Manipur currently operates under President’s Rule, a measure extended for another six months from August 13. 

About the President’s Rule in Manipur

• Trigger for Imposition: The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur followed the resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh and the collapse of the BJP government in the backdrop of the widespread violence that erupted in May 2023. 
• Constitutional Basis: President’s Rule, enacted under Article 356 of the Constitution, takes effect when a state government cannot function constitutionally. 
• Shift in Administrative Control: It transfers administrative power to the President, effectively placing the state under the direct control of the Central Government.
• Historical Misuse and Safeguards: Historically, this provision was often misused for political reasons by the Centre. 
  • The S.R. Bommai judgment in 1994 significantly curtailed this misuse, requiring judicial review and parliamentary approval, making its application rarer and reserved for genuine constitutional breakdowns or severe internal security challenges, as seen in Manipur. 
• Justification in Manipur’s Context: Given the ongoing instability, ethnic tensions, and administrative paralysis, the current use and extension of President’s Rule is largely uncontested and seen as a necessary step to restore order.

Fragile Calm and Persistent Division

• Restoration of Relative Calm: Since the imposition of President’s Rule, there has been a notable but fragile reduction in violence.
  • Crackdowns on militant groups have curtailed open hostilities.
  • Seizure of weapons has weakened illegal activities and enhanced public safety.
• Return of Displaced Families: Encouraging signs include the return of some of the over 60,000 displaced families to their homes. 
• Persistent Ethnic Divide: The ethnic rift between Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities remains deep and unhealed.
  • The state is geographically divided by buffer zones, keeping Kuki-Zo people in the hills and Meiteis in the plains.
  • This physical segregation reflects an entrenched political divide.
• Clashing Political Aspirations: Kuki-Zo groups demand a separate administration, asserting the need for political autonomy.
  • Whereas the Meitei organisations label Kuki-Zo citizens as “outsiders”, reinforcing a divisive “us versus them” narrative.
  • Despite the passage of time, these polarised positions remain unresolved.

Limitations of the Current Approach

• Overreliance on Bureaucracy and Security Forces: The Central Government has largely delegated the crisis to civil servants and security personnel.
  • While administrative and policing efforts are vital for restoring order and enforcing the rule of law, they are inherently limited in scope.
  • Bureaucrats operate through procedural and mechanical steps—they lack the moral authority or emotional connect needed to bridge communal hatred.
  • True healing and unity require empathetic political leadership, not just technocratic governance.
• Political Leaders Have Greater Influence: Elected leaders command public respect and trust, which enables them to initiate genuine dialogue and reconciliation. 
  • Their active involvement is essential to break the cycle of ethnic animosity.
• Failure of the Previous State Government: The earlier government, despite initial support from both hills and valleys, failed to mitigate ethnic hostility.
  • This failure is linked to the national leadership’s apparent lack of urgency, allowing the issue to be managed primarily as a law-and-order problem.
• Rethinking Success Under President’s Rule: Success should not be defined merely by a reduction in visible violence. 
  • Instead, it must be evaluated on whether it creates the political space for long-term reconciliation, inclusive governance, and social cohesion.

Way Forward

• Continue De-weaponisation and Defanging of Militant Groups: This is crucial to dismantling the culture of impunity enjoyed by these groups. 
  • By disarming them, moderates within both communities will be encouraged to speak out for peace and reconciliation, without fear of reprisal.
• Ensure Neutral Administration: Building trust in the administration among both communities is vital. An impartial administrative setup can foster a sense of fairness and security for all residents.
• Facilitate Political Reconciliation: Leaders from both the Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities must be brought to the negotiating table. 
  • This process requires the active involvement of civil society groups and political parties to overcome entrenched positions and find common ground. 
  • Political actors must be willing to transcend ethnic divisions.
• Leverage Education, Employment, and Development as Bridges: Focusing on development, job creation, and education can serve as powerful tools to reduce underlying grievances and foster inter-community cooperation.
  • When development takes root, other divisive issues can gradually recede. 
  • Historical examples, such as the civil war in Sri Lanka between Sinhalese and Tamils, and the racial divide in South Africa, demonstrate that dialogue and reconciliation can resolve even the deepest differences.
• Learn from Global Experiences: The Rwanda genocide between the Tutsi and Hutu communities eventually saw reconciliation driven by the people and civil society, not just state mechanisms. 
  • The state’s role is to create a secure ecosystem and bring peace in the society through community-led initiatives.

Conclusion

The ongoing extension of President’s Rule in Manipur is a testament to the severity of the ethnic conflict. 

• The responsibility for genuine reconciliation must be shared by the Centre, political parties, and civil society groups. 

DOWNLOAD PDF

The Kargil War of 1999 and the recent Pahalgam attack have fundamentally reshaped India’s security strategy. 

• These events served as turning points, compelling India to overhaul its intelligence, military preparedness, and approach to cross-border terrorism. 

