{"id":960562,"date":"2026-08-30T04:00:10","date_gmt":"2026-08-30T08:00:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thefrontiermanipur.com\/?p=25201"},"modified":"2026-08-30T04:00:10","modified_gmt":"2026-08-30T08:00:10","slug":"the-manipur-crisis-and-pathways-to-sustainable-security-and-peace-part-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/2026\/08\/30\/the-manipur-crisis-and-pathways-to-sustainable-security-and-peace-part-3\/","title":{"rendered":"The Manipur Crisis and Pathways to Sustainable Security and Peace PART 3"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

By<\/em>\u00a0Brojen Thangjam<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2<\/a><\/p>\n

Part III<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/h5>\n

Definitional and Conceptual Anchor: Sustainable Security and Peace<\/strong><\/p>\n

The challenge of moving from violence to sustainable peace is not unique to Manipur. Contemporary internal conflicts are increasingly fought not only between states and insurgent groups but also between nonstate actors themselves, making horizontal and intercommunal violence an important feature of the global conflict landscape. The World Bank\u2013United Nations study Pathways for Peace<\/em>, drawing on global conflict data and 19 country case studies, notes that conflict between nonstate armed groups has risen substantially and that subnational conflict affects nearly every part of the world. Between 2000 and 2015, subnational conflicts affected 24 countries and caused more than 100,000 battle-related deaths. Even more striking is their persistence: Figure 1.6 in the study shows average conflict duration fluctuating from roughly five years to as much as 35 years between 1970 and 2015, with an overall upward trend. The significance of this evidence is not simply that internal conflicts can be prolonged, but that prolonged violence can fundamentally alter the conditions for bringing the conflict to an end. As conflict persists, grievances deepen, institutions and social relationships are altered, incentives become tied to continued violence, and societies can become caught in what the study describes as a \u201cconflict trap.\u201d The question, therefore, is not merely how to stop violence, but how to alter the pathway that has made violence increasingly embedded in political and social life (United Nations & World Bank, 2018).<\/p>\n

The preceding discussion has suggested that the problem in Manipur is not simply the presence of violence, but the erosion of the political and institutional conditions through which violence can be contained and political differences managed. If that is the nature of the crisis, then sustainable peace and security cannot be defined simply as the restoration of order. They require thinking more carefully about what peace should mean after a prolonged conflict.<\/p>\n

There is a natural tendency, after a crisis, to think of peace as a return to the point at which the violence began. In the case of Manipur, this could mean, consciously or otherwise, treating 3 May 2023 as the reference point and peace as a return to the political and social conditions that existed before the rupture. Yet the fact that the crisis occurred suggests that the pre-crisis order contained unresolved tensions, insecurities and limitations that could not simply be wished away. Prolonged conflict changes the circumstances in which people live and the relationships between them, altering perceptions, creating new fears and grievances, hardening political positions and reshaping the institutions through which communities relate to the state and to one another. The past may therefore provide an important reference point for understanding what has been lost, but it cannot simply become the destination.<\/p>\n

This is where the idea of conflict transformation offers a useful way of thinking about the problem. According to Lederach (2003), the objective is therefore not simply to end what is destructive, but to transform the conditions in which the conflict is embedded and to create the possibility of a different and more sustainable future. In this sense, every serious effort to address the present crisis in Manipur is necessarily both immediate and future-oriented: it must deal with violence and insecurity in the present, while also addressing the relationships, institutions and political arrangements that will shape the future.<\/p>\n

Conflict itself is not an abnormal feature of political or social life. Differences in interests, identities, aspirations and perceptions are inevitable in any plural society. The concern here is with the point at which such differences become violent conflict and generate persistent insecurity. Peace and security, therefore, cannot mean the elimination of difference or the absence of political contestation. They must instead concern the political and institutional conditions through which differences can be expressed, negotiated and managed without resorting to organised violence. The distinction between negative and positive peace provides a useful starting point (Galtung, 1969)<\/p>\n

The absence or reduction of direct violence is an essential condition of peace, but it does not by itself constitute a durable peace. Positive peace requires attention to the wider structural conditions that reproduce insecurity, exclusion and injustice. Galtung’s broader conception of violence is useful here because violence can be embedded not only in direct physical force, but also in structures that reproduce exclusion or insecurity and in cultural narratives and social attitudes that legitimise hostility towards others. The relevance of this distinction to Manipur is not to equate every form of social division with physical violence, but to recognise that sustainable peace must address the conditions through which insecurity and conflict can continue to be reproduced. Peace, in this sense, is not simply a condition in which violence has stopped; it is a condition in which the relationships and structures that enable its recurrence are progressively addressed.<\/p>\n

