Is Manipur back to 'normal' ahead of PM Modi's visit?

Days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s likely visit to Manipur, a Capital Beat episode brought together panellists Samir K Purkayastha, Suhas Chakma, and Ashang Kasar to examine the Centre’s claim that Kuki civil society groups had agreed to allow free movement in the state. The discussion focused on the Union government’s announcement of a fresh Suspension of Operations (SoO) arrangement with Kuki militant groups and questions arising from subsequent clarifications by civil society organisations.

The conversation outlined the Centre’s stated measures: relocation of designated camps away from areas near Meitei localities, a reaffirmation of Manipur’s territorial integrity, and the assertion that movement between Kuki- and Meitei-inhabited areas would restart. The panel noted that these announcements were framed as steps toward normalcy since ethnic violence began in May 2023.

The panellists also referred to the timeline surrounding the developments, including the Centre’s statements and the anticipated prime ministerial visit, as well as the immediate reactions issued by community bodies after the government’s announcement.

Clarification from Kuki-Zo Council and scope of ‘free movement’

The panel referenced a clarification issued soon after the Ministry of Home Affairs announcement that cited the Kuki-Zo Council. The clarification stated that cooperation was being urged for safe passage along National Highway 2, while stressing that buffer zones between Meitei- and Kuki-Zo–dominated areas would continue to be strictly respected and maintained. The panel highlighted that the clarification did not endorse unrestricted free movement across buffer zones.

Also Read: Mizoram grapples with cross-border crisis amid new influx of refugees

The panel also described the buffer zones as areas manned by security forces to maintain peace, separating localities dominated by the two communities. The clarification emphasised that ensuring fool-proof highway security is the responsibility of central forces, not local bodies or the public.

Agreement sequence and two-track announcements

Samir K Purkayastha outlined the administrative steps referenced during the day’s announcements. He pointed to two distinct developments that were described: periodic renewal of the ceasefire/SoO with Kuki militant groups, and a separate claim about enabling free movement along National Highway 2.

Purkayastha stated that the SoO extension is a recurring executive process that has been undertaken earlier as well. He contrasted this with the free movement claim, noting that the subsequent civil society clarification raised questions on the extent of any change on the ground.

“There were two agreements actually which were signed yesterday. One is the extension of the cease-fire agreement with the Kuki militant groups… another agreement… the Centre claims… free movement would be allowed through National Highway 2… contradicting the Centre’s claim, the Kuki-Zo Council… clarified that no such agreement has taken place.”

What the clarification implies for travel and security

The panel discussed that vehicular movement for goods and transit on National Highway 2 has been functioning, while the buffer zones restrict cross-community movement. Within this context, the clarification’s call for cooperation with central forces was noted as part of routine security facilitation rather than a removal of buffer restrictions.

The panel also described the limits of movement between Kuki- and Meitei-inhabited areas under current conditions, identifying the buffer regime as the key operational constraint. The discussion emphasised that the clarification did not indicate changes to the buffer regime.

These points were presented as they relate to the stated government objective of normalising movement in the short term.

Confusion and lapses identified from community side

Ashang Kasar referred to confusion generated by the sequence of the government announcement and the civil society clarification. He stated that different messages emerging on the same day had created uncertainty among the public.

Kasar also referred to public hesitation regarding buffer zones and the implications for cross-community travel in specific districts. He characterised the situation as one that continues to involve caution among residents.

“So, no one will go. No one will cross this buffer zone.”

Kasar further stated that simultaneous references to free movement and strict maintenance of buffer zones had led to what he described as lapses in communication.

Ground situation and unresolved core issues

Suhas Chakma stated that formal extensions of the SoO have been in place and that such steps may be presented publicly in the lead-up to high-level visits. He said that the core issues at the centre of disagreement remain unresolved.

Chakma also stated that the absence of joint positions from Meitei stakeholders, alongside statements from Kuki platforms, illustrated ongoing difficulties in achieving a shared framework. He characterised the public steps as preparatory in nature.

“On ground nothing has changed.”

Community representation and intra-group dynamics

The panel mentioned that community representation is being discussed within and among organisations, including references to bodies operating in different districts. The discussion underscored that clarifications from civil society entities were addressed to both residents and the authorities.

The panellists also referenced debates about the roles of different groups in engaging with the Union government. The panel listed these as part of the current landscape of organisational interlocution.

These references were presented in relation to how civil society statements shape public understanding of the announcements.

Designated camps and proposed movements

Purkayastha described the aspect of shifting designated camps farther away from Meitei localities as contained in the announcement. He also noted that proposals involving movements of camps in proximity to other areas have produced additional responses from stakeholders.

The panel described these responses as part of the follow-on issues that arise when operationalising camp relocation. The discussion linked these to broader questions about the feasibility of changing the status quo on the ground.

These points were presented as part of the administrative and logistical steps discussed following the announcements.

Buffer zones and the limits of normalisation

The panel reiterated that buffer zones remain the defining operational constraint for cross-community movement. It observed that, despite references to opening routes for essential supplies and travel, the capacity for individuals from one community to enter areas dominated by the other remains limited under the current security framework.

The panellists pointed out that, in such a framework, announcements concerning highways do not automatically alter the conditions under which residents of different communities may cross the buffer lines. The discussion connected this to public expectations and day-to-day mobility.

These observations were presented as part of the current status of movement and access in the state.

Expectations from high-level visits and communication sequencing

Chakma stated that announcements preceding a prime ministerial visit may be framed to address both communities, but reiterated that the central disagreements continue. He pointed to the lack of substantive movement on the issues that triggered the conflict.

The panel discussed expectations that any visit would be accompanied by public references to administrative steps already taken. It noted that civil society clarifications issued within hours of government announcements indicated continuing differences over interpretations.

These points were outlined as part of the sequence in which statements and clarifications have emerged.

Public sentiment and immediate priorities

Kasar stated that the situation remains complicated and referred to the continued presence of internally displaced persons. He said the practical difficulties of restoring cross-community settlement persist under current conditions.

The panel noted his references to control of armed groups within the framework of the SoO and other processes. He stated that the reaffirmation of Manipur’s territorial integrity is a part of the public statements issued.

Administrative timelines and engagement

The panel outlined that administrative processes, such as extensions of the SoO and relocation of camps, are part of ongoing government-community engagements. It underscored that these processes will require follow-on measures to be implemented in districts.

The discussion also referenced continued coordination with security forces deployed along key routes in the state. It situated these steps within the broader objectives of facilitating movement while maintaining buffer protocols.

These points were presented as part of the operational picture that accompanies headline announcements.

The content above has been transcribed from video using a fine-tuned AI model. To ensure accuracy, quality, and editorial integrity, we employ a Human-In-The-Loop (HITL) process. While AI assists in creating the initial draft, our experienced editorial team carefully reviews, edits, and refines the content before publication. At The Federal, we combine the efficiency of AI with the expertise of human editors to deliver reliable and insightful journalism.