At the very outset, the author of this critical appreciation affirms that the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL)'s report on Manipur is a remarkable labour of commitment. It painstakingly documents voices often silenced by state power and places them on public record. In doing so, it strengthens democracy's conscience and asserts the principle that citizens are witnesses, not bystanders.

Executive summary

The PUCL has produced one of the most comprehensive documents to date on the ongoing violence in Manipur, running over 674 pages in length. The sheer scale of the report, its painstaking documentation and its attempt to hold a mirror to the Indian state make it indispensable.

This appraisal does not summarise every detail, but reflects on the political, social and constitutional implications of the report, while assessing its strengths, limitations and its contribution to public discourse.

At its heart, the PUCL report is an indictment of the Indian state for its dereliction of duty in Manipur. It demonstrates how law enforcement collapsed, how the state government abdicated responsibility and how the Union government remained complicit.

It records in harrowing detail the violence against communities, the destruction of villages and churches, the forced displacement of tens of thousands, and the breakdown of trust between communities.

Yet the report is not merely an archive of suffering – it is also a challenge to India’s democratic conscience. It asks whether the Constitution still protects the marginalised, whether justice is still possible in the face of militarisation and whether communities can live with dignity amidst such engineered chaos.

This critique affirms the report's monumental importance while also reflecting on where it can be sharpened: its engagement with corporate interests, its analysis of the international dimension and its need to connect Manipur’s story to the wider collapse of democracy in India.

Context of the report

PUCL has historically been India's conscience-keeper, documenting human rights abuses where state institutions prefer silence.

In Manipur, PUCL stepped into a space of deliberate neglect. The violence that erupted in May 2023 was not unforeseen; it was the culmination of simmering grievances, political manipulations and deep-seated distrust between communities.

Where mainstream media reduced the conflict to ethnic binaries – Meitei versus Kuki – the PUCL report situates the crisis in its structural and political dimensions. It demonstrates how the state failed in its constitutional mandate, and how institutions that should have protected life and liberty either stood paralysed or became complicit.

By investing in fieldwork, testimonies and legal analysis, PUCL performs the role that should have been performed by commissions of inquiry or parliamentary debate. That in itself is a telling commentary on the degeneration of governance in India.

Major findings of the report

The PUCL report records the crisis in four interlinked domains:

1. Collapse of constitutional order: The state government failed to act as the custodian of law. Administrative neutrality gave way to partisan mobilisation. The Union government remained inert, allowing violence to spiral for weeks before responding inadequately.
2. Targeted violence and displacement: Hundreds were killed, churches destroyed, homes burnt and more than 60,000 people displaced. Camps sprang up in deplorable conditions, with little state support.
3. Militarisation and state complicity: Security forces were either absent, biased, or overwhelmed. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act created an atmosphere of impunity. In many testimonies, survivors described forces watching as mobs destroyed property.
4. Social fragmentation: Communities that once coexisted were driven apart by the violence. Narratives of fear, mistrust and betrayal now dominate. The scale of trauma may take generations to heal.

These findings alone make the PUCL report a historic record. It insists that this violence was enabled by state paralysis and political opportunism.

Critical appreciation

The report is to be valued for three major contributions:

1. Documentation of suffering: The report is exhaustive in its collection of testimonies, photographs and data. It gives voice to survivors who have otherwise been silenced by media neglect or political spin. These testimonies remind us that statistics are not abstractions – they are lives torn apart.
2. Legal and constitutional framing: PUCL consistently grounds its findings in the language of constitutional rights – Article 21's guarantee of life and liberty, Article 25's guarantee of freedom of religion, and India's obligations under international covenants. By doing so, it transforms survivor testimonies into legal claims that demand accountability.
3. Political courage: By naming the failures of both the state and Union governments, PUCL resists the temptation of neutrality. It demonstrates that human rights work is not about “balance” but about siding with the oppressed. In an era where civil society is criminalised, this courage must be commended.

Limitations and blind spots

No report of such magnitude is without its limitations. The critique here is not to diminish PUCL's contribution, but to identify areas where further analysis is needed.

1. Corporate interests and resource politics: While the report notes land, forest and identity politics, it could go deeper into how corporate interests – especially extractive industries and infrastructure projects – shape the conflict. Manipur's resources are not incidental to the violence; they are central to it. Big corporations loom as silent beneficiaries of displaced communities and militarised spaces.
2. International dimensions: The report rightly focuses on domestic accountability, but it underplays the international dimension. Manipur borders Myanmar, a region destabilised by military rule. The spillover of refugees, arms and insurgencies complicates the picture. Additionally, India's obligations under UN conventions should have been more forcefully emphasised.
3. Bifurcation debate: The report documents the ethnic divide but is cautious about addressing the growing demand for the bifurcation of Manipur into separate administrative units. A sharper political analysis of whether bifurcation would deepen or alleviate the crisis is required.
4. Systemic collapse of democracy: While the report critiques the government's failures in Manipur, it could have contextualised them within the wider collapse of democratic institutions across India – the judiciary's complicity, media capture and the criminalisation of dissent. Manipur is not an aberration; it is a symptom of a larger malaise.

Analytical reflection

The PUCL report is not just about Manipur – it is a lens into India's democratic breakdown. The constitutional promise of equality and secularism stands shattered when a state government can preside over such bloodletting without consequence.

The violence in Manipur exposes the fragility of India's federalism. When the Union government chooses selective intervention, communities are left to the mercy of political expediency. The inability of institutions – the courts, the National Human Rights Commission, the Election Commission – to act decisively signals a collapse of checks and balances.

From an analytical standpoint, the report affirms what rights advocates have long warned: that when impunity becomes normalised in Kashmir, Chhattisgarh or the Northeast, it eventually corrodes the entire republic.

Recommendations and commentary

PUCL offers recommendations, including:

• An independent judicial inquiry into the violence
• The rehabilitation and return of displaced communities
• Accountability of security forces
• The restoration of democratic processes and dialogue

These recommendations are sound, but this critique adds:

1. Truth and reconciliation mechanisms: Beyond legal accountability, Manipur needs structured spaces for dialogue and healing.
2. Protection from corporate land grabs: Rehabilitation must include guarantees against displacement for resource exploitation.
3. UN and international oversight: Given the scale of state complicity, international monitoring cannot be ruled out.
4. Rethinking federalism: The crisis should reopen debates on autonomy, self-governance and power-sharing to prevent majoritarian domination.

Conclusion: Why this report matters

The PUCL report is not just a document; it is a call to conscience. It prevents the state from burying its crimes under the rubble of silence. It preserves the voices of the displaced and the dead, ensuring history cannot be rewritten by official narratives.

This appraisal affirms the report's historical significance while urging deeper engagement with certain aspects surrounding Manipur's collapse.

For scholars, activists and policymakers, it is a resource and a challenge. For the people of Manipur, it is an affirmation that their suffering has been witnessed and recorded.

If ignored, this report will become another file gathering dust. If acted upon, it can become a cornerstone for justice, reconciliation and a reimagined democratic order.

Ranjan Solomon is a human rights defender, writer, and recognises that without active interventions and challenges by civil society movements, democracy is at peril.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.