The volatile situation in Manipur, which was already building up since February, took an extreme turn following the High Court’s directive to pursue a 10-year-old recommendation to grant Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to the Meitei community. Manipur is currently witnessing a streak of violence in the wake of Tribal Solidarity March organised by the All-Tribal Student Union of Manipur, who are protesting against the ST status demand of the Meitei community. The state government has issued a 'shoot at sight' order in extreme cases if all forms of persuasion and warning are exhausted. The Manipur incident has grabbed national headlines as a deterioration of the law-and-order situation but, in fact, its ambit expands much beyond that. The discord between the Meitei and tribal communities is very deep-rooted, fuelled further by asymmetric administrative interference. The ethnic and geographical composition of Manipur has been serving as the hotbed of controversy for decades. Ethnically, the state can be divided into two sections — the non-tribal Meitei community comprising nearly two-thirds of the state’s population and tribal communities making up for the rest. Ironically, in geographical terms, tribal communities are predominantly scattered over the hill districts that account for 90 per cent of the state’s total area — limiting the non-tribal Meitei community primarily in the Imphal Valley which makes up for merely 10 per cent of the state’s total landmass. However, when it comes to political participation, the Meitei community enjoys a clear dominance. Of the total 60 MLAs in the state, 40 come from the Meitei community. Additionally, the perception is that the Meiteis enjoy higher life status, are academically sound, and have their language, Meiteilon, listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. Furthermore, it may also be noted that the chief minister of the state hails from the Meitei community. Everything said and done, the hill-valley divide in the state is only exacerbating on the ground. Irrespective of how legible or illegible they may seem, the concerns of tribal communities — mainly the Nagas and Kuki’s — are driven by an existential fear. Their apprehension is fuelled by a cocktail of factors that indeed seem threatening. In the first place, the government’s eviction drive against alleged ‘encroachers’ has caused ripples among the community. The government alleges that “illegal settlers” from Myanmar have been engaged in clearing the protected forest land for growing opium and cannabis. These “illegal settlers” share ethnic relations with the Kuki tribe of Manipur. Furthermore, the “illegal settlers” is a vague term. Amid pronounced mistrust between the government and the locals, tribals’ apprehension holds water. The procedural rationality of the eviction drives has also come under question. While the government claims to be acting under Manipur Forest Rules, 2021 which empowers forest officers to evict any encroachment on the forest land, the tribals, too, cite certain laws that put a caveat on the government’s power to carry out evictions. The Indian Forest Act of 1927 mandates inquiry into the rights of private people residing on the land. Laws also provide for identification and rehabilitation of evictees. But apart from legal complexities, it is the mistrust of tribal communities on the government that haunts them the most. The High Court’s directive to pursue granting Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to the Meitei community is another cause of concern for the tribals. Tribals see it as an attempt to dilute their own political demands, as well as to embolden the Meitei community to make inroads in the hill districts. Meiteis, on the other hand, claim that they were recognised as a tribe before the merger of the state with the Union of India in 1949. The administration’s response to the entire problem is ostensibly tilted in the favour of Meiteis, making the tribals feel side-lined. The apparent biases of the state is making the discord between the two parties more intense, rather than bridging the mutual gap. It is pertinent that the state administration adopts a more balanced and rational approach to resolve the differences. It should make all-out efforts to gain the trust and confidence of the tribal population to arrive at an amicable solution. Contrarily, a high-handed approach will continue to push the state of affairs in chaos and controversy.