Manipur at the Crossroads: Insurgency, Credibility, and the SCO Opportunity

The recent ambush on an Assam Rifles convoy in Manipur, leaving soldiers dead and injured, was not an isolated episode. It was a sharp reminder that beneath the rhetoric of “normalcy,” insurgency in the Northeast remains resilient. Each such attack punctures the theatre of stability projected by New Delhi — often timed around high-profile visits by the Prime Minister. It is this contrast between symbolism and substance that defines Manipur’s political tragedy.

Civil–military gaps

Manipur’s crisis highlights an uncomfortable truth: soldiers are paying the price for a political class that has failed to speak with clarity or conviction. The Assam Rifles and the Army operate in high-risk terrain, conducting patrols and cross-border interdictions. Yet, when violence erupts, civilian leaders fall back on tired formulations: “unidentified gunmen,” “armed miscreants,” or “situation under control.”

The messaging gap creates a dangerous imbalance. The military looks like the only reliable institution, while civilian authority appears hesitant and repetitive. Over time, this erodes the democratic compact — ordinary citizens start respecting the khaki more than the elected representative. For insurgents, this is a victory without firing a shot.

Internal fractures

Three internal dynamics keep Manipur unstable:

1. Ethnic polarisation: The Meitei–Kuki divide is now a structural fracture, visible in parallel narratives of victimhood and grievance. For one side, reconciliation looks like appeasement; for the other, it feels like betrayal. This deadlock constrains political imagination.

2. Narrative dominance by insurgents: Groups under the CorCom umbrella issue communiqués that are sharp, professional, and politically loaded. They name their targets, assert agency, and project seriousness. By contrast, government briefings sound like recycled bureaucratic notes. This asymmetry allows insurgents to own the perception battle, even when their armed strength is limited.

3. Governance fatigue: The cycle of ambush → condolence → claims of arms recovery has numbed the public. Development projects and Prime Ministerial visits are appreciated but not trusted to deliver safety. People live between assurances of “peace” and the lived reality of fear.

External sanctuaries

The insurgency cannot be understood without the external layer. Myanmar’s post-coup disorder has opened space for rebel camps. Fugitive leaders operate from across the border, directing operations with impunity. Arms flow through transnational pipelines that occasionally touch Chinese networks in Yunnan.

The consequence is psychological as well as logistical. For civilians, the fact that insurgent leadership operates from outside India creates the sense of an unending conflict. For security planners, it means no counter-insurgency campaign can succeed without cross-border cooperation.

Act East: the promise and the failure

Manipur should have been the gateway of India’s Act East Policy — the state literally borders Myanmar, the bridge to ASEAN. The policy promised that connectivity projects, trade corridors, and cultural linkages would transform borderlands from conflict zones into hubs of opportunity. Highways like the India–Myanmar–Thailand Trilateral Highway and projects such as Kaladan Multimodal Transit were supposed to create prosperity and dilute insurgency by embedding Manipur in larger Asian supply chains.

Yet, the Act East promise has faltered. Delays, bureaucratic inertia, and Myanmar’s instability have meant that infrastructure remains incomplete and trade flows negligible. Insurgents have capitalised on this vacuum, filling the narrative space with threats while the state struggles to showcase tangible benefits. The people of Manipur see highways under construction but not completed; they hear slogans but do not feel prosperity. This credibility gap is as dangerous as any armed ambush.

The missed bus of political messaging

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visits to the Northeast are high-visibility events, rich in symbolism — inaugurations, integrationist rhetoric, and promises of development. But symbolism has not been translated into sustained ground-level confidence. When ambushes follow soon after these visits, it creates the impression of political tourism rather than crisis management.

The government has repeatedly “missed the bus” to carry the message of peace and stability into people’s hearts. Instead of offering clarity, it has offered clichés. Instead of projecting accountability, it has projected hesitation. In a region where perception is half the battle, this is a critical weakness.

SCO and beyond: new partnerships in a global gameplan

The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) provides India with one diplomatic lever, but the opportunity must be embedded in a broader multi-tiered gameplan.

1. SCO leverage: By framing Myanmar’s borderlands as terrorist incubators, India can seek support for joint surveillance and pressure Beijing to plug arms leakage from Yunnan.

2. ASEAN engagement: The Act East policy requires rescue. India must recalibrate by engaging ASEAN not just through trade rhetoric but via joint border development projects, counter-insurgency training, and humanitarian relief in Myanmar’s unstable regions.

3. Quad+ dialogues: While the Quad (India, US, Japan, Australia) focuses on maritime security, a “Quad+” approach could spotlight continental vulnerabilities, ensuring that the Indo-Pacific vision includes India’s land frontiers.

4. Myanmar diplomacy: With Naypyidaw unstable, India should engage not just the junta but also ethnic stakeholders and ASEAN intermediaries. Without a nuanced diplomacy, Manipur’s insurgency will remain externally fuelled.

5. Information coalition: Partnering with democracies and regional players to build joint information campaigns can delegitimise insurgent narratives and restore the credibility of the state’s voice.

Strategic implications

Manipur is not just a law-and-order issue. It is a test of Indian statecraft.

Civil–military synergy: Civilian leadership must complement military sacrifice with confident messaging.

Internal reconciliation: Ethnic fault lines require political management, not just military containment.

External diplomacy: Safe havens must be dismantled through regional cooperation.

Act East Policy Reset: Infrastructure and connectivity projects must shift from slogans to delivery, or the policy risks irrelevance.

Narrative warfare: Credible, rapid, and transparent communication must counter insurgent dominance.

Credibility as Statecraft

At its core, Manipur’s unrest is about credibility. Insurgents project clarity. The military projects sacrifice. The government, however, projects caution. Until India fuses its civil authority, military effort, Act East economic vision, and diplomatic leverage into a single credible voice, Manipur will remain a symbol of unfinished integration.

The frontier’s future depends less on the volume of promises and more on the conviction with which they are spoken — and backed up. If New Delhi seizes the SCO and Act East platforms to align internal resilience with external diplomacy and international partnerships, it can shift the game. If not, every ambush will continue to echo louder than every speech.