India routinely projects itself as a state that has overcome internal security challenges through firm governance, robust counterinsurgency, and centralized control. Yet developments across Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (IIOJK), Manipur, and Assam expose a widening gap between official narratives of stability and the realities unfolding on the ground. Far from being isolated disturbances, these regions reflect a deeper structural malaise in India’s internal security governance—one marked by unresolved political questions, ethnic alienation, and an overreliance on force-centric responses.

In Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir, New Delhi has consistently portrayed the decline in visible militant activity as evidence of restored normalcy following the abrogation of Article 370. However, the absence of daily violence should not be mistaken for genuine peace. Recent discoveries of rusted mortar shells and symbolic military artifacts in areas such as Samba and Poonch serve as reminders that the region remains heavily militarized. These finds are less about immediate threat and more about psychological signaling—indicating that the shadow of conflict still looms large.

More revealing is the political undercurrent surfacing through public mobilization. Protests by Shia communities against Israeli attacks on Iran underscore how unresolved local grievances create space for external ideological influences to resonate. Particularly in north Kashmir, this reflects a shift from purely political resistance toward religious-nationalist mobilization. Such developments suggest that while insurgent violence may be suppressed, the deeper political discontent remains unaddressed. Stability imposed without reconciliation risks mutating into new forms of resistance rather than eliminating it.

Manipur presents perhaps the starkest indictment of India’s internal security model. The prolonged ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities has exposed the limits of New Delhi’s ability to manage complex identity-driven crises. Despite the deployment of central forces, the state continues to witness recurring clashes, civilian casualties, and frequent recoveries of improvised explosive devices and grenades—clear indicators of insurgent resilience. The resurgence of militant outfits such as PREPAK and the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP), even after multiple arrests, highlights the ineffectiveness of reactive counterinsurgency measures. Security operations may disrupt networks temporarily, but they fail to dismantle the socio-political conditions that sustain insurgency.

Equally significant is the rise of popular resistance movements, particularly female-led groups such as the Meira Paibis and the emergence of outfits like Arambai Tenggol. These movements reflect deep public anger against what is perceived as discriminatory governance and excessive reliance on coercion. When civilian groups take on security and mobilization roles, it signals a breakdown of trust between the state and society—an alarming trend for any internal security architecture.

In Assam, internal security challenges are evolving in more complex and potentially dangerous ways. Recent communal violence in Dhubri, coupled with intelligence reports of reactivated ULFA (Independent) networks, points to a convergence of religious polarization and insurgent activity. The reported linkages between ULFA(I) and NSCN(K-YA) further elevate the threat level, suggesting cross-regional militant coordination.

This convergence is particularly concerning in the context of symbolic national events, which historically serve as flashpoints for high-impact attacks. Communal tensions provide fertile ground for insurgent recruitment and legitimacy, while insurgent violence, in turn, amplifies communal fear and polarization. This feedback loop exposes the fragility of India’s internal security framework, which treats communal unrest and insurgency as separate phenomena rather than interconnected challenges.

Across these three regions, a common pattern emerges. India’s internal security strategy prioritizes control over consensus, surveillance over dialogue, and short-term calm over long-term resolution. Heavy militarization, frequent arrests, and legal exceptionalism may suppress symptoms, but they do not address root causes such as political disenfranchisement, ethnic marginalization, and identity anxieties. Moreover, New Delhi’s centralized approach often sidelines local voices and institutions, deepening alienation. The result is a security model that appears effective on paper but remains brittle in practice—capable of enforcing order temporarily, yet incapable of building sustainable peace.

India’s claims of internal stability increasingly resemble an illusion sustained by statistics rather than societal cohesion. Jammu & Kashmir’s silence masks unresolved political trauma, Manipur’s violence exposes state incapacity, and Assam’s evolving threat landscape highlights the dangerous fusion of communalism and insurgency. True internal security is not measured by the absence of headlines but by the presence of legitimacy, trust, and inclusion. Until India shifts from force-centric management to political engagement and reconciliation, its internal security challenges will persist—mutating rather than disappearing. Beneath the façade of stability lies a fragile structure, vulnerable to renewed unrest and deeper fragmentation.