Manipur’s Crisis: Between a Defunct Popular Government and a Useless President’s Rule

There is speculation that BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra will visit Manipur tomorrow. While the official purpose of his visit remains unconfirmed, political circles suggest it may relate to attempts by some MLAs to form a government. If true, this signals a renewed interest from the ruling party to restore a semblance of popular rule in a state that has remained in limbo since the imposition of President’s Rule.
Manipur has been under President’s Rule following the prolonged and devastating ethnic conflict that began under the BJP-led government headed by N. Biren Singh. It is worth recalling that the popular government was not suspended over legislative gridlock or electoral failure but due to a total breakdown of law and order. The collapse of state authority in May 2023 marked a decisive turning point in Manipur’s political history. What followed was not only a humanitarian crisis but also the glaring exposure of a state government’s inability—or refusal—to protect its own people.
Yet, months into President’s Rule, the ground situation remains largely unchanged. Relief camps continue to house thousands of internally displaced people. Ethnic segregation has hardened into de facto partition. Armed groups dominate rural and border zones. It is increasingly apparent that the imposition of Article 356, while constitutionally valid, has done little to repair the deep and systemic damage inflicted upon the state’s social fabric.
Under such circumstances, the possible return to a popular government—whether it is reconstituted under the same leadership or with a new arrangement—is a matter that demands both caution and scrutiny. The people of Manipur are right to be skeptical. After all, the last popularly elected government presided over the worst communal conflict in recent decades. It failed not because of administrative incompetence alone, but because it forfeited the trust of one section of the population while being viewed as complicit by another. The central government’s prolonged silence and half-hearted interventions have only compounded this failure.
The harsh truth is this: President’s Rule has not worked. It was assumed that a centrally administered state might ensure neutrality, security, and institutional healing. That assumption has not held up. Instead, the perception is growing that governance from Delhi is either indifferent or ineffective. The constitutional mechanism designed to offer temporary stability in times of crisis has become an excuse for political evasion. A year later, there is no roadmap, no political resolution in sight, and no accountability for the original failures that necessitated Article 356.
The Indian Constitution offers provisions for imposing President’s Rule but is silent on what should be done when that rule fails to deliver. There is no guidance on what happens when both democratic and emergency governance fail to function as instruments of justice and order. The framers of the Constitution perhaps did not anticipate a scenario in which both forms of government would stand discredited in the eyes of the people. Yet this is precisely where Manipur finds itself today: caught between a defunct popular government and a useless President’s Rule.
This constitutional and political impasse demands imagination, not manoeuvring. It requires a dialogue process rooted in transparency and accountability. It calls for a leadership that commands the confidence of all communities, not just a numerical majority in the Assembly. If Sambit Patra’s visit signals a fresh engagement with the realities on the ground, then it must go beyond political arithmetic. It must acknowledge the failures of the past year, reject the pretense of normalcy, and commit to a process that includes civil society, displaced persons, and those affected by violence on both sides.