Narrative War and the Role of Media in Manipur Violence

The violence in Manipur has not only been fought on the ground with weapons and displacement - it has also unfolded in a parallel battlefield of narratives. Competing versions of truth, identity, victimhood, and legitimacy have flooded both traditional and digital media spaces, shaping perceptions far beyond the immediate geography of the conflict. In this sense, the crisis is as much a “narrative war” as it is a physical one.

The Rise of Competing Narratives

In deeply divided societies, facts rarely travel alone - they are often accompanied by interpretation, emotion, and intent. In Manipur, different communities have projected sharply contrasting narratives, each emphasising its own suffering while sometimes minimising or dismissing that of others. This selective storytelling has reinforced existing ethnic fault lines, making reconciliation more difficult.

Narratives have been amplified through local media outlets, diaspora networks, and social media platforms, creating echo chambers where people consume only what confirms their pre-existing beliefs. The result is a hardened public opinion landscape where dialogue becomes nearly impossible.

Social Media: Accelerator of Conflict

The role of social media in the Manipur crisis cannot be overstated. Platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, and X have acted as both information highways and misinformation factories. Unverified videos, doctored images, and recycled footage from unrelated conflicts have circulated widely, often triggering panic, anger, and retaliatory sentiments.

In a volatile environment, even a single misleading post can have real-world consequences. Rumours have incited mob violence, deepened mistrust, and escalated tensions faster than authorities can respond. The virality of such content often outpaces fact-checking efforts, leaving damage in its wake.

Mainstream Media: Between Responsibility and Bias

Traditional media - television, newspapers, and digital news portals - carry the responsibility of providing verified, balanced reporting. Yet, coverage of Manipur has often been criticised for either underreporting the crisis or presenting it through a narrow lens.

National media outlets based in metropolitan centres have sometimes failed to capture the complexity of the conflict, reducing it to simplistic binaries. Meanwhile, local media, though closer to the ground realities, may be influenced by community affiliations and pressures, affecting neutrality.

The absence of sustained, nuanced reporting has contributed to a vacuum - one that is quickly filled by partisan narratives and speculation.

The Ethics of Conflict Reporting

Journalism in conflict zones demands more than speed; it requires sensitivity, verification, and ethical judgment. Reporting that sensationalises violence or highlights only one side’s suffering risks inflaming tensions. Conversely, silence or underreporting can create perceptions of neglect and injustice.

Responsible journalism must strive to:

• Verify before publishing
• Provide context, not just events
• Represent multiple perspectives
• Avoid inflammatory language and imagery

These principles are not merely professional standards—they are essential tools for peacebuilding.

Information Blackouts: A Double-Edged Sword

In response to the spread of misinformation, authorities have occasionally imposed internet shutdowns in Manipur. While such measures may temporarily curb the spread of rumours, they also restrict access to reliable information and hinder journalistic work.

Information blackouts can create an environment where speculation thrives. When people are cut off from verified news, they often rely on word-of-mouth or outdated information, which can be even more dangerous.

The Way Forward: Reclaiming Truth

The narrative war in Manipur highlights a critical truth: control over information is power. To move toward peace, there must be a collective effort to reclaim factual, balanced, and humane storytelling.

Media organisations must invest in conflict-sensitive reporting, fact-checking mechanisms, and on-ground journalism. Civil society and community leaders should promote media literacy, helping people distinguish between credible information and propaganda.

Most importantly, audiences themselves must adopt a critical mindset—questioning sources, verifying claims, and resisting the urge to share unverified content.

When Media Became Part of the Conflict

1. Allegations of Selective Reporting by National Media

One of the most persistent criticisms from communities in Manipur has been that mainland media outlets were slow to respond or selective in highlighting atrocities.

For weeks after violence erupted in May 2023, many local voices argued that major TV networks and Delhi-based newspapers failed to give sustained attention to the crisis. When coverage did increase, some groups claimed it focused disproportionately on certain incidents while overlooking others.

This led to a perception that the suffering of some communities was being “prioritised,” turning journalism into a perceived instrument of narrative imbalance rather than truth.

2. The Viral Video Controversy and Media Amplification

A turning point came when a disturbing video showing the public humiliation of women went viral nationwide. While the exposure led to national outrage and legal action, it also triggered sharp criticism from communities within Manipur.

Some argued:

• The video was months old, raising questions about why it surfaced when it did
• Media coverage sensationalised the incident without adequate local context
• It reinforced a single dominant narrative, overshadowing other reported atrocities

Social media platforms like X and Facebook became battlegrounds where competing claims about the video’s timing, authenticity, and framing intensified mistrust - not only between communities but also toward the media itself.

3. Accusations Against Local Media Houses

While national media faced criticism for distance and simplification, local media outlets were not spared either. Different ethnic groups accused regional newspapers and channels of:

• Reflecting community-specific biases
• Publishing unverified casualty figures
• Using language that subtly favoured one side over another

In highly polarised environments, even minor editorial choices - headline wording, image selection, or omission of details—were interpreted as deliberate bias. This made neutrality extremely difficult to maintain and even harder to perceive.

4. Misinformation and the Burden on Journalists

Several instances of misleading or recycled content circulated widely during the conflict—some videos were later found to be from unrelated regions or older events. When such content was picked up or insufficiently verified before reporting, it led to backlash against media organisations.

Messaging platforms like WhatsApp played a major role in spreading such material, often faster than journalists could fact-check. When corrections came later, they rarely reached the same audience, leaving lasting damage to credibility.

5. Protests and Public Distrust

There were also moments when sections of the public openly protested media narratives. Journalists were questioned, confronted, or denied access in certain areas due to perceived bias. In some cases, communities demanded that specific narratives be corrected or withdrawn.

This reflects a deeper crisis: the media is no longer seen as a neutral observer but as an active participant in shaping conflict realities.

A Crisis of Trust

These incidents point to a broader issue - the erosion of trust. In Manipur, every report is now read not just for information, but for intent. Audiences increasingly ask:

• Whose story is being told?
• What is being left out?
• Why now?

Such scepticism, while sometimes justified, also creates an environment where even accurate reporting is doubted.

The Way Forward: Restoring Credibility

To navigate such deeply fractured environments, media must go beyond conventional reporting:

• Hyper-local verification before publishing sensitive content
• Conflict-sensitive journalism training
• Transparent corrections and accountability mechanisms
• Inclusion of multiple community voices in every major report

At the same time, communities must recognise that not every imperfection in reporting is malicious. The space between error and propaganda must be carefully understood.

Conclusion

The experience of Manipur shows that in modern conflicts, perception can be as powerful as reality. Media, whether intentionally or not, shapes that perception - and is therefore inevitably drawn into the conflict itself.

The criticism faced by the media during the Manipur violence is not merely a professional challenge; it is a warning. When trust in information collapses, truth becomes just another casualty of war.