The Manipur Crisis and the Left Media’s Blind Spot

THE MANIPUR CRISIS, now entering its third year, is both one of India’s most reported and underreported internal conflicts. Ethnic violence, mass displacement, armed groups, and a deeply fractured political climate have come to define this northeastern state. Yet the national conversation, especially as shaped by segments of India’s Left-leaning media, has often failed to capture its full complexity. At worst, this coverage has simplified a deeply layered crisis in ways that undermine the ethical foundations of responsible journalism.

A familiar pattern has emerged. From regional stringers to national editorial desks in Delhi, the narrative tayloring around Manipur is often filtered through ideological lenses, particularly from a broadly Left-liberal viewpoint from a seemingly Tier 1 environment. Certain facts are omitted, language is applied selectively, and a subtle hierarchy of victimhood is constructed. The result is not just flawed coverage but a distortion of reality that reflects broader institutional blind spots in Indian journalism. Part of this stems from a longstanding ignorance, of both the state’s and the region’s history and its people.

Let’s start with an honest admission: bias exists. Institutional bias. Government bias. Community bias. But journalism’s job is to resist these forces, not to yield to them.

Media Fatigue, Selective Outrage

The protracted nature of the conflict has understandably led to what some call “crisis fatigue.” But fatigue cannot justify selective outrage. For instance, when armed valley-based leaders are arrested, the coverage in some national outlets is framed as law taking its course. Yet when Kuki-Zo militants or armed groups are apprehended in Kangpokpi or Churachandpur, the same outlets often frame the events through a lens of victimhood and protest, frequently without interrogating facts or legal context.

Language matters. Terms like “self-defence,” “marginalised communities,” and “majoritarian aggression” are used, but inconsistently. Violence by Kuki-Zo groups is often contextualised as defensive. The Meitei/Meetei response, on the other hand, is typically framed as aggressive, stripped of context or historical grievances. This disparity doesn’t just reflect editorial judgment, it actively skews public understanding across India and beyond.

The Language of Bias

Coverage from Left-leaning media outlets has leaned heavily on loaded terms –“ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” often without the evidentiary rigor such language demands. These are not neutral words; they carry legal and political weight. Their careless deployment diminishes the credibility of the press and reveals who, exactly, these narratives are designed to serve.

Consider the events of May 3, 2023. The violence that broke out in Imphal and Churachandpur and the subsequent displacement of Kuki-Zo families was tragic, and real. But so was the brutal expulsion of Meitei/Meetei families from Moreh, Churachandpur, and Kangpokpi. While the Kuki-Zo insist they can never return to Imphal, the Meiteis express similar despair about returning to their former homes in Kuki-Zo-dominated places in Moreh, Churachandpur, and Kangpokpi. Yet only one side of this displacement is consistently amplified in the national press.

Flattening a Complex Conflict

Voices from Imphal’s civil society, valley-based human rights defenders, and nonpartisan observers are frequently dismissed as “majoritarian” or “Centre-Right”, and therefore suspect. Meanwhile, Churachandpur is often romanticised as a bastion of resistance, despite troubling reports of militant mobilisation and internal media control. Indeed, local media outlets on both sides report along stark ideological lines, reflecting the fractured reality of conflict zones. But more often than not, national Left-leaning media journalists often treat one side’s version as the full truth.

Editorial Decisions, or Editorial Silence?

Having worked in national newsrooms, I understand the structural challenges journalists face: space constraints, editorial priorities, tight deadlines. But when entire narratives are curated to fit ideological expectations, the failure is no longer individual, it is institutional.

Some national outlets have indeed attempted more balanced coverage. But others rely heavily on what is shown to them, rather than what is deliberately hidden. For example, when a reporter visits a village bunker and sees volunteers with single- or double-barreled guns, they may assume limited armament. But locals know that high-caliber weapons are often hidden when journalists are around. This is true on both sides. The Meiteis and the Kuki-Zo groups are heavily armed. Footage circulating from both groups confirms this, though the abundance of smartphones in the valley often gives the false impression that only one side bears arms to the national news readers.

Parachute journalism, when reporters fly in, see what they’re allowed to see, and fly out, produces these distortions. And the consequences are dangerous.

Also read | Northeast India Demands Apology from National Media Over Indore Couple Case Coverage

The WhatsApp Echo Chamber

A particularly telling allegation: many national Left-leaning journalists are part of Kuki-Zo WhatsApp networks but are absent from similar Meitei/Meetei channels. That digital asymmetry, if true, says more than any single article ever could.

This isn’t a plea for false equivalence. It’s a demand for fairness, accuracy, and basic journalistic balance. Especially in a conflict as volatile and sensitive as Manipur’s, ethical reporting is not optional, it is essential.

Misreporting the Hills

Yes, the Kuki-Zo population is spread across the hill districts. But national media outlets often portray the entire Manipur Hills as Kuki-Zo territory. This is factually incorrect. For example, protests called by Kuki-Zo groups occur only in select areas like Churachandpur, parts of Kangpokpi, and Moreh — a clear indication of their jurisdiction and dominance limitation, regardless of what national media thinks or say. Do note that these protest called by Kuki-Zo groups do not take place in hill districts like Ukhrul, Kamjong, Senapati, Tamenglong, Noney, or Chandel, where Nagas, Gorkhas, and other communities reside especially in Kangpokpi district. To generalise all hill territory as “Kuki-Zo land” is not only misleading, it is far from truth. Lesson here: know the geography, history and the people who lives there and cut through the fog.

What We Lose

When media institutions abandon balance, the damage is not just reputational. It is moral. In Manipur, that credibility has already eroded. Communities now turn to their own echo chambers, X handles, YouTube channels, WhatsApp forwards, because they no longer trust Delhi-based newsrooms to represent them fairly.

And yet, one fact remains stark: in their struggle for narrative dominance, the Kuki-Zo community has strategically aligned with national Left media. That alignment has yielded visibility, but not necessarily truth.

There is still time to get it right. But that begins with listening to all voices from both sides, including the third critical element, the Nagas, not just the ones that fit the narrative.

This one X exploit of Pradyot, without giving a political colour, precisely sums up what I have in mind.

“Says the Home Minister of Mizoram -but If Mizoram HM says it then theek hai if we say this then we are termed communal by so called intellectuals.”

Says the Home Minister of Mizoram -but If Mizoram HM says it then theek hai if we say this then we are termed communal by so called intellectuals pic.twitter.com/VmfP9HImX3

— Pradyot_Tripura (@PradyotManikya) June 29, 2025