Manipur’s prolonged crisis has largely been viewed through the lens of violence, ethnic tensions, political disagreements and security challenges. However, alongside the physical conflict, another battle has emerged in the digital space—one fought through social media platforms, fake identities, edited videos, misleading captions and coordinated online campaigns. In recent years, digital investigations have raised concerns about attempts by foreign-linked social media networks to exploit developments in Manipur. The concern is not about legitimate criticism of government policies or democratic expression, but about the use of fabricated information, impersonation and coordinated amplification to create distorted perceptions of events in the state.
In such a fragile situation, false information can spread rapidly. A fake video, an edited photograph or a misleading post can trigger anger within minutes. It can make people believe that a particular community, the government or security forces have committed an act that never occurred. Once such claims spread through WhatsApp, Facebook, X and short-video platforms, correcting the misinformation becomes increasingly difficult.
Recent investigations have raised concerns about foreign-linked social media networks targeting conflict-sensitive regions, including Manipur. In February 2026, the Digital Forensics, Research and Analytics Center identified five X accounts—ManipurPost5, ZardSiGana, InsiderWB, Ireima Sen and Kussikhuelafn—which it said were spreading misleading narratives about Manipur.
According to the investigation, these accounts portrayed local developments as evidence of rebellion and institutional collapse. Four of the five accounts were reportedly withheld in India during the investigation. The account ManipurPost5 attracted particular attention. DFRAC (Digital Forensics, Research, Analytics and Cyber) reported that the account had previously operated under another identity before being changed into a profile that appeared to focus on Manipur. Such identity changes can potentially make a foreign-linked account appear local. The use of regional names, local photographs and familiar language may persuade users that an account belongs to a journalist, activist or resident of Manipur.
In August 2026, DFRAC also reported that accounts such as @ManipurPost5, @MANIPURTI, @FreeManipur_ and @TheNewManipur were connected to a wider online network discussing instability in India’s Northeast. This does not establish that every post from these accounts is false. However, repeated messaging, similar language, suspicious account histories and connections to foreign-based profiles can be indicators of possible coordinated influence activity.
Another major challenge is the use of old, fragmented or unrelated videos to promote selective narratives. In August, DFRAC debunked a video that was circulated as evidence of Indian Army brutality against women in Manipur. The footage was actually from protests against the Ken-Betwa Link Project in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, and had no connection to the Manipur conflict. Such misinformation can generate an immediate emotional reaction. People may share a video before checking when or where it was recorded. By the time the claim is verified as false, it may already have reached thousands of viewers. A similar example emerged on 18 February 2026, when the government’s PIB Fact Check unit rejected a viral claim that “Manipur freedom fighters” had captured an Indian Air Force helicopter and forced its personnel to escape. The agency stated that no such incident had occurred.
Such claims can create the perception that the state has lost control. They can also generate fear among civilians and undermine public trust in security agencies. At the same time, allegations of foreign misinformation should not be used to overlook Manipur’s genuine and deeply rooted problems. The conflict has complex local causes, including ethnic mistrust, displacement, land and identity disputes, political disagreements, armed groups and allegations of administrative failure.
The response must therefore remain careful and balanced. Authorities should investigate suspected foreign influence operations while protecting legitimate criticism, independent journalism and democratic expression. Blanket censorship can increase public suspicion. Government agencies should provide verified information quickly, clearly distinguish confirmed facts from unverified claims and acknowledge mistakes when they occur. Multilingual fact-checking in Meitei, Kuki-Zo, English and other commonly used languages is particularly important. Social media companies should also provide greater transparency regarding account locations, coordinated activity and manipulated content.
Citizens can contribute by checking the date and location of videos, examining unfamiliar accounts and comparing claims with reliable news sources. Emotional or inflammatory content should not be forwarded before verification. Peace in Manipur will require justice, dialogue, rehabilitation and development. It will also require protecting the integrity of information. The conflict is being fought not only on the ground but also online, and rebuilding trust will depend on addressing genuine grievances while identifying and countering misinformation that seeks to deepen existing divisions.