For Manipur, this distinction is particularly important. The crisis has been accompanied by deep fears and apprehensions about physical security and demographic change, land and territory, political representation and control, autonomy and protection, and the possibility of domination by another community. Many of these concerns have been addressed in the preceding discussion in relation to the structural and institutional dimensions of the crisis. But the conflict also operates at a more everyday and social level. Political narratives, stereotypes, mistrust and representations of the other community can reinforce fear and hostility, while seemingly minor acts of exclusion, disparagement and other forms of micro-aggression can reproduce these attitudes in everyday life. In a conflict that has already deeply affected inter-community relationships, such forms of cultural violence can become both a residue of the original conflict and a means through which it is sustained. A meaningful conception of peace must therefore address not only the cessation of physical violence and the repair of institutions, but also the social attitudes and everyday relationships through which insecurity and hostility continue to be reproduced.<\/p>\n

Conflict is not sustained by structures alone but also by the choices, actions and inactions of those who participate in it. This brings agency and responsibility into the discussion because different actors have different capacities to sustain conflict or help bring it to an end. The State, political actors, armed organisations, communities, civil society and individuals do not have the same roles or responsibilities, but all can influence the conditions in which conflict continues or begins to give way to peace. Sustainable peace therefore requires not only appropriate institutions and political arrangements but also a willingness among those who have the capacity to shape events to act differently, with political leaders prepared to make difficult choices, parties to the conflict willing to move away from violence, communities prepared to rebuild relationships, and civil society and individuals willing to resist the everyday reproduction of fear and hostility.<\/p>\n

The United Nations’ contemporary concept of \u201csustaining peace\u201d provides a further anchor for this understanding of sustainable peace. The concept was articulated in the twin General Assembly and Security Council resolutions adopted in April 2016. (United Nations General Assembly, 2016; United Nations Security Council, 2016). The twin resolution placed sustaining peace at the centre of a broader approach to preventing conflict and building peaceful societies. The resolutions describe sustaining peace as a \u201cgoal and a process to build a common vision of a society\u201d, taking into account the needs of all segments of the population. They encompass efforts to prevent the outbreak, escalation, continuation and recurrence of conflict, address its root causes, support the ending of hostilities and reconciliation, and advance recovery, reconstruction and development. The significance of this formulation is that it moves the idea of peace beyond the cessation of violence. Subsequent UN guidance on sustaining peace has further emphasised that it is \u201cinherently a political process\u201d, since addressing root causes and ending hostilities ultimately requires political solutions. It therefore calls for an integrated approach that combines political processes and inclusive dialogue with safety and security, rule of law and human rights, reconciliation and justice, effective institutions, and social and economic recovery. Sustaining peace is thus not a phase that begins after conflict has ended, but a continuing process through which the political, institutional and social conditions that make peace possible are built and maintained.<\/p>\n

The resolutions also emphasise that sustaining peace is a shared responsibility, involving national authorities and institutions as well as communities, civil society and other actors. This reinforces the need to look beyond crisis management and the immediate cessation of violence towards the longer-term political, institutional and social conditions that make renewed conflict less likely. An important feature of this conception is therefore the primacy of the political. Security and peacekeeping can create space for a political process and help prevent a return to violence, but they cannot by themselves resolve the political differences that lie at the heart of many conflicts. Sustaining peace requires political processes capable of managing those differences, institutions that can command legitimacy and public confidence, and social and economic conditions that reduce the incentives and grievances through which conflict can recur. In this sense, the UN framework complements Lederach’s emphasis on transformation and Galtung’s distinction between negative and positive peace: the objective is not simply to contain violence, but to create the conditions in which political differences can be managed without a return to violence.<\/p>\n

The practical meaning of this approach can be seen in Liberia. The country experienced two devastating civil wars, the first beginning in 1989 with an armed rebellion against the government of Samuel Doe and the second following renewed fighting in 1999, with the conflict eventually ending in 2003 (United Nations, 2020). The wars were marked by intense fighting among government forces and competing armed factions, widespread atrocities, the displacement of large parts of the population and the collapse of state institutions and basic services. The 2003 Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Accra, following Charles Taylor’s departure, created the basis for a transitional political order, disarmament and demobilisation, and the restoration of constitutional government. The United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL), established later that year, supported the peace process, helped protect civilians, rebuild the security sector and assist the country towards democratic elections.<\/p>\n

The significance of Liberia for the present discussion lies in what happened after the immediate conflict had ended. Peace was not treated as synonymous with the absence of renewed fighting or with the withdrawal of international forces. UNMIL remained for almost fifteen years, supporting the rebuilding of national security institutions, disarming former combatants, strengthening the rule of law and assisting successive democratic elections before transferring full security responsibility to Liberian authorities in 2016 and completing its mandate in 2018. A national Peacebuilding Plan was developed to consolidate this transition by strengthening durable national capacities, promoting a peaceful, just and inclusive society, and linking longer-term peacebuilding priorities with national development.<\/p>\n

Liberia also illustrates an important qualification: sustaining peace does not mean that the underlying sources of tension simply disappear. Land disputes, weak institutions, uneven access to services, corruption and unresolved social and political grievances continued to pose risks even after large-scale violence had subsided. The objective was therefore not to eliminate conflict, which is neither possible nor necessary in a plural society, but to build the political, institutional and social capacity to manage conflict without allowing it to return to violence. This is perhaps the most useful practical meaning of sustaining peace for the discussion that follows.<\/p>\n

