The ethnic conflict in Manipur is a multidimensional crisis rooted in historical grievances, competing identities, disputes over land and political representation, security concerns, and persistent socio-economic inequalities. While the violent clashes between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023 have drawn national attention, the conflict has also deepened tensions between the Kuki and Naga communities, resulting in further loss of life, displacement, and widespread mistrust.
Track Two diplomacy refers to informal and unofficial dialogue and conflict-resolution initiatives led by non-state actors such as academics, religious leaders, retired public officials, civil society organisations, community elders, and non-governmental organisations. The concept was introduced by Joseph V. Montville in the early 1980s to distinguish unofficial peacebuilding efforts from formal government negotiations, commonly known as Track One diplomacy. Rather than replacing official negotiations, Track Two diplomacy complements them by creating an environment of trust, encouraging dialogue, and preparing communities for peaceful settlements.
The crisis in Manipur cannot be understood as an event that began only on 3rd May 2023. Although the violence that erupted on that day marked a tragic turning point, it was the culmination of decades of accumulated mistrust, unresolved grievances, and political failures. According to official estimates, more than 260 people have lost their lives, while over 60,000 have been internally displaced since the outbreak of violence.
For decades, relations among Manipur’s three major communities-the Meiteis, Nagas, and Kuki-Zos-have been characterised by suspicion, periodic unrest, economic blockades, counter-blockades, strikes, and social isolation. The state has largely experienced what peace scholars describe as negative peace-the mere absence of widespread violence-rather than positive peace, which is founded upon justice, reconciliation, mutual respect, and inclusive institutions.
One of the most enduring consequences of ethnic conflict is the transmission of trauma across generations. Stories of violence, displacement, and injustice become embedded within collective memory, shaping identities and perpetuating cycles of fear and resentment. Even if active violence subsides, unresolved historical wounds can reignite future conflicts. Breaking this cycle requires addressing the root causes of conflict through sustained people-to-people engagement, confidence-building measures, and a shared commitment to coexistence. No lasting solution can be imposed solely by external actors or governments. Community leaders themselves should demonstrate the courage to engage in sincere dialogue on issues of common concern and envision a shared future based on equality and mutual respect.
The Danger of Negative Stereotypes
While freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental constitutional right, it must never be used to justify the spread of hatred, misinformation, or violence.
Throughout the conflict, fake news, inflammatory rhetoric, and hate speech have significantly intensified tensions. Individuals and organised groups have frequently employed derogatory labels such as “narco-terrorists,” “Kacha Naga,” “Kuki refugees,” “cannibals,” “poppy cultivators,” and “illegal migrants. Such expressions are intended to dehumanise entire communities rather than address the actions of individuals. Although anonymous social media users may employ such language to provoke hostility, it is especially troubling when influential civil society organisations or community leaders adopt similar rhetoric. Institutions that claim to represent their communities carry a moral responsibility to promote reconciliation rather than deepen hatred. Normalising dehumanising language only reinforces prejudice and makes future reconciliation increasingly difficult.
Civil Society Engagement.
Despite the current polarisation, it would be inaccurate to suggest that efforts toward peace have been absent. Throughout Manipur’s history, churches, civil society organisations, community leaders, and peace activists from all communities have consistently worked to reduce tensions and promote reconciliation.
Recent initiatives by the Nagaland Joint Christian Forum (NJCF), the Council of Baptist Churches in North East India (CBCNEI), and the Manipur Baptist Convention (MBC) demonstrate the constructive role that religious institutions can play in peacebuilding. These organisations have appealed for the cessation of violence, facilitated dialogue between Kuki and Naga leaders, and organised peace delegations to areas such as Kangpokpi and Senapati to mediate humanitarian concerns, including the release of hostages.
Such initiatives deserve recognition and continued support. Informal dialogue helps rebuild trust, creates channels of communication when official negotiations remain stalled, counters misinformation, facilitates humanitarian cooperation, and encourages reconciliation through shared cultural, historical, and religious values. However, the effectiveness of civil society depends upon its willingness to engage openly with differing perspectives. When influential organisations refuse dialogue and remain rigidly committed to uncompromising positions, they risk prolonging conflict and increasing the suffering of ordinary citizens who bear its greatest burdens.
A sustainable solution to the Manipur conflict cannot rely solely on security operations or law enforcement. Lasting peace requires justice, inclusive political dialogue, constitutional safeguards, equitable economic development, reconciliation, and sustained trust-building among all communities.
International experience demonstrates the importance of Track Two diplomacy in resolving deeply rooted ethnic conflicts. Peace processes associated with the Oslo Accords between Israelis and Palestinians, the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland, post-genocide reconciliation in Rwanda, the Bosnian peace process, and efforts to resolve the Sri Lankan civil war all benefited, to varying degrees, from informal dialogue and civil society engagement that prepared the ground for official negotiations.
In a deeply divided society such as Manipur, churches, tribal institutions, women’s organisations, youth groups, academics, and civil society leaders possess the capacity to bridge divides that governments alone cannot. By confronting both the immediate violence and the deeper historical causes of conflict, Track Two diplomacy offers Manipur an opportunity not merely to end violence, but to heal history and build a future based on peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity, and inclusive development.