1972, political grievances with New Delhi had escalated beyond negotiations and discussions, into organised armed resistance.
This new wave of armed resistance would continue to emerge throughout the 1970s. The 1964 establishment of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), an insurgent group aiming at establishing a sovereign state in Manipur, marked the first significant organised secessionist movement in Manipur. Although the organisation initially pursued political mobilisation, it later established its armed wing, the Manipur People’s Army (MPA), reflecting the gradual militarisation of separatist sentiment. At the same time, several additional organisations emerged, including the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP), each combining varying degrees of ethnic nationalism, and left-wing revolutionary ideology with demands for either complete independence, or greater political autonomy within Manipur – mounting the now over 60 year war for sovereignty against New Delhi.
While much of the political landscape focused on tribal warfare with the capital, inter-communal conflicts began to rear their heads once again. The Nāga-Kuki conflict between 1992-1997 displayed one of the most violent bursts of violence in the state’s recent history. At the centre of the conflict were competing territorial claims, echoed by colonial discourse and distrust, with large areas claimed by Kuki communities overlapping with the proposed boundaries of “Greater Nāgaland” (Nāgalim), envisioned by the National Socialist Council of Nāgaland (Isak-Muivah), a supportive body of the UNLF. In practice, these competing nationalist projects transformed longstanding territorial disputes into sustained armed confrontation, resulting in widespread displacement, the destruction of hundreds of villages, and the deaths of more than one thousand people according to organisations affiliated with Kuki militias. Harrowing events such as the 1993 Joupi massacre set the tone for the continuation of violence, with an estimated 108 Kuki civilians being slaughtered, many of whom were fleeing their homes.
2023 Re-escalation
While much of the extreme violence happened throughout the early 1990s, recent escalations beginning in 2023 show a disturbing pattern of re-emergence. Hostage taking, especially for the purpose of killing civilians, has become a repeating concern. While individual incidents are often framed as isolated security events, they are better understood as part of a continuous trajectory of retaliatory abductions, shifting between communities, and intensifying into this year.
At the emergence of the renewed tensions in 2023, hostage-taking was already occurring following the outbreak of large-scale clashes between the Kuki, Nāga and Meitei communities earlier in May of that year. Reports from Manipur indicated that multiple abductions took place within a short span of days, including an incident in which five individuals from the Kuki-Zomi community were abducted near the border areas between Kangpokpi, and Imphal West districts. At the same time, additional cases of kidnapping were reported in separate locations, suggesting a targeted spread beyond central Manipur itself.
Hostage-taking continued into 2024, when two sets of November abductions and killings in the Jiribam district marked a significant escalation in both scale, and brutality. The bodies of multiple members of the Meitei community, including women, and children from the same family, were later recovered following their abduction by suspected Kuki militants. This incident followed an earlier attack in which women, and children were among those targeted. Competing accounts emerged regarding the sequence of events, including simultaneous militant engagements by various Kuki and Nāga militias, alongside counteroperations by security forces, clouded the chances of gathering verifiable information surrounding the individual cases of abduction. Consequently, the November incidents not only reflected an intensification of violence, but also a difficulty for Indian security forces to gather evidence and testimony from those involved and who witnessed it, dampening clear opportunities for accountability.
These developments became even more pronounced this year. In May, a major incident involved the abduction of 38 individuals from the Kuki, and Nāga communities in Kangpokpi, and Senapati districts following armed attacks on civilian vehicles. This was followed by a partial release of 31 hostages, while several individuals remained unaccounted for. Equally important, further arrests were made in connection with alleged involvement in the abductions, suggesting the presence of organised local armed actors operating alongside broader ethnic networks, hinting at a progression towards structured patterns of hostage taking, not reactive warfare. This is further demonstrated by developments in June, when 14 Kuki individuals were released after being held hostage for nearly a month in Senapati district. Their release followed mediation efforts by civil society organisations, including the UNC, reflecting the increasing role of non-state actors in managing hostage negotiations. However, six individuals from the Nāga community remained in captivity, indicating that releases were not finalised, but instead formed part of an ongoing, and unresolved cycle of abductions.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties Findings
Beyond hostage taking – sexual violence, arson and murder have also had a profound impact on the trajectory of the emerged conflict since 2023. Despite difficulties in obtaining information during security operations by the Indian Army, findings presented to an Independent Persons Tribunal, an informal, investigative and reporting body composed primarily of human rights organizations, successfully published detailed findings. The findings, headed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), paint a picture beyond the horrors of the extreme Kuki-Nāga violence of the 1990s. Accounts highlighted by the PUCL demonstrate that the conflict rapidly expanded into a broader pattern of reciprocal atrocities affecting civilians in both the contested hills, and the valley. This is backed by testimonies, and investigative findings which highlight the systematic breakdown of civilian security.
Evidence presented indicates that a significant proportion of fatalities in the initial 48–72-hour period was from the Kuki community, with reports suggesting that over one hundred individuals were killed within the first three days of the 2023 resurgence, the majority of whom were Kukis. In practice, this early concentration of violence was shaped by the distribution of communities, with Kuki households in certain mixed, or valley-adjacent areas being more readily identifiable, and therefore more exposed to targeted attacks. Later assessments from field observations suggest that the conflict evolved into a sustained cycle of violence, with Kuki, Nāga and Meitei communities acting in repetitive retaliation. As the confrontation prolonged, Kuki groups increasingly organised offensive responses, leading to what has been described as a “tit-for-tat” pattern of attacks. Consequently, fatalities, and incidents of violence became more evenly distributed over time between all 3 major communities. Members of the Nāga community initially wished to maintain neutrality yet were drawn into the conflict environment with accounts of arson, and killings affecting Nāga civilians directly, suppressing the motivations for neutrality.
In addition to direct killings, the conflict has been characterised by extensive destruction of property, and infrastructure through organised arson, and looting campaigns. Entire villages in both hill, and valley districts were reportedly targeted by large, militia-style mobs, often comprising hundreds of individuals. In practice, these attacks have had long-term consequences that extend beyond immediate physical destruction, including the loss of land, livestock, and ancestral property. Many of those affected have been internally displaced, totalling 60,000, remaining in makeshift relief camps as a result while they await resettlement efforts. Equally important, multiple testimonies have highlighted the prevalence of sexual violence, and gendered forms of intimidation during episodes of mob violence. Women were reported to have been exposed to heightened risks, including threats of sexual assault, and public humiliation, with such acts in some cases framed as retaliatory measures linked to rumours of violence committed against women from the opposing community.
Conclusion
The conflict in Manipur reflects far more than a contemporary outbreak of ethnic violence. Instead, it represents the continuation of historical grievances that have repeatedly evolved into armed confrontation, reinforced by cycles of retaliation, political distrust, and deepening communal divisions. While security operations remain necessary to contain immediate violence, lasting stability will ultimately depend upon addressing the structural drivers of the conflict through political dialogue, accountability, and inclusive governance. Without doing so, the conditions that have sustained violence for decades are likely to continue shaping Manipur’s security landscape for years to come.
Image: the Dzukou Valley in Manipur (Source: Dhrubazaanphotography via CC BY-SA 4.0)
