Advocates for federal intervention argue that the central government has a constitutional duty to ensure the free movement of goods and people across state borders. When local blockades threaten the basic survival of communities, the state and central authorities must act decisively to uphold the rule of law. By involving the Intelligence Bureau, the Kuki-Zo Council is correctly identifying that this is not merely a local dispute but a national security concern that requires high-level oversight.
Proponents of this approach emphasize that the humanitarian cost of the blockade is too high to ignore. Families are currently struggling to access life-saving medication and basic nutrition, which creates a moral imperative for the government to intervene. A swift response from the Centre would send a clear message that illegal blockades are not an acceptable form of political protest and that the state will protect its citizens from economic strangulation.
Furthermore, engaging in structured dialogue through neutral third parties, such as the proposed talks involving Mizoram, offers a path toward de-escalation. By bringing the parties to the table under the supervision of central authorities, the government can address the root causes of the grievances rather than just the symptoms. This strategy prioritizes the restoration of public order and provides a framework for long-term reconciliation between the Kuki-Zo and Naga communities.
Ultimately, the support for federal action rests on the belief that the state must remain the primary arbiter of peace. Without central intervention, the cycle of blockades and retaliatory measures is likely to continue, further isolating vulnerable populations. A firm, proactive stance from New Delhi is seen as the most viable way to break the current deadlock and ensure that essential services are no longer used as bargaining chips in ethnic conflicts.