Sustainable Peace requires Sustainable Security<\/strong><\/p>\n

Peace, however, cannot be sustained without security. Security in this context is more than the absence of immediate violence. The United Nations’ approach to security-sector reform defines its purpose as enhancing \u201ceffective and accountable security for the State and its peoples without discrimination and with full respect for human rights and the rule of law.\u201d <\/em>(United Nations, 2017). This places the citizen, rather than the security apparatus alone, at the centre of the security relationship.<\/p>\n

For the purposes of this essay, sustainable security can therefore be understood as the capacity of a political system to provide credible and non-discriminatory protection over time, while strengthening the institutions and relationships through which insecurity and violence can be prevented and managed. Security is thus not measured simply by the resources available to the State or its capacity to use force, but also by the quality, legitimacy and public confidence of the security relationship between citizens and public institutions.<\/p>\n

Taken together, these ideas point towards a broader understanding of what sustainable security would need to mean in Manipur. It would have four interrelated dimensions: physical, institutional, political and social. Rather than introducing a separate framework, these four dimensions bring together the preceding discussion and the UN’s emphasis on people-centred security, accountable institutions, political inclusion, the rule of law and social cohesion. The first is physical security, which concerns credible protection from violence and the fear of violence. Institutional security rests on public institutions that are effective, accountable and capable of protecting citizens without discrimination. Political security requires legitimate avenues through which competing claims and grievances can be expressed, negotiated and accommodated. Social security concerns the ability of communities to live, move and interact without organising themselves permanently around fear, separation and self-protection. These dimensions are closely interdependent: physical security cannot be sustained where institutions lack legitimacy or public confidence, institutional legitimacy is difficult to build where political grievances remain unaddressed, and political arrangements cannot become durable where communities continue to believe that their physical survival depends upon their own coercive capacity.<\/p>\n

The objective, therefore, is a gradual movement from security organised primarily around community protection towards security experienced as a shared public good. This does not require the disappearance of political differences or community identities. Rather, the essential change lies in the relationship between difference and violence. Communities must be able to remain distinct without regarding difference as a threat to their survival, pursue political aspirations without resorting to arms, and increasingly rely on public institutions rather than communal coercive capacity for their security. That is the direction in which sustainable security and sustainable peace become mutually reinforcing.<\/p>\n

The practical significance of this understanding is reinforced by the comparative evidence assembled in Pathways for Peace<\/em>. The study does not treat peace as the product of a single settlement or intervention. Societies move along different and often non-linear pathways, and durable progress usually emerges through multiple \u201ctransition moments\u201d in which political leadership, institutional reform, confidence-building and coalition-building can alter the direction of a conflict. Its central lesson is that prevention must be sustained, inclusive and targeted: sustained enough to address immediate insecurity while investing in longer-term institutional and structural change; inclusive enough to engage the grievances, perceptions and agency of affected communities rather than relying only on elite bargains; and targeted enough to address exclusion and institutional weaknesses in the arenas where political and social contestation occur. The study therefore calls for political, security and development efforts to work together, for risks to be identified before violence escalates, and for societies themselves, not only the state, to develop greater capacity to manage disputes peacefully.<\/p>\n

This reinforces the central argument of this section that sustainable peace cannot be produced by security measures alone, nor by a political settlement in isolation. It requires a sustained process of changing the incentives, institutions, relationships and arenas of contestation through which conflict is reproduced, while building a security order in which communities increasingly experience the state and its institutions as a shared source of protection rather than as instruments of competing communal security.<\/p>\n

PART 4 CLICK HERE<\/a><\/p>\n

(Brojen Thangjam<\/em>\u00a0recently retired from service with the United Nations. He can be reached at\u00a0brojen2303@gmail.com<\/a><\/em>)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post The Manipur Crisis and Pathways to Sustainable Security and Peace PART 3<\/a> first appeared on The Frontier Manipur<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n

Read more \/ Original news source: https:\/\/thefrontiermanipur.com\/strategic-challenges-in-indias-northeast-the-manipur-crisis-and-pathways-to-sustainable-security-and-peace-part-3\/<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/div>\n

By\u00a0Brojen Thangjam CLICK HERE FOR PART 2 Part III Definitional and Conceptual Anchor: Sustainable Security and Peace The challenge of moving from violence to sustainable peace is not unique to Manipur. Contemporary internal conflicts are increasingly fought not only between states and insurgent groups but also between nonstate actors themselves, making horizontal and intercommunal violence [\u2026]<\/p>\n

The post The Manipur Crisis and Pathways to Sustainable Security and Peace PART 3<\/a> first appeared on The Frontier Manipur<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20364,4],"tags":[8842,6417,20540,20375,20369,118,20370,34,319,15447,199,7265],"class_list":["post-960562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-frontiermanipur","category-news","tag-articles","tag-development","tag-ethnic-conflict","tag-exclusive","tag-frontiermanipur","tag-insurgency","tag-lead-stories","tag-manipur","tag-manipur-news","tag-news","tag-peace","tag-violence"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/960562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=960562"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/960562\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":960591,"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/960562\/revisions\/960591"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=960562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=960562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.manipur.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=960562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}