Is Centre no hurry to install Popular Ministry?

The brief visit of senior BJP leaders B.L. Santhosh and Sambit Patra to Imphal earlier this month had momentarily revived the hopes of the BJP legislators in Manipur. Many believed that, buoyed by the NDA’s emphatic victory in Bihar, the central leadership would finally set in motion the process of installing a popular ministry in the State. For a short while, there was an expectation that New Delhi would invite them for consultations and chart a path back to an elected government.
As November ends, however, that optimism has steadily faded. With the Winter Session of Parliament scheduled from December 1 to 19, it is now increasingly clear that the Centre is unlikely to engage substantively with the State’s MLAs until the session concludes. Months of uncertainty have drained the legislators, who once again find themselves with no meaningful channel to present their case. The inclusion of The Manipur Goods and Services Tax (Second Amendment) Bill, 2025, to be introduced to replace an Ordinancein the current Winter Session’s legislative agenda further indicates that a new ministry in Imphal is not on the Centre’s immediate priority list.
This delay might have been tolerable had the situation on the ground shown signs of improvement. Instead, Manipur has witnessed renewed turbulence. Law and order in the valley districts has deteriorated sharply in recent weeks. Even more alarming are reports that Kuki militant organisations have issued warnings to their own MLAs, urging them not to participate in any process aimed at forming a popular ministry. The ten Kuki legislators are reportedly under pressure to resign, making any political negotiation hazardous and diminishing hopes of forming a stable government.
In this atmosphere of deepening insecurity, the window for restoring an elected ministry is rapidly narrowing. The Union Budget, by convention, will be presented on February 1, 2026. December will be occupied by parliamentary business, January by pre-budget consultations. The Centre’s attention, inevitably, will be focused elsewhere. This risks continuing the cycle of postponements that has characterised Manipur’s political paralysis for more than a year.
If the Centre remains unconvinced about the feasibility, political or securityrelatedof reinstating a popular ministry, it is faced with two constitutional options. One is to prolong the present “animated suspension” of the Assembly, extending the constitutional vacuum. The other is to dissolve the Assembly and pave the way for fresh elections. Yet, conducting elections before early 2027 appears unrealistic given the administrative and security conditions. In extreme situations, polls may even be deferred until 2028 as maximum limit for extension the President’s Rule and as per the 44thConstitutional Amendment stipulates that President’s Rule may be extended beyond one year only in six-month instalments and only when two conditions are fulfilled: there must be a national emergency in force in the whole or part of the State, and the Election Commission must certify that elections cannot be held due to specific difficulties.
Amid these stark choices lies a third, more pragmatic perspective—one that New Delhi may quietly be weighing. Extending President’s Rule, though undesirable in principle, may offer the State a critical period of administrative and social stabilisation. Manipur’s crisis today is not merely political; it is structural, deeply communal, and rooted in a profound breakdown of trust between communities. An elected government thrust prematurely into an environment of competing pressures may lack the bandwidth to address these entrenched problems.
A carefully extended period of central rule could allow the Governor and the administrative machinery to correct past missteps, reinforce impartial governance, and prioritise healing over political expediency. A brief pause from political brinkmanship may also create space for rebuilding communication among divided communities. Essential tasks like restoring public order, rehabilitating displaced persons, reviving stalled public services, facilitating neutral dialogue etc., demand continuity, patience, and a non-partisan approach. These conditions may be more achievable under central administration than under a fragile new ministry struggling to manage competing expectations.
This is not an argument against democracy. Rather, it is a caution against restoring it prematurely when the conditions necessary for its functioning remain absent. A calibrated extension of President’s Rule, combined with transparent engagement from the Centre, may help rebuild confidence and prepare the ground for a more durable political settlement. The risks of rushing into a fragile arrangement far outweigh the costs of waiting for a more stable environment.
Manipur deserves the return of an elected ministrybut one established under circumstances that ensure legitimacy, longevity, and the trust of all communities. The journey may take longer than many had hoped, but its foundations must rest on peace, stability, and reconciliation. Only then can a restored government truly endure.