By – Maisnam Pushpakanta Luwang
The growing number of private rehabilitation and de-addiction centres in Manipur raises a question that can no longer be avoided: Who is actually monitoring them?
This is not a question intended to discredit genuine rehabilitation organisations, professionals or caregivers. It is precisely because these centres deal with vulnerable individuals and distressed families that the system requires the highest standards of professionalism, transparency and accountability.
The Government of India recognises substance dependence as a psycho-socio-medical problem requiring prevention, treatment, rehabilitation, aftercare and social reintegration. The National Action Plan for Drug Demand Reduction (NAPDDR) provides a framework for treatment and rehabilitation services, along with minimum standards and guidelines.
So the issue is not whether standards exist. The real issue is whether those standards are being implemented and monitored on the ground.
Who authorises these centres?
With private facilities increasing across the state, families deserve clear answers.
What is the procedure for establishing a rehabilitation centre in Manipur? Which authority grants permission? Who verifies the infrastructure, staffing and qualifications of those providing treatment? How often are inspections conducted? What happens when a centre fails to meet prescribed standards?
Most importantly, where can a family find reliable information about whether a particular centre is authorised, properly staffed and regularly inspected?
These should not be difficult questions in a system dealing with people’s lives.
Public money demands public accountability
Government funding is another area requiring transparency. Under NAPDDR, eligible organisations can receive financial assistance for treatment, rehabilitation and related activities.
The public should therefore be able to know who received funding, how much was sanctioned, what it was intended for, how it was utilised and what outcomes were achieved. Asking these questions does not mean accusing anyone of financial wrongdoing. Transparency is not an allegation; it is a fundamental principle of public accountability.
Community organisations have a role—but not a substitute for regulation
Civil society and community-based organisations can make an important contribution to addressing substance use. However, community participation cannot replace statutory responsibility.
No individual, organisation or self-appointed representative should become so influential that questioning the system is treated as opposition to the cause itself.
Regulation must be institutional, transparent and independent of personalities.
A rehabilitation centre is not a detention centre
This distinction is particularly important.
A person struggling with substance dependence is not simply someone who should be confined until a family decides to take them home. Effective treatment can involve medical assessment, clinically appropriate detoxification, counselling, psychological and psychosocial interventions, relapse prevention, family involvement, aftercare and social reintegration.
Calling a facility a “rehabilitation centre” does not, by itself, establish that it provides quality treatment.
Patient dignity, consent, safety, medical support, staffing, treatment practices, complaints, serious incidents, discharge procedures and aftercare must all be subject to proper oversight.
What should success actually mean?
Too often, the success of substance-use programmes is presented through seminars, awareness campaigns, rallies, camps, meetings, photographs and annual reports.
But the more important questions are different:
How many people received appropriate treatment? How many completed treatment? How many received meaningful aftercare? How many returned successfully to their families and communities? How many relapsed? What were the reasons? What improvements were made based on those outcomes?
An activity is not an outcome. A photograph is not an outcome. Expenditure is not an outcome. Recovery is the outcome that matters.
Manipur needs a transparent monitoring system
The state needs a credible and publicly accountable monitoring mechanism for rehabilitation and de-addiction facilities—whether government-supported or privately operated.
Regular inspections should examine registration and regulatory compliance, infrastructure, staff qualifications, treatment protocols, patient rights, medical and psychological services, documentation, complaints, serious incidents, discharge and aftercare, treatment outcomes and financial accountability.
Families should not have to discover serious deficiencies only after something goes wrong.
This is not a demand to close rehabilitation centres. Manipur needs more quality treatment, not simply more treatment facilities.
We need centres that are professionally managed and properly regulated. We need government departments that monitor in practice, not merely on paper. We need community organisations that contribute without becoming substitutes for statutory accountability. And we need families who have access to reliable information before placing their loved ones in treatment.
The substance-use crisis is too serious to be reduced to annual programmes, meetings and photographs.
If centres are doing good work, let their records demonstrate it. If public funds are properly utilised, let the accounts demonstrate it. If treatment standards are being followed, let inspections demonstrate it. If patients are being protected, let monitoring reports demonstrate it.
Because ultimately, this is not about departments, organisations or individuals. It is about human lives. And when human lives are entrusted to a rehabilitation system, accountability cannot be optional.
(The author is Founder, Resource Alliance – Voices Not Vices)
