Two militants among six arrested in Manipur

The apprehension of an active cadre from the banned Prepak (G-5) in Manipur on December 24, 2025, serves as a stark reminder of the persistent internal security challenges plaguing India's North-Eastern states. This seemingly isolated incident is, in fact, a small piece of a much larger, complex tapestry woven with threads of historical grievances, ethnic identities, economic disparities, and geopolitical dynamics.

To truly grasp the significance, we must delve into the background context. Manipur, like many other states in the Northeast, has a long history of insurgency stemming from various factors. Post-independence, the region felt a sense of alienation and neglect from the Indian mainland. The merger of Manipur into India in 1949, initially as a Part C state, and later its delayed grant of full statehood in 1972, fueled sentiments of perceived loss of sovereignty among certain sections of the populace, particularly the dominant Meitei community in the Imphal Valley. This sentiment, combined with issues of economic underdevelopment, unemployment, and perceived cultural imposition, created fertile ground for the emergence of various militant outfits.

PREPAK, or the People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak, was one such group, formed in 1977 with the stated objective of achieving an independent socialist state of Kangleipak (the ancient name for Manipur). Over the decades, factionalism led to the emergence of splinter groups, such as PREPAK (G-5), each with slightly varied ideologies or operational strategies, but all sharing the core demand for greater autonomy or secession. These groups have historically engaged in armed struggle against the state, often resorting to extortion, kidnappings, and attacks on security forces and civilians, thereby creating an environment of fear and instability.

In this particular incident, the key stakeholders involved are multifaceted. On one side, we have the Indian government and the Manipur state government, whose primary responsibility is to maintain law and order, ensure national security, and foster development. Supporting them are the security forces, including the Indian Army, Assam Rifles, and the Manipur Police, who are at the forefront of counter-insurgency operations. Their role involves intelligence gathering, patrolling, and apprehending militants like the one from PREPAK (G-5). On the other side are the militant groups themselves, like PREPAK (G-5), who represent a challenge to the state's authority. Finally, and crucially, there is the local populace, often caught in the crossfire, enduring the socio-economic impact of insurgency, and sometimes coerced or sympathetic to the militant cause due to historical grievances or lack of alternatives.

This incident matters for India on several fronts. Firstly, it underscores the persistent internal security threat posed by insurgent groups, challenging India's territorial integrity and sovereignty. The resources diverted to counter-insurgency operations could otherwise be used for development. Secondly, instability in border states like Manipur directly impacts India's strategic 'Act East' Policy, which aims to enhance economic and strategic ties with Southeast Asian nations. A volatile border region undermines efforts to build connectivity, trade, and regional cooperation. Thirdly, the cycle of violence and instability severely hampers economic development, discourages investment, and leads to brain drain, perpetuating the very conditions that fuel insurgency. Socially, it fragments communities and impedes the realization of basic human rights and opportunities for citizens.

From a constitutional and legal perspective, the government's actions against such groups are guided by specific provisions. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, is a crucial legislation under which organizations like PREPAK are declared 'unlawful associations' and subsequently 'terrorist organizations', enabling stringent legal action against their members. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958, often invoked in 'disturbed areas' like parts of Manipur, grants special powers to the armed forces for maintaining public order, though it remains a contentious issue due to concerns over human rights violations. Furthermore, Article 371C of the Constitution provides special provisions for Manipur, including the formation of a committee of the Legislative Assembly comprising members from the Hill Areas, aimed at addressing regional disparities and ensuring equitable development, though its effectiveness in fully curbing insurgency is debated.

Looking ahead, the future implications suggest a continued multi-pronged approach by the Indian state. This will involve intelligence-led counter-insurgency operations to neutralize threats, alongside sustained efforts for economic development, infrastructure building, and good governance to address the root causes of alienation. Dialogue with willing groups, coupled with firm action against those who refuse to abjure violence, will remain central. Cooperation with neighboring countries, particularly Myanmar, to tackle cross-border sanctuaries used by these groups, is also vital. Ultimately, achieving lasting peace in Manipur and the wider Northeast requires a delicate balance between security imperatives and addressing the legitimate aspirations and grievances of its diverse communities, ensuring their full integration into the national mainstream while respecting their unique identities.