Two Years of Violence: Manipur's Future is Still Uncertain
Two years have passed since violence erupted in Manipur, and despite having two governments of the same party in power – one at the centre and one in the state – peace remains elusive. Over this time, thousands have been displaced, hundreds have died, and countless families continue to suffer loss and uncertainty. Homes and villages lie in ruins, and the pain of losing loved ones still haunts many.
The Wire travelled to Manipur to understand what has changed on the ground – if anything at all. In this report, journalist Yaqut Ali brings you voices from both sides of the conflict and a firsthand look at a region still grappling with fire, silence, and an uncertain future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
10 hours ago
- India Today
Supreme Court plea challenges Sariska Tiger Reserve boundary changes
An application has been filed before the Supreme Court against the Central Empowered Committee (CEC)'s recommendation suggesting approval of rationalisation of the boundaries of Sariska Tiger Reserve, the sanctuary and its Critical Tiger Habitat (CTH) in Rajasthan. The plea comes against the backdrop of protests by enviornmentalists agains the proposed boundary changes. The application, exclusively accessed by India Today, has been filed in a suo moto case on the issue of 'Management of the Sariska Tiger Reserve and the temple situated therein'.advertisementAccording to the applicant, the impact of the proposal for rationalisation on the mining activities which have been halted pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court has been completely ignored by the committee. The application has called the CEC's recommendation lackadaisical and ill-formed, arguing that it is in the teeth of the directions passed by the Supreme Court as well as the mandate under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, application filed by advocate Vishal Sinha has argued that despite the Supreme Court's order dated December 11, 2024, which directed the committee to consider the objections of environmental experts, no public consultation was carried has been argued that non-compliance with the order has been sought to be justified by a misconstrued interpretation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, application states that as the Supreme Court had directed mandatory public consultation in addition to the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, there has been abject failure on the part of the committee, the CEC and the State of Rajasthan to comply with the application further states that the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, while approving the proposal for rationalisation on June 26, 2025, noted that the Tiger Conservation Authority has approved the same. However, no proof of such approval by the National Tiger Conservation Authority has been applicant has argued that it is highly doubtful that the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) has approved the proposal for rationalisation, since the minutes of the meeting of the NTCA, held on April 18, 2025, do not disclose any approval of the proposal for rationalisation or any discussion in relation to to the applicant, an identically phrased common explanation was given for all the 23 sites recommended for removal by using identical language which loosely translates as, 'tigers do not roam in the said area, and it is not a suitable area'. Further, some of the sites were removed by noting that there is human interference in the said area and that there are revenue and mining areas have noted that the approval of the proposal for rationalisation would lead to directly benefitting over 50 marble and dolomite mines that were closed following orders of the Supreme Court due to their proximity to the present submitted application has sought the following directions from the top court:Reject the recommendations made by the Central Empowered Committee in its report dated July 22, that no plans for rationalising the Critical Tiger Habitat or of the Sariska Tiger Reserve will be given effect without the permission of the Supreme that any plans for rationalising the Critical Tiger Habitat or of the Sariska Tiger Reserve will be conducted in terms of SC's earlier that no mining activities will be permitted in the prohibited zone of the Critical Tiger Habitat of the Sariska Tiger Reserve, in terms of the directions of SC.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Rajasthan#Supreme Court
Hindustan Times
12 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
How to write laws of war for a wicked world
WHEN lists are compiled of great military commanders, Gustavus Adolphus, Sweden's king from 1611 to 1632, is often near the top. Innovation and daring were his watchwords, and had to be. Aged 16 when he took the throne, he inherited a realm embroiled in three separate wars. Sweden has 'no friends' and 'all our neighbours are our enemies', the teenage king bleakly wrote. It was a fearful, blood-soaked time. Institutions that once claimed universal moral authority—notably the papacy and the Holy Roman Empire—were crumbling under assault from Protestant rulers and rebels. To survive this age of disorder the young king put his faith in the new. Leading his own armies into the field (and eventually dying in battle), he vanquished stronger opponents with the help of advanced weapons and fast-moving mobile tactics, prompting some historians to dub him 'the father of modern warfare'. He took new-fangled ideas into combat, too. By the grim standards of his day, Gustavus Adolphus stood out for the strict discipline and (relative) martial restraint that he imposed on his troops. In this, no papal edict guided Sweden's king, a Protestant intent on making his country one of Europe's great powers. Instead he was following both his conscience and arguments set out in a work that—it is said—he kept under his pillow while on campaign: 'On the Law of War and Peace'. This remarkable treatise was published in 1625 by Hugo Grotius, a Dutch lawyer, historian and poet. For more than a century, Grotius has been hailed as 'the father of international law', for setting out detailed, universal rules to determine when wars are just and lawful. Strange to say, the image of an ambitious warrior-king studying Grotius in his tent should offer some comfort four centuries later. Once again the world is entering an age of disorder. Multilateral institutions founded after the second world war, from the United Nations to international courts that hear charges of crimes against humanity, are losing their authority. The final fate of the post-1945 system will not be known for some time. That is no reason to wait, resignedly, for the world to slide into anarchy and unconstrained violence. If new arguments are needed to limit harms committed by men of violence, the past is a good place to look. The Telegram has praised Grotius before, and makes no apologies for revisiting his wisdom now. He stands out