Manipur needs inclusive Governance, not just a numerical majority

The current political consultations within the BJP to form a new government in Manipur come at a time when the state remains deeply fractured along ethnic lines. While the party enjoys a numerical majority in the 60-member Assembly, the absence of 10 MLAs from the Kuki-Zo community—seven of whom belong to the BJP—raises serious concerns about the possibility of forming a truly popular and representative government.
Legally, the BJP can still form a government. With 37 MLAs, and the effective strength of the Assembly reduced to 50 due to the non-participation of the 10 Kuki-Zo legislators, the party can claim a simple majority. However, governance in a conflict-torn state like Manipur is not just a matter of numbers. The deeper issue lies in the legitimacy and inclusivity of any such government, especially when a major ethnic group and their elected representatives are entirely excluded from the formation and functioning of the state’s leadership.
The absence of Kuki-Zo legislators, who have not been able to return to Imphal since the violence erupted in May 2023, reflects the continuing insecurity and mutual distrust that define the current situation. Any government formed in their absence would risk being seen as representing only the Meitei community, further entrenching the already severe valley-hill divide. In such a volatile climate, the very notion of a ‘popular government’ becomes questionable, as a significant section of the population will remain politically unrepresented and emotionally alienated.
Moreover, the exclusion of seven BJP MLAs from among the Kuki-Zo group underscores a major internal crisis within the party itself. Rebuilding a government without its own elected representatives calls into question the unity and stability of the ruling formation. It also sends a troubling message to the wider public about the BJP’s willingness—or inability—to accommodate diversity within its own ranks. Nationally, it puts the party’s image at risk, especially as it projects itself as a unifying force across states and communities.
The absence of Kuki-Zo MLAs also has practical implications. Without their participation, governance in the hill districts—particularly in areas like Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, and Pherzawl—would be hamstrung. Administrative coordination, development works, and law enforcement will likely face resistance or outright non-compliance, rendering the new government’s functioning uneven and limited in scope.
The situation calls for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach. Appointing a new or neutral face who can be acceptable to all communities may help build some degree of consensus. The Centre, too, must consider whether restoring an elected government without addressing the political void left by the Kuki-Zo representatives would do more harm than good. Extending President’s Rule temporarily and working toward a negotiated, inclusive political arrangement may be a more responsible course.
In conclusion, while the BJP may be able to form a government in Manipur without the 10 Kuki-Zo MLAs, such a formation would fall short of the ideals of democratic representation and popular legitimacy. A government that does not reflect the diversity of the state risks becoming a source of further division rather than reconciliation. The path forward must be guided not by numbers alone, but by a sincere effort to restore trust, inclusion, and shared governance in a state that has seen too much conflict already.