Projects, not politics: Why Manipur needed both a hammer and a hand

I watched the coverage of Prime Minister Modi's visit to Manipur with the uneasy attention of someone who believes that policy must balance symbolism with substance. The headline — "projects, not politics" — captured a deliberate pivot: infrastructure and development placed at the centre of a peace narrative. But beneath that simple formula lie difficult human realities that projects alone cannot fix.

What the visit tried to do

On its face the visit was an act of reset. The Prime Minister inaugurated and flagged off a slate of infrastructure initiatives — projects reportedly worth around Rs 8,000 crore — and used the podium to call for healing between communities Projects, not politics: PM Modi resets Manipur pitch. I read that through a practical lens: rebuilding roads, bridges and public services is how a state signals normalcy and restores economic life.

This was paired with carefully calibrated outreach — gestures to both Meitei and Kuki groups and an avoidance of inflammatory rhetoric — which reads as an attempt to create space for reconciliation while the security situation remains fragile In Imphal, Modi invokes Manipuri identity, calls it key to India’s culture, sports, defence.

There is strategy in the timing too. The visit came after a perceptible lull in large-scale violence, a window that lets the conversation move from crisis containment to future-building. That quiet can be an invitation to invest in institutions and services that make everyday life possible again (markets, schools, hospitals). As reporters noted, the speeches were consistent: peace for progress, infrastructure as bridge, outreach to displaced people and youth Key takeaways from PM’s Manipur speeches: Pitch for peace, unity; infra push; outreach to displaced.

Why projects can be powerful — and why they are not enough

Infrastructure matters. It changes the calculus of daily life. Roads link markets; power and water restores livelihoods; a hospital can mean the difference between life and death. Projects create immediate incentives for cooperation and can lower the practical barriers that harden separatist instincts.

But there are limits:

• Deep-rooted ethnic tensions and territorial questions are not engineering problems. They are political and psychological, shaped by history, memory, and grievances. An invisible fracture remains where trust should be built.
• Tens of thousands continue to live in relief camps. The Indian Express reported that over 58,000 people were still displaced and reliant on relief — a stark reminder that normal-looking inaugurations do not instantly translate into restored lives ‘I am with you, Govt of India is with you’: In Manipur, PM’s message as he seeks to bridge hills-valley divide.
• Political arrangements — questions of autonomy, administration, and long-term governance structures — remain contested. Some groups continue to press for structural solutions such as separate administrative arrangements, and those demands cannot be papered over with tar and steel alone Kuki-Zo Council to PM Modi: ‘Separate UT with legislature must for Manipur solution’.

In other words: projects can change incentives and create shared material interest, but reconciliation needs truth, justice and political imagination.

The paradox of performance and permanence

There is a political reality that I cannot pretend is irrelevant: high-profile visits and megaprojects are also performances of authority. They reassure some and alienate others. The danger is when the performance becomes a substitute for the patient, mundane work of conflict resolution.

I find myself asking: will these projects be maintained equitably? Will economic corridors benefit both valley and hill, or will development deepen perceptions of capture? Will displaced people be involved in planning their resettlement, or will ‘rehabilitation’ become another top-down exercise? The answers to those questions determine whether this is a one-off reset or a foundational pivot.

Measured optimism — with a shelf life

I am quietly encouraged by the willingness to weld together development and outreach. Economic incentives can create new loci of cooperation. When people commute across the same bridges, trade at the same markets, and send their children to the same schools, the texture of politics changes.

Yet optimism must be disciplined. Lasting peace will require:

• Political solutions that honestly engage with the territorial and identity questions at the heart of the conflict.
• A credible, time-bound plan to rehabilitate and integrate the tens of thousands who remain displaced.
• Local ownership: projects designed with community participation, not merely imposed from above.
• Institutional reforms that make local governance more inclusive, responsive and resilient.

Without these, infrastructure risks becoming a beautiful shell around an unhealed wound.

Final thought

I believe governments should use every lever at their disposal — development, dialogue, accountability — when confronting fractures inside a polity. The Manipur visit was a strategic use of one of those levers: it reset the conversation toward projects and hope. But if projects are to translate into peace, they must be accompanied by sustained political engagement that addresses the root causes of mistrust.

I remain cautiously hopeful. Progress without justice is brittle; justice without progress is hollow. The real test will be whether the projects of today become scaffolding for a more inclusive Manipur tomorrow.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh