From Pahalgam to 'Zalengam': The Ripple Effect of Indo-Pak Tensions

The April 22 attack in Pahalgam, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians, has once again intensified tensions between India and Pakistan. In response, the Indian government has launched ‘Operation Sindoor,’ targeting what it describes as terrorist infrastructure across nine locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir. While India maintains that the operation is non-escalatory in nature, Pakistan, however, has issued a strong military response. The situation has escalated further, with both nations reportedly using drones and missiles in cross-border exchanges.

But to the surprise of many, India and Pakistan have come to a ceasefire agreement. However, given their turbulent history, it would come as no surprise if the agreement is violated. Therefore, the future remains uncertain—we can only wait and watch.

The continued tension and escalation of cross-border exchanges carry the grave risk of economic devastation, as well as domestic, regional, and global instability, given that both countries are nuclear armed.

Though Manipur seems geographically distant from the current site of conflict, its ripple effects are being felt in various ways.

The Shifting Security Focus: A Growing Threat to Minority Kuki-Zo Safety
One of the most immediate consequences of a potential war with Pakistan was the strategic shift in the national security focus. It inevitably draws the central government’s military, intelligence, and political attention toward the India-Pakistan border. This diversion of focus could prove detrimental to conflict-ridden states like Manipur. Such a shift could create a dangerous security vacuum, where relative peace is currently being maintained under President’s Rule with the heavy deployment of Central Forces. A reduced enforcement presence may embolden local militias like Arambai Tenggol and Meitei Leepun, potentially triggering a resurgence of violence.

This poses a grave risk to the weaker minority communities, particularly the Kuki-Zo population in Manipur. Under President’s Rule, the state has witnessed a fragile semblance of peace, largely due to the presence of central forces acting as a deterrent. In its absence there is a legitimate fear that elements within the majority Meitei population could resume hostilities.

This fear is legit because, even during the peak of the Manipur crisis, the central government was widely criticized for its perceived inaction and delayed response. Now, in the context of a broader national security emergency, the fear is that the government may again find a justifiable rationale to further sideline the Manipur issue and the security of tribal minority Kuki-Zo people.

Fading Headlines to Fading Political Momentum?
Secondly, the shift in national attention is already evident in the media narrative, where almost all news channels in India are covering the unfolding India-Pakistan conflict 24x7. This media eclipse, combined with the government’s diverted focus, could delay or even derail the political momentum of the ongoing negotiations and interventions aimed at a long-lasting solution in the state of Manipur. Further critical discussions—such as those surrounding the demand for a separate administration—may be sidelined.

The Risk of Labeling as Anti-National
Another concerning consequence of a wartime environment is the potential crackdown on internal dissent under the pretext of national security. In such a time, movements advocating for greater autonomy—such as the demand for a separate administration in Manipur—may be misconceived and increasingly be viewed and branded as “anti-national” or divisive. The current political dispensation is well-known for its fondness to this. Moreover, wartime rhetoric often gives rise to heightened hyper-nationalism, shrinking the democratic space for negotiation, protest, or alternative political expression. This risks the silencing of legitimate grievances of the Kuki-Zo population.

A clear example of the growing crackdown on dissent can be seen in the recent banning of the news platform The Wire across India. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued a directive under the IT Act, 2000, blocking the platform, which is known for its investigative journalism and critical stance toward the government. The Wire has often been at the forefront of holding power accountable, providing independent and factual reporting that sometimes challenges government narratives. Its closure highlights the increasing suppression of alternative voices and critical media outlets, which is becoming more pronounced in the current climate of heightened national security concerns.

Movement by Stealth: The Way Forward
While it is essential to keep in mind the immediate external national security threat, it is equally important to continue engaging diplomatically with the central government. This will ensure a new lease of life to our legitimate grievances, and our issues do not fade from the national agenda. It is crucial to demonstrate both seriousness and clarity of vision during this period of heightened tension and potential negligence.

The current conflict between India and Pakistan is also a stark reminder of how historical grievances, if left unaddressed, can erupt into violence with wide-ranging consequences. This dynamic has clear parallels with the case of the Manipur crisis. Though distinct in nature, the conflict in Manipur also stems from deep-seated social, political, and historical grievances. If neglected, these unresolved issues risk festering into renewed unrest, threatening internal stability now and in the future.

Lastly, it is important to remain alert and cautious for any eventuality. While it is vital to pursue peaceful and constructive solutions, engaging in activities that can be portrayed as a threat by the state or media during wartime should be avoided. As of now, we should adopt ‘movement by stealth.’

(The writer is a Research Scholar at Dept. Of Political Science, University of Hyderabad)