With great influence comes great responsibility, so those in India like Patricia Mukhim who share their thoughts about the situation in Manipur with some of the world’s most popular media outlets should remember that every one of their words has disproportionate weight in shaping global perceptions. She was likely so passionate about what recently happened in her region due to her activist roots that the thought probably never occurred to her that Al Jazeera might have ulterior motives for publishing her piece.

Editor of the Shillong Times Patricia Mukhim, who’s also a self-described activist, published a sharply written piece for Al Jazeera asking “Can Manipur ever trust India again?”. She alleged that “Instead of dismantling colonial legacies that had been found wanting, central governments in New Delhi have perpetuated the divisions sowed by the British. Those fissures have now turned into seemingly unbridgeable chasms between the tribals in the hills and the Meiteis in the valley.”

She also took aim at Prime Minister Modi exactly as President of the Indian National Congress (INC) Mallikarjun Kharge and the European Parliament both did earlier this month when writing that “Even now, while condemning the horror depicted in the video, the prime minister has not said a word about the conflict that has raged since the start of May. What are we to make of this? Had Manipur been an opposition-ruled state, Modi would have used the choicest abuses for the government of the day.”

For as passionately as Mukhim feels about the situation in Manipur, she’s wrong to blame the BJP for its recent unrest. In fact, she even somewhat contradicted herself in the article when acknowledging near the beginning that “The immediate spark for the clashes came from a court order that suggested extending land rights and other benefits available only to tribal communities like the Kukis to instead cover the Meiteis too.”

In other words, it was a progressive reform in this presently BJP-run state that inadvertently prompted bad actors from both minority communities to carry out their preplanned attacks against the other. The state was admittedly caught off guard due to what was obviously in hindsight a shortcoming in its regional intelligence network but quickly caught its bearings and intervened to stop the bloodshed. A little more than 100 people were killed, but this isn’t the genocide that some have claimed took place.

The INC opposition opportunistically exploited the violence in a desperate attempt to revive their dying party ahead of next year’s elections, which unwittingly led to them functioning as the West’s “useful idiots” after some forces from that de facto New Cold War bloc jumped on the BJP-blaming bandwagon. Mukhim’s article serves a similar such role without her realizing it after she lent credence to the inflammatory innuendo that Prime Minister Modi’s silence suggested something nefarious.

As was explained in the previously hyperlinked response to the INC President, the Indian leader was likely advised by his country’s armed forces and security services that it would be better to not speak about this situation until they’ve fully restored stability to Manipur. Talking about it before then could have led to bad actors from either community twisting his words to incite their brainwashed followers into another round of unrest, hence why the premier erred on the side of caution by not speaking out.

He was ultimately forced to break his silence after footage emerged last week of sexual violence being committed in Manipur a few months ago, but that was only to make it known that this crime was unacceptable, with his words being chosen very carefully in order for them not to be twisted. Regrettably, that development opened Pandora’s Box and led to the entire country talking about Manipur, which creates countless chances for bad actors to manipulate their words.

Mukhim’s were presumably shared with the intent of getting the global audience to sympathize with the locals there, but the harsh language that she employed could be twisted to rekindle separatist violence, especially after she wrote that “the people of the northeast…feel betrayed by India”. Likely without meaning to, she blew an unmistakable dog whistle that’ll certainly be heard by those who are already inclined to flirt with separatism, particularly since her piece was published by Al Jazeera.

About that outlet, it’s a publicly funded one based in Qatar, which is embroiled in a spy scandal with India after some of the latter’s nationals were detained last August on suspicion of espionage. Doha therefore has a motivation to meddle in India’s most sensitive domestic affairs, which explains why it published Mukhim’s sharply written piece after Al Jazeera’s editors probably interpreted the subtext therein as having the potential to rekindle, or at the very least justify, separatist violence.

She should have exercised better judgement than to solicit her piece to that unfriendly platform, but it could also be that they commissioned it, in which case the authorities should investigate since Qatar might have intended all along to exploit her as its “useful idiot” for meddling in Manipur. The damage is already done, however, since Al Jazeera has global reach. Countless people have therefore been exposed to her narrative that “the people of the northeast…feel betrayed by India” and the BJP is to blame.

With great influence comes great responsibility, so those in India like Mukhim who share their thoughts about the situation in Manipur with some of the world’s most popular media outlets should remember that every one of their words has disproportionate weight in shaping global perceptions. She was likely so passionate about what recently happened in her region due to her activist roots that the thought probably never occurred to her that Al Jazeera might have ulterior motives for publishing her piece.

To a foreign observer, it can’t be ruled out that the Qatari-Indian spy scandal influenced publicly funded Al Jazeera’s decision to run Mukhim’s article, which stoked separatist sentiment even if she didn’t intend to. Nevertheless, her words about how people “feel betrayed by India” and shouldn’t be blamed for “always looking back at the Instruments of Accession they signed more than seven decades ago amid hope and expectations” will certainly be interpreted that way by bad actors.

The lesson to be learned is that she and fellow activists like her must remember the great responsibility that comes with the great influence bestowed upon them whenever their pieces about very sensitive domestic issues are published by some of the world’s most popular media outlets. Their international partners don’t always have India’s best interests in mind and are sometimes eager to exploit well-intended but naive activists like Mukhim as “useful idiots” for meddling in its affairs.

(The article was published on Korybko.substack.com on July 23, 2023 and has been reproduced here.)