Even after more than three years of ethnic conflict, Manipur remains trapped in a cycle of uncertainty, violence, and political paralysis. What began as a confrontation between the Meitei and Kuki communities during the tenure of former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh has evolved into a prolonged crisis that has fractured society, crippled the economy, and exposed the limitations of both state and central interventions.
As the situation spiralled out of control, the state government failed to restore law and order, leading to the imposition of President’s Rule on February 13, 2025, following Biren Singh’s resignation. Yet President’s Rule, which was expected to bring stability and confidence, produced little change on the ground. Violence persisted, displaced families remained homeless, and mistrust among communities deepened.
Recognising the failure of direct central administration to resolve the conflict, the Centre revoked President’s Rule on February 4, 2026, and installed Yumnam Khemchand Singh as Chief Minister. To project an image of inclusiveness, Deputy Chief Ministers from the Kuki and Naga communities were appointed, while Govindas Konthoujam assumed charge of the Home Department. The message was clear: a broad-based government would attempt to heal Manipur’s fractured social fabric.
The new administration took what appeared to be cautious but promising steps. The confidence-building meeting with the Kuki-Zo Council in Guwahati on March 21, 2026, marked the first formal engagement between state leaders and Kuki-Zo representatives in nearly three years. For many, it signalled the possibility of reconciliation and a political roadmap towards peace.
Unfortunately, the optimism proved short-lived.
Fresh tensions between Naga and Kuki groups have emerged, demonstrating that the conflict has not only persisted but, in some respects, evolved into new forms. The recent release of 14 Kuki hostages was welcomed as a positive development. However, reports that six Naga civilians allegedly abducted by Kuki militants were later recovered from Leilon Vaiphei village in Kangpokpi district underscored the fragility of the situation. Such incidents reveal that mutual distrust remains deeply entrenched.
The more troubling reality is that ordinary citizens continue to pay the highest price for political failure. Transport networks remain disrupted. Educational institutions struggle to function normally. Unemployment continues to rise. Economic activity has slowed dramatically, leaving businesses and families under severe stress. Essential commodities are often scarce and expensive, not only in remote hill areas but increasingly in urban centres as well.
Manipur, often described as a miniature India because of its ethnic diversity, cannot afford governance that serves communities separately rather than collectively. Today, many government officers, police personnel, and bureaucrats are effectively confined within their respective ethnic territories. Meitei and Naga officials largely operate within the valley, while Kuki officials remain concentrated in Churachandpur and Kangpokpi. Such segregation is not merely a security concern—it is a visible symbol of a state that has lost its administrative cohesion.
Meanwhile, the government appears more occupied with routine official functions, ceremonial events, and infrastructure inaugurations than with addressing the fundamental crisis confronting the state. Public relations cannot substitute for governance. Ribbon-cutting ceremonies cannot replace security, reconciliation, and economic recovery.
The fundamental question, therefore, remains: can the present government restore law and order and rebuild public confidence?
Representation alone cannot guarantee peace. The inclusion of leaders from different communities in the government is politically significant, but symbolism without results risks becoming meaningless. If violence continues despite an inclusive power-sharing arrangement, citizens will inevitably question whether the administration possesses either the capacity or the political will to govern effectively.
Italian political philosopher Antonio Gramsci observed that ruling classes maintain power not merely through force but by securing public consent. When institutions fail to deliver security, employment, justice, and hope, consent begins to erode. Gramsci described such periods as an “interregnum”—a moment when the old order is dying, but the new order has yet to emerge. It is during such periods that social unrest, instability, and political uncertainty flourish.
Manipur today appears dangerously close to such an interregnum.
If the present government fails to halt the violence, revive the economy, and restore public confidence, pressure will inevitably mount on the Centre to consider stronger interventions. The reimposition of President’s Rule should remain a last resort, not a preferred option. Yet if democratic institutions continue to appear ineffective, calls for such intervention will only grow louder.
At this critical juncture, Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh and his cabinet must take the first meaningful steps towards rebuilding trust among Manipur’s diverse communities. Engagement with civil society organisations representing the Meitei, Naga, Meitei Pangal, and Kuki communities should become an immediate priority. Sustainable peace cannot be achieved through administrative measures alone; it requires dialogue, confidence-building, and a shared commitment to coexistence.
Manipur stands at a historic crossroads. The choice before its leaders is clear: govern decisively and restore the faith of the people, or risk presiding over the further erosion of democratic authority. Peace cannot be achieved through symbolism alone. It requires security, justice, accountability, and above all, the political courage to confront reality rather than merely manage perceptions. The people of Manipur have endured enough uncertainty. What they seek now is not rhetoric, but results; not promises, but peace.
Leader writer Sh. Ajit