for his ability to craft arguments that appeal to the powerful, reflecting his own contacts with kings and their counsellors as a diplomatic envoy. He also worked at an important turning-point in intellectual thought. Medieval theologians and church leaders focused on lawful and unlawful reasons for going to war. Sovereigns and soldiers fighting 'just' wars faced few limits on their conduct, while opponents without justice on their side had no inherent right to use force at all. But a problem lurked in that approach. Grotius lived at a time of brutal, often sectarian wars, in which all sides were sure they had God's blessing and were fighting for a just cause. He offered a solution. During a war, he wrote, identical rights and obligations should apply to each belligerent, who should fight as if they were upholding justice. That advanced his real aim: the crafting of laws to govern the conduct of war. Grotius would have been startled by such modern bodies as the International Criminal Court, which claim the right to haul errant generals or political leaders into the dock. Outsiders are ill-qualified to judge the limits of just war or self-defence, he wrote, calling it 'altogether preferable' to leave such decisions 'to the scruples of the belligerents rather than to have recourse to the judgments of others.' He believed that necessity could justify harsh acts, such as the bombarding of a besieged city. That did not make him an apologist for war crimes. Acts which do not hasten a war's end can never be justified, he counselled, including rape and the wanton killing of women and children. Crucially, he argued that using gratuitous and reckless cruelty, for instance during the taking of cities and towns, is both morally repugnant and also counter-productive. Instead he counsels 'moderation' and the sparing of all enemy property not needed for the war effort, as well as precious assets such as fruit trees used for food. In his telling such forbearance is wise because it avoids inducing 'despair' in an enemy, which can be turned into a 'great weapon' against an attacker. A man of his time, Grotius applied different standards to European and non-European rulers. Critics grumble that he used his legal skills as an apologist for colonial expansion by the Dutch East India Company. Still, his moral arguments about the laws of war rested on universal foundations. People are social beings, he says, with such a 'desire for society' that their love for humanity trumps the selfish pursuit of advantage seen among lesser beasts. When flawed rules are better than no laws For good or ill, self-interest has inspired rules regulating violence for millennia. In her fine book 'The Rule of Laws: A 4,000 Year Quest to Order the World', Fernanda Pirie, a professor of the anthropology of law at Oxford University, writes that the biblical injunction 'an eye for an eye' is not a demand for revenge. It is, she suggests, a law designed to define the limits of acceptable retaliation, with clear echoes in still-older Mesopotamian legal codes that also sought to prevent blood feuds from escalating. Her book notes how ancient rulers sought legitimacy by writing laws. The oldest laws found by archaeologists, dating from 2112BC, were proclaimed by Ur-Namma, an 'ambitious military leader' who had just toppled a ruthless warlord. 'I did not deliver the orphan to the rich. I did not deliver the widow to the mighty,' he boasted. This is not to suggest that ancient honour codes are a substitute for the Geneva Conventions. It is an appeal to be practical. To protect the weak, convince the strong that rules serve them, too.
Mint
3 days ago
- Mint
India-US trade deal: 4 implications for Indian stock market from Trump's 25% tariff salvo
India, driven by the principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—'The world is one family'—aims to strike mutually beneficial agreements, including with the United States. Rooted in ancient Indian philosophy and often referenced by PM Modi, the phrase reflects India's commitment to global unity and shared responsibility. However, this ethos is being tested by the ongoing tariff dispute with the U.S., particularly concerning agricultural access. As noted in our July 11 article in The Mint titled 'What Tariff?! The $100 Billion Question,' the core issue lies in protecting India's vulnerable small-scale farmers. Unlike U.S. agribusinesses, Indian farmers lack subsidies and scale, and over 60% of the population still depends on agriculture. Opening the market to heavily subsidised U.S. products could be economically damaging. Cultural factors also play a role—many U.S. dairy products contain animal fats, which conflict with dietary norms in largely vegetarian India. Simply put, caving on these fronts would be economic and cultural 'hara-kiri.' The newly imposed 25% U.S. tariffs on Indian exports (starting August 1) are projected to trim India's GDP growth from 6.5% to around 6.25%—a 2.5% to 3% drag. While this will impact sectors like textiles, pharma, electronics, agri-products, and machinery, the broader effect is limited. Only 2% of Corporate India's earnings are at risk, as 85% of the economy remains domestically driven. India is actively pursuing alternate trade avenues, including deals with the UK and EU, to offset potential export losses to the U.S. India's longstanding defense relationship with Russia—still its top arms supplier—remains a sticking point for Washington, which would prefer India buy American weapons. Yet India continues to follow a multi-aligned strategy rooted in sovereign interest. U.S. Tariff Details: 25% tariffs affect ~$87B of Indian goods exports (approx. 20% of total exports and 2.5% of GDP), particularly in key manufacturing and agri sectors. Offsetting Factors: INR depreciation could help mitigate the impact by boosting competitiveness. Global Effects: Higher tariffs and a narrowing U.S. trade deficit may slow global growth, adding deflationary pressure unless surplus countries like China and Germany raise domestic demand. Capital Flows: Higher tariffs may trigger FII outflows, adding volatility amid already weak domestic demand. Policy Watch: The RBI may need to consider monetary easing to counterbalance the external drag. Sectoral Impact: Pharma, auto ancillaries, cables, and industrials face direct pressure; SMID caps and domestic cyclicals could be hit harder due to capital flight. Potential Bright Spot: IT may benefit from sustained INR weakness, aided by low valuations—but sentiment remains key. India remains firm in defending its economic and cultural interests, even as it seeks equitable trade partnerships. In the near term, markets are likely to remain volatile. A cautious investment stance is advised. (The author is CIO-Equities, LGT Wealth) Disclaimer: This story is for educational purposes only. The views and recommendations made above are those of individual analysts or broking companies, and not of Mint. We advise investors to check with certified experts before making any investment decisions.
