3 months under PR – A grim reflection on constitutional failure in Manipur

It has now been over three months since President’s Rule was imposed in Manipur, a move that many had hoped would bring a measure of neutrality, administrative control, and an end to the violence that has scarred the state since May 3, 2023. Instead, what has followed is a deepening of the crisis, marked by administrative paralysis, continued violence, and the erosion of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.
The latest flashpoint came at Pukhao Leitanpokpi in Imphal East, where fresh confrontation broke out between Meitei farmers and Kuki group when the farmers attempted to cultivate their fields at Sadu Lampak. These farmers, acting within the legal framework and with permission from the Central Security Forces, were obstructed and challenged, once again spotlighting the continuing failure of the government machinery—now under the direct control of the Centre—to uphold the basic right to livelihood, dignity, and safety.
Under Article 21 of the Constitution, every citizen has the right to life and personal liberty, which inherently includes the right to live with dignity and to earn a livelihood. The right to equality (Article 14) and the right to freedom of movement and residence within the territory of India (Article 19) have similarly been rendered meaningless in Manipur’s current context. When farmers are not allowed to work in their own paddy fields without fear of being attacked—despite escort by central forces—it is not merely a law and order problem. It is a constitutional breakdown.
When President’s Rule was imposed in February 13, 2025, it was projected as a corrective measure after months of conflict and administrative failure. The assumption was that governance directly under the President, and by extension the Union Government, would bring impartiality and relief to communities caught in the crossfire. However, the ground reality today paints a very different picture.
Large swathes of the valley and hill districts continue to remain segregated. Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), especially Meiteis in some hill areas and Kukis in parts of the valley, remain in relief camps with little to no prospect of returning to their homes. There has been no comprehensive rehabilitation plan, no legal accountability for the violence that claimed over 250 lives, and no credible dialogue mechanism involving all communities. The trust deficit has widened, and the Centre’s inaction has only fuelled disillusionment.
The confrontation at Pukhao Leitanpokpi is a tragic reminder that even basic acts of survival—such as farming—are now contested in Manipur. These farmers did not act in defiance of the law. They followed procedure. They secured permission. Yet, when they were obstructed, there was no visible intervention from the administration to protect their rights. What use is President’s Rule if constitutional guarantees cannot be upheld under its watch?
One of the core expectations from President’s Rule is the restoration of public confidence in the rule of law. However, Manipur today remains a divided state under unofficial territorial lines, guarded not by constitutional protections but by fear, mistrust, and vigilante control. The fact that even central forces appear powerless or unwilling to prevent armed interference with civilians raises troubling questions about the real command and intent behind the current administration.
Furthermore, the failure of the state machinery under President’s Rule to bring perpetrators of past violence to justice has set a dangerous precedent. Impunity has taken root. Families who lost their loved ones have not seen any meaningful investigation or prosecution. Over 50,000 people continue to live in temporary shelters, often without adequate access to food, healthcare, or education. If this is the Centre’s version of constitutional governance, it has fallen short of every standard of democratic accountability.
Inaction also carries strategic consequences. The longer the Centre avoids taking bold and balanced steps—whether in ensuring farmers’ rights, enabling safe return of displaced communities, or initiating justice—the more ground is ceded to chaos and separatist narratives. What was once a political and ethnic crisis is now a full-blown constitutional emergency, and President’s Rule, instead of healing wounds, is merely presiding over a prolonged state of failure.
The citizens of Manipur, irrespective of ethnicity, deserve more than just token visits and promises. They deserve their constitutional rights, their homes, and the assurance that the Indian State has not abandoned them. President’s Rule should have been a reset. It is fast becoming a symbol of retreat.
If the events at Pukhao Leitanpokpi are not enough to shake the conscience of the national leadership, what more will it take?