Healing Manipur: on Manipur and President’s Rule

The imposition of President’s Rule, once a frequent and politically motivated tool of the Centre, has declined considerably since the 1990s. This welcome shift is a consequence of S.R. Bommai, the landmark judgment, the rising influence of regional parties in national politics, and public revulsion to its misuse. In recent years, its application has become rare, reserved for genuine constitutional breakdown or severe internal security challenges, such as in Manipur. On Friday, President’s Rule was extended there by another six months, from August 13. But few would contest the extension, as the Centre is struggling to find a durable solution to the ethnic conflict. Following the resignation of N. Biren Singh and the fall of the BJP government, there has been a discernible but fragile calm. A crackdown on militant groups that had operated with impunity has reduced open violence, and some families displaced since May 2023 have begun to return home. However, these positive developments are overshadowed by the unbridged and deep-seated ethnic schism between the Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities. The landscape of Manipur is still carved up by buffer zones, rigidly segregating communities. The political chasm is just as stark: Kuki-Zo groups are resolute in their demand for a separate administration, while hardline Meitei organisations persist with a narrative that brands fellow citizens as “outsiders”.

Administrative steps, particularly those that reiterate de-weaponisation and a defanging of militant groups acting for ethnic interests, must continue. They not only break the aura of impunity with which these groups function but will also encourage moderates to raise their voices for reconciliation. During Mr. Singh’s tenure, prominent civil society activists seeking to halt the conflict by critiquing the biased nature of governance were hounded. But the administrative measures to improve the rule of law must be supplemented by political gestures. The BJP enjoyed support in the valley and the hills when it was elected, but has been unable to bridge the ethnic hostility. This is largely because the party’s national leadership has shown little inclination to treat the issue urgently, leaving it to civil servants and security forces to tackle the problem. While the continuation of President’s Rule might seem inevitable in Manipur, its success should not be measured by the absence of violence alone. The Centre’s responsibility is to foster political conditions to bridge the ethnic divide, but that responsibility must be shared. Political parties and civil society groups must defy the hardliners and begin the painstaking work of reconciliation. The future of a peaceful Manipur will be written by the initiative of committed political actors willing to transcend ethnic divisions and work toward the genuine healing of their fractured society.