Healing Manipur requires constitutional clarity, institutional stability and shared political resolve

Deputy Chief Minister Nemcha Kipgen has called for reconciliation and restoration of peace at a moment when Manipur’s political landscape is undergoing transition. With the installation of a new government under Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh, expectations are understandably high. However, sustainable peace cannot rest on goodwill alone; it must be anchored in constitutional governance and decisive institutional action.
Under Article 164 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Minister is appointed by the Governor, and the other Ministers are appointed on the advice of the Chief Minister. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly. This framework is not ceremonial. It is designed to ensure that executive authority is structured, accountable and functionally distributed. Allocation of portfolios is central to this structure, as it delineates responsibility across departments and enables coordinated governance.
When there is a delay in portfolio distribution, particularly in a conflict-affected state, it raises questions about administrative preparedness. Public order and police fall under the State List of the Seventh Schedule, placing primary responsibility for internal security and law and order on the state government. The constitutional design assumes that the state executive will exercise these powers with clarity and autonomy, while the Union provides support under Articles 355 and 256 where necessary.
Manipur’s crisis demands precisely this balance. Cooperative federalism must operate in practice, not merely in principle. The Union Government has a duty to protect states against internal disturbance, but that responsibility should reinforce—not overshadow—the authority of the elected state government. A perception that state leadership is unable to independently operationalise its constitutional mandate weakens public confidence.
Healing Manipur requires institutional coherence. The Council of Ministers must function as an empowered body, with clearly defined portfolios and shared accountability. Reconciliation, rehabilitation and political dialogue require dedicated ministerial focus, inter-departmental coordination and sustained engagement with affected communities.
Constructive governance at this juncture means reaffirming constitutional boundaries while fostering collaboration between Imphal and New Delhi. Peace cannot be administered solely through central oversight nor achieved through fragmented state authority. It requires visible, coordinated and constitutionally grounded leadership.
The path forward lies in restoring not only social trust but also institutional confidence. A government that functions with clarity of mandate, defined responsibility and political courage will be better positioned to transform calls for reconciliation into measurable progress.