As tensions escalate following the March 8 clashes, Kangpokpi district remains in turmoil, protesting against a policy seen as favoring one side. Will this “Free Movement” initiative bring unity or more chaos?
BY PC Bureau
Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s proposal to enable free movement along Manipur’s national highways has been met with skepticism, with many viewing it as an impractical solution that disregards the deep-seated mistrust and hostility between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities.
While the movement of essential goods may continue with minimal resistance, the idea that individuals from both communities will travel freely into each other’s territories remains far-fetched. Even with heightened security, fears of retaliation and violence persist, making such unrestricted movement nearly impossible.
The fragility of the situation became evident on March 8, the very day the initiative was set to begin, when violence erupted in buffer zones separating Meitei and Kuki-Zo territories. Clashes broke out as Kuki-Zo groups resisted what they saw as an encroachment into their areas under the pretext of free movement. Reports of gunfire, arson, and injuries further cemented fears that any forced implementation of the policy could lead to catastrophic consequences.
ALSO READ: KANAM, Village Volunteers Flay Arambai Tenggol, Call it Terror Outfit
The outbreak of violence drew strong condemnation from Kuki-Zo organizations, which labeled the government’s move as dangerously premature and detached from the realities on the ground.
Following the March 8 clashes, Kangpokpi district—home to a significant Kuki-Zo population—plunged into turmoil. In protest against the initiative, the district witnessed a complete shutdown, with businesses, schools, and government offices remaining closed.
For Kangpokpi residents, the free movement initiative has only intensified tensions, making inter-community travel even riskier. Many view it as an attempt to undermine their security, rather than a step toward peace. Local leaders have accused the central and state governments of imposing a policy that disproportionately favors the Meitei community, while neglecting the Kuki-Zo people’s grievances and safety concerns.
ALSO READ: Opinion: Not Bullets and Bayonets—Manipur Needs Justice and Accountability
Security Risks and Challenges
Despite calls for normalcy, both the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities remain heavily armed. Efforts to disarm them have failed, as each side perceives their weapons as vital for self-defense. In such a volatile atmosphere, any effort to enforce unrestricted movement could trigger widespread unrest.
Observers suggest that instead of forcing a blanket free movement policy, the government should explore phased solutions, such as restoring limited bus services between Imphal and Dimapur under the escort of neutral security forces. However, resistance remains high.
“Kukis will not accept Meitei police commandos escorting these buses, so it would be best to deploy central forces,” said an expert familiar with the conflict. He warned that expecting private vehicles to move safely across contested areas is unrealistic.
“It is impossible to guarantee protection for every private vehicle. Any attack could spiral into larger violence,” he added.
Kuki Inpi’s Firm Stand
For many in the Kuki-Zo community, the idea of traveling to Imphal for healthcare, education, or air travel is out of the question.
“No Kuki will ever step into Imphal after what happened on May 3, 2023,” an observer remarked, referring to the violent outbreak that year. “The government wants to showcase control, but without addressing the crisis’s root causes, this initiative is nothing more than an illusion.”
The Kuki Inpi, a key representative body of the Kuki-Zo people, has strongly opposed the initiative, warning that it could destabilize the fragile status quo.
“Allowing the Meitei to enter Kuki-Zo areas will only escalate tensions,” the organization stated. “Until a comprehensive political solution is reached—one that ensures lasting peace and respects Kuki-Zo aspirations—this policy will be seen as a superficial attempt to impose calm rather than a genuine effort to resolve the conflict.”
The organization has urged the central government to prioritize justice and address the deeper grievances of the Kuki-Zo people before attempting such policies.
While the government’s push for free movement may be intended as a step toward restoring normalcy, the stark reality on the ground suggests otherwise. Deep-seated animosities, ongoing violence, and entrenched distrust between the two communities pose significant obstacles. Unless the root causes of the conflict are addressed, the free movement initiative remains an ambitious but detached vision—one that risks fueling further unrest rather than fostering peace.
