A JPC Visit to Manipur: A Mere Formality or a Step Towards Justice?

The ongoing turmoil in Manipur has reached a critical stage where demands for a fair and unbiased assessment of the situation have become more urgent than ever. Congress MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam has raised a pertinent point by urging the formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to visit Manipur and evaluate the ground realities. His statement, however, goes beyond a mere request for a parliamentary probe—it is an indictment of the systemic failures that have exacerbated the crisis. The question remains: Will a JPC visit bring any real change, or will it be yet another performative exercise by a government that has shown little inclination to address the root causes of Manipur’s unrest?
Bimol Akoijam’s critique of the current government’s handling of Manipur is scathing and, unfortunately, accurate. His observation that the ruling party lacks a Muslim MP in its ranks highlights the broader issue of exclusionary politics that has characterized its governance. This systematic exclusion, he argues, is not just about representation but has tangible consequences in regions like Manipur, where diverse ethnic and religious communities coexist. The exclusionary approach of the central government has further marginalized already vulnerable communities, leading to deepening mistrust and unrest.
Compounding this issue is the dysfunction of Manipur’s own State Assembly. The year 2023 saw the shortest Assembly session in the state’s history, with no meaningful discussions on the ongoing crisis. This absence of dialogue is symptomatic of a larger problem—Manipur’s governance is no longer in the hands of its elected representatives but has been effectively subverted by the central government. Bimol Akoijam’s remarks that the Chief Minister’s orders are routinely ignored by central forces stationed in the state only reinforce the perception that Manipur is being governed through an extra-constitutional mechanism, reducing it to a mere administrative zone rather than a state within the Union of India.
One of the most damning statements from Bimol Akoijam’s speech is his characterization of Manipur’s condition as that of a “banana republic.” The term is not used lightly—it signifies a breakdown of democratic institutions, where governance is dictated by forces outside the framework of the Constitution. When security forces do not adhere to the instructions of the elected government, and when the legislative assembly is rendered ineffective, the very fabric of democracy is eroded.
The broader implications of this state of affairs are alarming. What is happening in Manipur today is not just a regional issue; it is a microcosm of the larger trajectory India is taking under the current administration. The handling of the crisis in Manipur is reflective of a deeper malaise—a governance model that prioritizes control over dialogue, imposition over negotiation, and militarization over democratic engagement.
Given this grim scenario, the demand for a JPC visit, while symbolically significant, may amount to little more than a bureaucratic formality. India’s political history is littered with instances where committees and commissions have been formed to investigate crises, only for their recommendations to be ignored or diluted. The reality is that the deep state—an entrenched network of bureaucratic, military, and political interests—has no real incentive to resolve the crisis in Manipur.
If anything, the ongoing unrest serves the interests of those who seek to maintain control over the region through a policy of division and destabilization. The ethnic conflicts, the militarization of civilian spaces, and the systematic disempowerment of the state’s elected representatives all point to a deliberate strategy of keeping Manipur in a state of perpetual crisis. A JPC visit, no matter how well-intentioned, will struggle to break through these entrenched interests.
While a JPC visit might bring some media attention and token gestures of concern, what Manipur truly needs is genuine political will to address the structural issues fueling the crisis. This includes restoring the autonomy of the state government, ensuring that security forces operate within constitutional boundaries, and fostering an inclusive political dialogue that represents all communities fairly. Without these fundamental changes, any committee or parliamentary visit will be nothing more than a temporary spectacle.
The question that remains is whether India’s political leadership is willing to recognize Manipur’s crisis for what it truly is—a failure of governance and a test of the nation’s commitment to its democratic principles. If the answer is no, then Manipur will continue to suffer under a system that thrives on division, and the JPC visit will be yet another entry in the long list of unfulfilled promises.