On January 5, fresh blasts in the Saiton–Nganukhong area of Manipur’s Bishnupur district injured civilians and triggered immediate public anger. Civil society groups called shutdowns; villagers demanded action; and the phrase heard again and again was not simply “fear,” but “inaction.” In a state under President’s Rule—where New Delhi governs directly—every new attack becomes a referendum on Delhi’s credibility. When security fails under direct rule, it no longer looks like administrative weakness. It looks like policy.

This is the uncomfortable truth Manipur has been living with: non-action is not neutral. In a conflict ecosystem, the state’s hesitation does not freeze outcomes; it shapes them. It determines which groups consolidate territory, which narratives harden, which displaced families dare to return home, and which citizens conclude that the republic has quietly picked a side—whether or not that is the intent.

Manipur’s tragedy is often presented as an internal ethnic breakdown, as if geography ends at the state border. But Manipur is not merely a “law-and-order problem.” It is a frontier state exposed to the aftershocks of Myanmar’s civil war and the strategic ambiguities of India’s borderlands policy. The region sits under Myanmar’s shadow: arms flows, militant networks, and the diffusion of tactics—drones, IEDs, and the militarisation of civilian spaces—do not respect administrative boundaries. The longer Delhi delays decisive, even-handed enforcement, the more Manipur resembles a........

© Eurasia Review