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