Manipur Government fails IDPs amid militancy crisis

The  statement by Puneet Kumar Goel, Chief Secretary of the Government of Manipur, outlining the progress of internally displaced persons (IDP) resettlement in the state, raises more questions than it answers. While the official figures of families resettled and funds released appear substantial on paper, the ground reality in districts such as Churachandpur and Kangpokpi paints a far more concerning picture.
The government claims that over 3,700 families comprising around 16,500 IDPs have been successfully resettled, and sets an ambitious target of over 10,000 families by March 2026. However, these numbers fail to reflect the daily struggles faced by displaced communities who continue to live in precarious conditions in relief camps. Families remain without adequate security, livelihoods, and access to essential services such as healthcare and education. For many, “resettlement” has not translated into restoration of dignity or normalcy.
The deeper issue lies in the state’s inability to contend with armed militancy in Churachandpur and Kangpokpi districts. These regions, long affected by insurgent activities and inter-community tensions, continue to pose a serious threat to the safety and rehabilitation of IDPs. While the Chief Secretary’s statement highlights committees and regular monitoring mechanisms, it conspicuously avoids acknowledging the persistent security gaps that prevent safe return. Without addressing the root causes of displacement—the ongoing armed threats—the resettlement plan is nothing more than an administrative exercise, disconnected from reality.
Furthermore, the government’s narrative emphasizes housing schemes under PMAY-G and funds released for resettlement, but fails to account for the chronic delays in construction, inadequate facilities in the rebuilt homes, and lack of meaningful livelihood support. Resettlement is not just about relocating people to brick-and-mortar houses; it is about enabling communities to live without fear, with opportunities for education, employment, and social integration. On these fronts, the state government’s performance remains insufficient.
It is also concerning that the administration’s statement portrays resettlement progress as a linear, unquestionable success while ignoring the voices of IDPs themselves. Independent assessments from relief agencies and civil society repeatedly highlight gaps in implementation, with displaced families continuing to experience uncertainty and vulnerability. The government’s narrative risks projecting a facade of efficiency while the human cost of prolonged displacement continues unabated.
If Manipur truly intends to rehabilitate its displaced citizens, it must go beyond statistics and committees. The state needs a clear, actionable plan to neutralize security threats in insurgency-affected districts, ensure rapid completion of housing projects, provide livelihood and educational support, and involve affected communities in decision-making. Only then can “resettlement” move beyond rhetoric and become a tangible reality for those who have endured years of displacement.
Until these measures are meaningfully implemented, the government’s claims will remain hollow, and the displaced people of Churachandpur and Kangpokpi will continue to bear the brunt of administrative inefficiency and insecurity.