The Manipur Government’s decision to deploy a large contingent of security forces to lift the economic blockade at Namdilong has once again brought into sharp focus a question that has remained unanswered throughout the prolonged conflict in the state: Why has the government acted with urgency in one case while appearing reluctant in another?
For nearly three years, National Highways passing through Kangpokpi district have witnessed severe restrictions affecting the movement of members of selected communities, particularly the Meitei community. The restrictions, enforced by Kuki civil society organisations in the aftermath of the Manipur violence that erupted in May 2023, have fundamentally altered the character of what are supposed to be public highways maintained with taxpayers’ money. Free movement—a constitutional expectation within the territory of India—has remained elusive for thousands of citizens.
Despite repeated reports of vehicles being prevented from passing through certain stretches, the State Government has rarely demonstrated the same determination to restore unrestricted civilian movement that it has now displayed at Namdilong. This contrast inevitably raises questions about consistency in governance and the equal application of the law.
The blockade at Namdilong arose after the abduction and brutal killing of six Liangmai Naga civilians on May 13, 2026. The protesters are demanding justice and the arrest of those responsible for the killings. While any blockade affecting public roads deserves attention from the authorities, the government’s swift decision to mobilise a substantial security force to disperse protesters stands in stark contrast to its prolonged inability—or unwillingness—to ensure similar freedom of movement along highways passing through Kangpokpi.
Governments are expected to act impartially. The rule of law cannot depend on which community is enforcing a blockade or which community is affected by it. If highways are to remain open, they must remain open for everyone. If restrictions are unacceptable today, they should have been unacceptable from the beginning.
Equally significant is the silence surrounding this issue from senior members of the government. Deputy Chief Minister Nemcha Kipgen, one of the highest-ranking elected representatives from the Kuki community in the State Cabinet, has remained largely absent from the public discourse on the continued restrictions along the national highways. Given her constitutional responsibility as Deputy Chief Minister, many would reasonably expect her to articulate the government’s position or outline concrete steps towards restoring unrestricted movement. Silence, particularly on issues of public importance, often creates a vacuum that fuels speculation and deepens mistrust.
The broader concern extends beyond political accountability. National highways are strategic assets connecting states, facilitating commerce, emergency services and civilian mobility. They are not community-owned roads to be opened or closed at the discretion of any organisation. When sections of a national highway effectively become inaccessible to particular communities for years, the implications extend beyond Manipur. They touch upon fundamental questions of constitutional governance, equality before the law and the State’s obligation to guarantee the rights of every citizen.
The emergence of so-called “buffer zones” has further complicated the situation. While security arrangements may sometimes be necessary to prevent immediate violence, such measures cannot become a substitute for governance or evolve into de facto territorial divisions that institutionalise segregation. Temporary security mechanisms should not harden into permanent barriers restricting the movement of citizens within their own state.
The Government now faces an opportunity to demonstrate that its actions are guided by principle rather than circumstance. Restoring normalcy cannot mean responding vigorously to one blockade while tolerating another. A consistent policy must apply across all highways, all districts and all communities.
The people of Manipur deserve more than selective enforcement. They deserve a government that upholds the Constitution uniformly, safeguards public infrastructure without fear or favour, and ensures that no citizen’s right to travel depends on ethnicity or the route they choose. Until that standard is visibly and consistently applied, questions about unequal governance will continue to persist.
