Manipur may be approaching another decisive moment in its prolonged political crisis. Decisions being contemplated in New Delhi could have far-reaching consequences for the state’s territorial integrity, constitutional framework and future generations. Revelations by former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, the possibility of legislative initiatives to resolve the Naga political issue have raised questions that demand answers. The Centre cannot continue to expect public trust while leaving the people of Manipur uncertain about the future being negotiated in their name.
In an interview with The Print on October 9, 2026, Biren Singh disclosed that A.K. Mishra, then the Centre’s interlocutor for the Northeast, had informally discussed with him in April 2023 a proposal from Suspension of Operations (SoO) groups for a Kuki Territorial Council covering three or four districts of Manipur. According to Biren Singh, the proposal envisaged extensive legislative, judicial, financial and mineral-related autonomy. He said he had sought time to consult his Cabinet colleagues, legislators and civil society organisations before responding.
The disclosure is significant because the ethnic violence that erupted on May 3, 2023, followed within weeks of the reported discussions. That sequence alone does not establish a causal connection between the proposal and the violence. But it raises serious questions about the nature of the negotiations, the commitments being explored and the extent to which elected representatives and the public were informed.
The issue is not whether the grievances and political aspirations of the Kuki-Zo community deserve consideration. They do. Nor can the longstanding aspirations of the Naga people be dismissed or indefinitely postponed. Both require meaningful political engagement. The fundamental question is whether separate negotiations, conducted without adequate consultation, could produce arrangements whose combined consequences threaten Manipur’s fragile social fabric and constitutional balance.
Demands for a separate administration, including a Union Territory with a legislature, must be examined within the constitutional framework. However, any arrangement involving territorial jurisdiction, legislative authority, natural resources or financial powers cannot be treated as a private understanding between the Centre and armed organisations. Its consequences would extend far beyond the negotiating parties, affecting the rights, livelihoods and political interests of other communities.
The reported warning by Lok Sabha MP Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam that the Centre might introduce Bills concerning Manipur during the Winter Session adds to the uncertainty. Until the proposed legislation is officially disclosed, its contents and implications remain unverified. Nevertheless, the people of Manipur are entitled to clarity. Parliament must not become the venue where a fait accompli is presented for approval after the essential decisions have already been made. Consultation cannot mean informing people only after their choices have effectively been taken away.
The Naga political negotiations add another layer of complexity. After decades of dialogue, a settlement may be desirable, but any agreement affecting Naga-inhabited areas of Manipur, customary institutions, governance or resource control must be assessed for its implications within the state. A settlement intended to resolve one historical conflict must not create the conditions for another.
Speculation about the possible reimposition of President’s Rule ahead of the Winter Session must also be treated cautiously in the absence of official confirmation. Article 356 is an exceptional constitutional provision, not an instrument for bypassing elected representatives or easing the passage of politically contentious arrangements. Constitutional authority cannot substitute for public legitimacy.
Manipur has already endured displacement, insecurity, deep mistrust and prolonged uncertainty. Any settlement perceived as imposed could harden ethnic divisions and further undermine reconciliation. The Centre must disclose the broad contours of proposed arrangements, clarify the status of negotiations with SoO groups and Naga representatives, and establish a credible process for consulting all affected communities and elected representatives. Parliament, too, must scrutinise any proposed legislation with due regard to constitutional safeguards and the state’s distinctive social and territorial realities.
Peace cannot be secured by balancing competing demands behind closed doors. It requires transparency, constitutional restraint and the consent of those whose future is at stake. New Delhi must recognise that an agreement signed by negotiating parties is not necessarily a settlement accepted by the people.
Manipur cannot afford another peace process that leaves its people confronting the consequences of decisions they had no meaningful opportunity to question. Peace cannot be negotiated behind its back.
