Critics of the push for federal intervention warn that relying on the Intelligence Bureau to solve regional conflicts may inadvertently bypass local governance structures and deepen existing divisions. There is a concern that top-down solutions often fail to account for the historical nuances and specific local grievances that drive ethnic tensions. By focusing on the blockade as a security issue to be suppressed, the government risks ignoring the underlying political and land-related disputes that have led to such drastic measures in the first place.
Some observers argue that the focus should remain on local mediation and community-led peacebuilding rather than inviting central agencies to dictate terms. When the Centre intervenes, it can sometimes be perceived as taking sides, which may alienate one community and harden their resolve. This could lead to a more complex and protracted conflict, as the parties involved may feel that their voices are being drowned out by the priorities of the central government.
Furthermore, there is a risk that heavy-handed enforcement could lead to further unrest. If the government prioritizes clearing the blockade through force or intimidation, it may fail to address the systemic issues that caused the blockade to be implemented in the first place. A sustainable solution requires the consent and participation of the local communities, which is difficult to achieve when the process is driven by external security agencies.
Instead of seeking federal intervention, critics suggest that the focus should be on creating a safe, neutral space for direct negotiations between the Kuki-Zo and Naga groups. This approach would empower local leaders to find a compromise that is acceptable to their respective communities. The danger of the current path is that it treats the symptoms of the crisis while potentially exacerbating the root causes, leaving the region vulnerable to future cycles of instability.