Talk:Manipur

Article issues

I placed tags on the article because, although mentioned in the article, content on the strife in Manipur involves acts of violence, rape, persecution, human rights violations, etc.. and should be mentioned in the lead. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. WP:NOTNEWS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hindus and Christians

I am removing this line from the lead:

Between the 1961 and 2011 censuses of India, the share of Hindus in the state declined from 62% to 41%, while the share of Christians rose from 19% to 41%.

References

Only one newspaper reported it, and it looks rather like BJP propaganda of "Hindus in danger". (There was in fact a statement of a BJP minister in the article as well.)

The statement is extremely deceptive because it makes it look like Hindus have been converting to Christianity, whereas the reality is that the tribals have been adopting Christianity. If the proportion of tribals has increased, that is a separate problem and we would need scholarly sources analysing it.

I happen to have a copy of the 1961 census, and the data say this:

• Proportion of Meiteis: 68.9%
• Proportion of Kuki-Zo: 14.4%
• Proportion of Old Kuki/Naga: 3.56%
• Proportion of Nagas: 15.8%
• Total proportion of Manipur tribals: 33.8%

• Proportion of Hindus: 65.9%
• Proportion of Muslims: 6.65%
• Proportion of Christians: 20.76%

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Umm, how is your 1961 census data different from what was already stated? Also, please include the 2011 census data as well. Blind BJP hate won’t take you anywhere, nor will it enhance your credibility. What you describe as 'what it looks like' is purely your personal opinion. Nowhere was it stated that 'Hindus are in danger' or 'Hindus are being forcibly converted,' yet you went ahead and removed it as if it somehow bothered you. It’s better to leave it to the readers to infer their own conclusions rather than controlling the information like this. That said, I also know it’s pointless to argue with you. You delete genuine replies and queries that challenges your mindset as notforum. Meh! 2409:40C1:3D:60E2:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You should comment on the content, not the contributors. Are you denying that the BJP propagates the "Hindus in danger" trope? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The outfit’s [Arambai Tenggol's] only motive, he said, was to bring Meiteis back to the fold of Sanamahism. “Most of the Meiteis are converting to Christianity so we just want to bring people back,” he said.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t take this as a "forum-style" discussion. Kautilya, you know I like you, and I’ve seen your evolution from being a complete leftist to a much more balanced individual, and I admire you for it.

Coming to your point—of course, the BJP does it. It’s a political party. Its main card today is the "Hindu in danger" narrative. But it’s also true that the BJP exists because of the combined opposition's neglect, deception, and relentless attempts to divide dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) starting from 1947. This also includes continuing british policy of dividing Hindus on the basis of caste, creed, color, demographics, language, etc., while also simultaneously engaging in relentless Muslim and, to a lesser extent, Christian (as they are fewer in number) appeasement.

I would say this is vote-bank politics, but I actually listen to the speeches of almost all political parties in India. For example, Congress in the past used to blame only the RSS for Pakistani terrorist attacks in India. Today, they and their allies don’t even try to hide the hatred and contempt they have for Hindu society. It’s good that this is coming to light in the information age, where everyone has a smartphone and internet connection.

This is another reason why the BJP will likely remain in power for a considerable amount of time. If you have to blame anyone for the majoritarianism we see in India today, blame the Indian opposition, which is totally rotten, instead of blaming the majority. Sure, there may be supremacist elements within this majority, just like how US white supremacists find their home in the Republican Party. But that doesn’t mean everyone who votes for that party is divisive or supremacist.

If only Indian opposition parties were truly secular, there would have been no need for the BJP or even the RSS. My point of view is that Hindu society can never be too extreme—never. No matter if the right-wing comes to power or even some far-right, it’s not in the cultural ethos. Hindu society is inherently defensive rather than offensive or invasive. Indian philosophy has always been about pluralism. But that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to everything (even if they are perceived—Gandhi’s bura mat dekho, bura mat bolo, bura mat suno is simplistic and stupid). Hinduism itself is a secular religion (unique case in major world religions). There’s no need for any pseudosecular party. I have seen what Congress has done to and for India/Indians and its image over multiple decades, and what the BJP has achieved in just 10 years. I’m sorry if I feel better as an Indian under BJP’s rule—very sorry for that. But that’s my understanding and point of view, which you might not agree with—and that’s fine.

The whole point of this discussion was that we shouldn’t care about what the BJP thinks or what its leaders propagate. We should just report the facts as they are and not care if they reinforce the BJP’s point of view or not. That’s not up to us to decide. Otherwise, what would be the difference between us, as providers of information, and political propagators who hide or distort information for their own benefit? We can have our differences of opinion, and we can debate many things for many days without any conclusion. But that’s not the point here. Hope you dont take me the wrong way. 2409:40C1:5E:BA34:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What BJP says does not concern us directly. It is not a reliable source and it will never become one. But when a newspaper reproduces the BJP propaganda as if it is coming from its own voice then it becomes a concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Umm, I think you are experienced enough to understand that all newspapers have ideological biases. Something completely neutral would be supernatural—humans are not there yet. Achieving that would require avatar or bodhisattva-level morality. But I understand that you dislike newspapers that reinforce right-wing ideas, and that’s okay. I understand godi media is popular comcept in wikipedia while no discussions for dalal media.

My point is, if the data is correct, what’s the harm in it being there? It’s basic information about demographics. I’m not asking you to mention that Congress, until the 2010s, fully supported missionary activities in the Northeast, or that people are being forcibly converted, or that foreign powers are also involved, etc. It’s just basic demographic information. There’s no need to hide it—but I’ll leave it to you.

I don’t want to argue or fight over little things. I can only preach a little (as I love to), but I can’t enforce my views on anyone. Have a good day! 2409:40C1:5E:BA34:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I am an avatar of bodhisattva-level morality. And it is not hard to be one of those.

I have already explained what the "harm" is. I said that it gives the misleading impression that "Hindus" have been converting to Christianity in enormous numbers. I have also quoted Arambai Tenggol stating exactly that implication.

Frankly you are rambling here. You have labelled a factual statement I made about BJP, which you yourself accept, as "BJP hate". That is an WP:aspersion and it is not acceptable conduct on Wikipedia. I know that you have been blocked and you have been evading the block. So I suggest you retire from the discussion before I call the admins. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2025 - Requesting addition to Government section regarding imposition and extension of President's Rule in the State.

Please add the following text to the starting of the "Government" section:

Manipur came under President's rule on 13 February 2025 following the resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The President's rule was subsequently extended for another six months, effective from 13 August 2025, after receiving approval from the Parliament. Wherojit (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that is needed as per WP:NOTNEWS. Only stable, long-term facts get covered in an encyclopedia article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2026

~2026-35646-53 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you India link?

 Not done Common words are not linked. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 06:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Request for changing "admission to union" to "formation "

In 1949, the princely states merged with India, so that date is generally considered the date of formation. Therefore, please add a “Formation” section instead of “Admission to Union.” Also, if possible, please change the previous section title from “Kingdom of Manipur” to “Princely State of Manipur.” Thanks! ~2026-40495-09 (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2026 (UTC)