The Kargil War (1999): A Bitter Awakening

• Deceptive Intrusion by Pakistan: In 1999, Pakistani forces secretly occupied icy peaks in the Kargil region of India.
  • Pakistan initially falsely claimed the intruders were Kashmiri militants, but it was soon exposed that regular Pakistani soldiers were involved.
• India’s First Televised War: The Kargil conflict became India’s first war broadcast live on national television.
  • Real-time footage captured the courage and sacrifice of Indian soldiers, galvanizing national sentiment.
• Conflict Under the Nuclear Shadow: The war took place after both India and Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests in 1998, raising fears of a possible nuclear escalation.
  • India responded with strategic restraint, choosing to limit operations to the Kargil sector and avoid broader military confrontation.
• Geopolitical and Domestic Challenges for India: India was under economic sanctions due to the 1998 nuclear tests, resulting in financial constraints.
  • The country also faced political instability under a coalition government and ongoing terrorism in Kashmir and the Northeast.
  • Unlike today, international consensus against terrorism was weak, limiting global diplomatic support.
• Betrayal Despite Peace Initiatives: Just months before the conflict, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had taken a major peace initiative via the Lahore bus journey.
  • This goodwill effort was undermined by Pakistan’s betrayal, as they launched the Kargil intrusion shortly after.
• Outcome and Strategic Significance: India successfully reclaimed the occupied peaks through a determined military campaign. The war reaffirmed India’s commitment to territorial integrity and showcased its restraint and maturity in a nuclearized region.

Key Lessons from Kargil

• Major Intelligence Failure: India experienced a significant intelligence failure, as Pakistani soldiers occupied strategic peaks without detection.
• Lack of Equipment: Indian soldiers lacked adequate weapons, clothing, and equipment for high-altitude warfare.
• Limited War under Nuclear Shadow: The war demonstrated that nuclear-armed countries can still engage in limited conflicts even if the escalation is carefully managed.

Post-Kargil Reforms

The Kargil War directly led to significant reforms in India’s security architecture:

• Kargil Review Committee: A committee was established to address India’s failures and recommend improvements.
• New Intelligence Agencies:
  • The Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) was set up in 2002.
  • The National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) was established in 2004.
• Improved Coordination: Better coordination began between various intelligence agencies like RAW, IB, and Military Intelligence.
• National Security Advisor (NSA) Post: The position of National Security Advisor was made permanent. The NSA directly advises the Prime Minister.
• Military Modernisation:
  • Self-Reliance: The war underscored that in times of conflict, external help may not materialise, making self-reliance the best strategy.
  • Cold Start Doctrine: India developed the Cold Start Doctrine, allowing for swift, limited attacks to inflict damage on adversaries without crossing the nuclear threshold.
  • Joint Operations: Enhanced synchronisation and joint operations between the Army, Navy, and Air Force were initiated.
  • Chief of Defence Staff (CDS): The Kargil Review Committee recommended the creation of a Chief of Defence Staff post for better coordination, which was later implemented.
  • Weapon Acquisition and Training: India began purchasing modern weapons like Rafale fighter jets, Apache attack helicopters, S-400 missile systems, and BrahMos missiles. Forces also received specialised training for rapid operations in mountainous terrain.

The Shift Towards Assertive Counter-Terrorism: From Uri to Pahalgam

• Despite post-Kargil reforms, India’s initial stance against terrorism remained less aggressive. 
  • Example: After the IC814 flight hijacking, terrorists were released. 
  • Limited action was taken following the 2001 Parliament attack and the 2008 Mumbai attacks (26/11).
• However, this approach changed dramatically:
  • Uri Attack (2016): India responded with surgical strikes, signalling a new resolve.
  • Pulwama Attack (2019): Following the Pulwama attack, India conducted Balakot Air Strikes, demonstrating a willingness to strike deep into enemy territory.
  • Pahalgam Attack: India responded within 96 hours by attacking nine Pakistani airbases, completely destroying their defence infrastructure. This aggressive retaliation forced Pakistan to seek a ceasefire.

India’s Current Security Posture

• Zero Tolerance for Cross-Border Terrorism: India’s current stance is clear and uncompromising:
  • Any terror attack will invite direct retaliation, including targeting Pakistan’s military infrastructure if it’s found complicit.
• No Distinction Between Terrorists and Their Sponsors: India has abandoned the earlier separation between non-state actors and state sponsors.
• Strengthened Military and Defence Preparedness: India’s military capabilities have significantly improved, with greater emphasis on modernisation and readiness.
  • The ‘Make in India’ initiative in defence has boosted self-reliance, reducing dependency on foreign arms suppliers.
• United National Resolve Against Terrorism: The response to terrorism is no longer reactive but resolute and calculated. A strong, united political will and national consensus now back every security decision, reinforcing India’s commitment to protect its sovereignty.

