Betraying Manipur : Centre's delayed intervention and PR imposition

Heisnam Devan Singh *

The State of Manipur, located in the North Eastern corner of India, is currently embroiled in a political crisis that has left its people in turmoil. The region, historically a hotbed of ethnic strife and political unrest, has been struggling with escalating violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities. Clashes intensified and the situation spiraled out of control.

The Central Govt led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has been accused of neglecting the political instability in Manipur for much of this period, only to intervene recently by imposing President’s Rule. This delay in intervention has sparked outrage among the people of Manipur, who feel abandoned and betrayed by the very Government that is supposed to protect them.

Many critics, including scholars and political analysts, have raised pointed questions about the Central Govt’s handling of the situation, suggesting that the prolonged violence could have been part of a larger political strategy aimed at undermining the State’s autonomy.

The question that arises in the wake of President’s Rule is : Why did the Central Government wait for two years before taking a decisive action, and what role did they play in allowing the violence to spiral out of control ?

Some people in Manipur have even gone so far as accusing the Central Government of intentionally stoking the fires of ethnic conflict in the region. There are claims that the violence was not merely the result of tensions between the Meitei and Kuki communities, but a politically orchestrated crisis aimed at weakening the State’s regional power and securing control over its administration.

As the dust settle over the imposition of President’s Rule, a fundamental question looms : Are the people of Manipur being treated as equal citizens of India, or are they being neglected and sidelined in favor of Centralization and political maneuvering ?

For the nearly two years, Manipur has been gripped by violence, often with little to no intervention from the State or Central Government. Reports of violence, including attacks on civilian population, destruction of property, and ethnic clashes, were frequent but seemingly ignored by the powers that be.

Despite several calls from local politicians, civil society groups, and the media for Government action, the response from both the State Government and the Central administration was lackluster at best. Former Chief Minister of N Biren Singh, faced criticism for his inability to bring peace to the State, while the Central Government remained largely silent.

Local sources and political observers noted that the situation worsened over time, with little evidence of any coordinated effort to resolve the crisis. As the violence escalated, several lives were lost, and thousands were displaced.

During this period of rising tensions, many in Manipur began questioning the commitment of the Central Government in addressing their needs and concerns. The delay in response raised suspicions that the BJP-led Govt in Delhi was either indifferent to the situation or deliberately allowing the violence to fester.

Those accusing the Central Govt of negligence point to the fact that the violence went unchecked for so long, allowing deep divisions between the Meitei and Kuki communities to solidify, making reconciliation more difficult. Some critics argue that the prolonged inaction is a sign that the Central Govt was more focused on political strategy than the well-being of the people of Manipur.

Many scholars and political commentators have criticized the Central Govt’s handling of the situation. One of the most contentious aspects of the response-or lack of-has been the apparent disregard to the gravity of the situation on the ground.

The Govt failed to address the rising tensions between the two communities, and the lack of proactive measures to do-escalate the violence has left many questioning whether this delay is intentional. According to some scholars, the inaction points to a possible agenda of weakening the State’s political and social fabrics that it could eventually be easily controlled from the Centre.

The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur came after nearly two years of violence, and it was seen by many as an admission of failure on the part of both the State and Central Govt. Critics argue that the Central Govt’s decision to step in and take control of the administration was a reactive measure, long overdue. By the time President’s Rule was declared, the damage had already been done: ethnic animosities had deepened, lives had been lost, and thousands of people had been displaced.

Moreover, many in Manipur felt that the Central Government’s action were an overt demonstration of its control over the State, undermining its autonomy and reinforcing the perception that Manipur is treated as “Second-Class” State within the Indian Union. The question that arises is why the Central Government allowed the situation to deteriorate for so long before intervening.

Some observers suggest that the Central Government’s political strategy in Manipur has been driven by a desire to exert control over the State. Some political analysts argue that the Government’s handling of the crisis-first through inaction and later through the imposition of President’s Rule-fits into a broader pattern of Centralizing power.

In this context, the prolonged violence may not have been an unintended consequences, but rather a deliberate strategy to weaken local political forces and the direct control of the State. The Centralization of power in Manipur is particularly troubling for many people in the State, who feel that the imposition of President’s Rule is an affront to their autonomy and democratic rights.

Manipur, like other States in India, is meant to have a degree of self-governance, with elected repre- sentatives making decisions on behalf of the people.

The imposition of President’s Rule, however, effectively dissolves the State Govt and place power in the hands of Central Govt. This move has been criticized as an attempt to bypass local political leaders and take direct control of the State’s administration. For many in Manipur, this represents a denial of their rights as citizens of India, raising questions about the fairness and quality of their treatment within the larger Indian polity.

Manipur’s people are now grappling with reality of living under Central control, and many have voiced their anger and frustration over the perceived neglect of their concerns. Protestors have taken to the streets, demanding that the Govt address the root causes of the violence, not just its symptoms.

They argue that the real problem lies in the ethnic divisions that have been exacerbated by years of political neglect. As one local leader put it, “This is not just about violence-it’s about a deep sense of alienation that has been growing in Manipur for years. We feel like we are being treated as second-class citizens of India.”

This sentiment is echoed by many in the State, who argue that the Central Govt’s actions-both in failing to act swiftly and in imposing President’s Rule-send a clear message that the people of Manipur are not considered equal citizens.

By waiting for two years before intervening and then keeping the Assembly under suspended animation, the Central Govt has undermined the political will of the people of Manipur and entrenched the sense of isolation that many feel. This sense of being sidelined is compounded by the perception that Manipur, despite its strategic importance and cultural richness, is treated as a “Partial State” within India.

The criticism of the Central Government is not limited to political parties in Manipur, but has also been voiced by various scholars and political analysts who have observed the situation with growing concern. Many argue that the delay in intervention and the subsequent imposition of President’s Rule undermine the principles of federalism that are meant to govern the relationship between Central Govt and State Govt.

The handling of Manipur’s crisis, they argue, is symptomatic of a larger issue : the erosion of State autonomy and Centralization of power under the current Govt. By taking control of administration in Manipur, the Central Govt has sent a message that values direct control over the interest and rights of the people in the State. This, according to critics, is a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching implications for India’s federal structure.

As Manipur continues to navigate this turbulent period, it remains to be seen now long the Central Govt will maintain control over the State. The imposition of President’s Rule is meant to be a temporary measure, but the political dynamics in Manipur are unlikely to stabilize quickly.

For the people of Manipur, the challenge will be to restore a sense of ownership over their own governance, while grappling with the reality of Central rule. In the long run, the people of Manipur will need to find a way to reconcile their aspirations for autonomy with the demands of the Central Govt, but the scars of this political crisis may take years to heal.