Chingthang Nambam

After the end of the Cold War era, Europe’s Balkan region became one of the first major victims of ethnic conflict. The Balkan conflicts of the 1990s, also known as the Yugoslav Wars, were among the deadliest conflicts in Europe since the Second World War. The Balkan war that began in 1991 resulted in the deaths of more than 140,000 people, with another 100,000 injured. The Yugoslav conflict led to a major humanitarian and refugee crisis.

Many analysts argue that the rise of ethnic nationalism and demands for greater ethnic states were major factors behind the breakup of Yugoslavia into six countries — Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Macedonia. The conflicts, which started in 1991 and lasted until 2001, resulted in the disintegration of Yugoslavia, massive humanitarian crises, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, large-scale displacement, and severe economic damage to the region.

The United Nations has described ethnic conflicts as one of the major threats to international peace and security because of their devastating consequences. The deep-rooted trauma, hatred, and sense of victimhood created by such conflicts remain like buried active landmines, capable of exploding at any moment when someone knowingly or unknowingly steps on them.

Northeast India is a region of multi-ethnic diversity with complex political dynamics. Since the 1990s, ethnic clashes have occurred in different states of the Northeast. Some notable incidents include the Bodo–immigrant population conflicts (1990–2012), Mizo–Bru (Reang) conflict in 1997, Naga–Kuki clashes in 1993, Kuki–Karbi conflict in 2003, Kuki–Paite conflict in 1997, Meitei–Meitei Pangal conflict in 1993, and the recent Manipur conflict of 2023.

Since the 1990s, ethnic conflicts in Northeast India have shifted from broader anti-state insurgency or secessionist movements to intense inter-ethnic conflicts involving competition over homeland demands, greater autonomy, claims and rejection of territories, and political representation.

The consequences so far have been only suffering, polarization of communities, economic damage, and humanitarian crises. Not a single community has truly benefited or achieved lasting gains from these episodes of ethnic conflict.

Some scholars and intellectuals have described Northeast India as a geo-politically strategic hotspot and India’s gateway to Southeast Asia for trade, economy, and other engagements. However, despite this strategic importance, the people of Northeast India continue to face neglect, with the region often treated merely as a strategic zone for larger national interests. Only a few well-connected individuals appear comfortable with decisions, projects, and plans imposed from Delhi.

Most people of the Northeast continue to be devalued and stigmatized for their physical features, culture, and food habits, despite the region’s significant contributions in sports, culture, and national service.

Lastly, in my opinion, lasting peace in the Northeast region requires recognition of the historical background and cultural significance of the Northeastern states, along with a positive and sincere approach by Delhi to resolve long-standing political issues. The Northeast should not be treated as expendable states in India’s geo-political games.

The writer is Publicity Secretary of Uripok Apunba Lup (UAL) and Secretary of Uripok Tourangbam Leikai Welfare Organisation (UTWO).