DOWNLOAD PDF

India faces a striking paradox in its healthcare sector: while the nation experiences a significant shortage of doctors and nurses, a large number of its trained health professionals migrate to developed countries for work. 

Status of Exporting Health Care Professionals

• Trend of Exporting Health care professionals: Sri Lanka has 10–12% of their medical workforce of foreign doctors.
  • Philippines: Around 85% of Filipino nurses are employed abroad.
• Global Health Worker Shortage: The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates a shortfall of 18 million health workers by 2030.
• India’s Contribution to Developed Nations: Approximately 75,000 Indian-trained doctors and 6,400 nurses are currently employed in OECD countries.

Reasons Behind the Outmigration of Health Workers

• Push Factors (Factors driving them from India):
  • Low Salaries and Limited Growth: Health professionals in India often receive lower salaries compared to developed nations, and there is perceived limited potential for rapid career progression or salary increases for many.
  • Poor Working Conditions: Hospitals in India may lack modern equipment, and working environments can be challenging, with instances of violence against doctors by patients’ relatives reported.
  • Political Instability: While less common in India, political instability in some developing countries (like Myanmar or the Philippines previously) can also prompt health workers to seek opportunities elsewhere.
• Pull Factors (Attracting them to Developed Countries):
  • High Salaries: Developed countries offer significantly higher remuneration, often in stronger currencies like the US Dollar.
  • Greater Respect and Better Working Conditions: Health professionals in these nations generally receive more respect and benefit from superior infrastructure and modern medical facilities.
  • Acute Shortage of Health Workers: Developed countries have ageing populations and lower birth rates, leading to a chronic shortage of doctors and nurses. This creates a high demand for foreign health professionals.
  • Liberal Recruitment Policies: Countries like the UK deliberately adopt liberal recruitment policies, making it easier for foreign doctors and nurses to obtain visas and work permits. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK even offered special fast-track visas for nurses.

Benefits of this migration to India

• Remittances: Money sent back by doctors working abroad significantly contributes to India’s foreign exchange reserves and economic growth.
• Skill Development: When doctors return to India, they bring back advanced skills and knowledge acquired from working in developed healthcare systems, which can enhance India’s medical practices.
• Diplomatic Influence (Soft Power): The presence of Indian professionals abroad can strengthen bilateral relations and enhance India’s soft power globally. 
  • Example: India deployed doctors to Africa and neighbouring countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Disadvantages of this Migration

• Depleted Workforce: The most direct consequence is a reduced number of skilled health professionals available to treat India’s own population.
• Rural and Small-Town Neglect: The impact is particularly severe in rural areas and small towns, where access to doctors is already limited. This exacerbates the existing urban-rural divide in healthcare.
• Crisis in Emergencies: A shortage of doctors can leave the country feeling “helpless” during health crises or emergencies.
• Moral Dilemma: It is often seen that Indian doctors are treating people in other countries while citizens in their home country lack adequate medical care.
• Brain Drain: Ultimately, the loss of highly educated and skilled professionals represents a significant “brain drain” that hinders India’s overall development and progress in healthcare. 

Way Forward

• Bilateral Agreements: India should engage in bilateral agreements with destination countries. 
  • These agreements should ensure fair compensation for Indian doctors, mandate investment in India’s medical colleges, and facilitate technology transfer in the medical field. 
  • The WHO can serve as a platform for facilitating such agreements between sending and receiving countries.
• Domestic Reforms:
  • Increase Medical College Seats: Significantly increase the number of seats in medical colleges to produce more doctors and nurses.
  • Improve Rural Facilities: Enhance healthcare infrastructure and facilities, especially in rural and underserved areas.
  • Provide Incentives: Offer better salaries, improved working conditions, and clear merit-based growth paths to encourage health workers to remain in India.
• Promote Circular Migration: There is a need to encourage a system where doctors work abroad for a few years to gain experience and then return to India to apply their enhanced skills. 
  • This prevents linear migration where professionals leave permanently.
• Establish a Centralised Agency: Create a national agency, similar to Kerala’s agency for Gulf migrants or the Philippines’ Department of Migrant Workers.
  • This agency would focus on the grievances of Indian health workers abroad and provide support to those returning to India.
• Leverage Telemedicine: Explore models where Indian doctors can provide medical consultation to international patients through telemedicine from within India. 
  • This allows them to earn competitive salaries while remaining in the country.
• Global Collaboration Against Brain Drain: India should collaborate with other “Global South” countries like the Philippines and Sri Lanka, which face similar challenges, to raise a collective voice on the international stage against the uncontrolled brain drain of health workers.

Conclusion

India’s response to the migration of its health workers must be proactive and balanced. 

• By implementing strategic bilateral agreements and robust domestic reforms, India can ensure that its highly skilled health professionals contribute significantly to national well-being rather than primarily to other nations.

DOWNLOAD PDF