I am grateful to Holvikivi for her careful and generous reading of Critical Feminist Justpeace. I will respond to one comment and one question that appear in her review.

First, Holvikivi rightly highlights the dilemma that emerges when discussing one’s own positionality in scholarly work. In an effort to address the power relations that arise between the researcher and the researched, the researcher re-centers herself, propping up that hierarchy. However, in my view, the alternative of failing to disclose one’s background, resources, and decision-making processes is worse. It creates a black box that perpetuates narratives about “objective” data gathering and analysis. Holvikivi is not advocating for this alternative, but her point about the structure of the book is well-made. A detailed discussion of my experiences with fieldwork might be better placed in the conclusion, in favor of centering women peacebuilders from Northeast India.

Second, Holvikivi has invited reflection on how to “do solidarity work that attends to transnational structures of oppression that set the stage for local conflicts.” I will propose two ideas in relation to the contemporary violence that sparked in May 2023. As I describe in the book’s Epilogue, the ongoing conflict relates to competing claims of indigeneity and different groups’ access to land and political power. These claims are made in the context of transnational migration, driven primarily by the climate emergency and poverty, and porous international borders with Bangladesh and Myanmar. Transnational advocates could work on (at least) the issues of indigenous rights and migration to promote a critical and feminist approach to peace and justice.

First, transnational activists could employ an intersectional consciousness to call attention to the diversity of experience among indigenous peoples around the world and in Manipur. People are not indigenous in the same way, and different groups have different needs. In Manipur, the majority ethnic group, Meiteis, are not “tribal” like the minority Nagas and Kukis; however, they may still need some of the legal protections from broader Indian society that other indigenous peoples have found to be valuable. Those who work on indigenous rights could offer examples of different types of laws and statuses that might be helpful for different groups in this case. Transformation of the conflict must acknowledge the needs of Meiteis while still maintaining important protections for the historically marginalized in Manipur—the tribal ethnic minorities.

Second, in response to migration, addressing climate emergencies and poverty more effectively in Bangladesh would help to release pressure on Manipur’s society and resources. Many in Northeast India fear that migrants will outnumber and outvote locals in democratic politics, but the rights of migrants cannot end because they crossed a border. While India needs to treat migrants justly, transnational activists working on climate and development can study the connections between the countries and address the sources of structural violence in Bangladesh that have contributed to direct violence in Manipur. This entails tackling complex global issues, including carbon emissions and the extraction of resources and cheap labor from Global South countries.