Manipur’s lingering crisis and the failure of governance under President’s Rule

Over two year into the conflict and over three months into President’s Rule, Manipur continues to spiral into deeper unrest, highlighting a glaring failure in governance. The recent developments surrounding the controversial removal of the Manipur State Transport (MST) signage from a state government vehicle by personnel of the 4 Mahar Regiment at Gwaltabi on May 20 have once again sparked widespread outrage. Public anger is palpable, not only because of the act itself but also because of the persistent silence and lack of accountability from constitutional authorities. What should have been a time of healing and restoration under President’s Rule has turned into yet another period of neglect, distrust, and institutional failure.
The Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI) is meeting the officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) today, attempting to communicate the sentiment on the ground and seek a resolution to growing tensions. However, the outcome of the meeting has done little to assure the public. While the meeting was meant to address critical concerns, including the preservation of Manipur’s integrity and identity, it has done more to expose the MHA’s limitations than resolve them. The MHA continues to act more like an intermediary between aggrieved parties rather than exercising its full authority to uphold constitutional governance in the state.
In sharp contrast to COCOMI’s continued engagement, the All Manipur United Clubs’ Organisation (AMUCO) has publicly stated its unwillingness to further engage in talks with the MHA. AMUCO rightly points out that the Ministry, which ought to be taking decisive action as the executive authority under President’s Rule, has relegated itself to the role of mediator—an abdication of its constitutional responsibility. The situation in Manipur demands governance, not negotiation; leadership, not liaison.
The Gwaltabi incident is not an isolated provocation—it is a symptom of a much deeper problem. The act of removing “Manipur State” from a government-owned bus was widely perceived as a deliberate attempt to undermine the state’s identity. It struck a deep emotional and political chord, uniting civil society organisations, student bodies, and women’s groups across the valley in protest. Human chains, rallies, and marches are being staged across districts, notably in Thoubal, Imphal East, and between Singjamei and Lilong. Protesters are no longer just demanding apologies; they are questioning the very legitimacy of the government’s presence in the state.
Under Article 355 of the Indian Constitution, it is the duty of the Union to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the governance of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. President’s Rule was imposed with the promise of restoring law, order, and peace. Yet, even after three months, there is little evidence that the fundamental rights of citizens—freedom of movement, speech, and security—are being protected.
Instead, what we witness is an environment of increasing militarisation, absence of transparency, and no clear roadmap for political resolution. The civilian population is caught between the perceived indifference of central authorities and the incapacity of local political actors. No apologies have been issued, no inquiries announced, and no accountability fixed. The silence from the Governor and the lack of visible action from the Chief Secretary and DGP are not just administrative lapses—they are a betrayal of constitutional governance.
The fallout of the current crisis extends beyond political implications. The educational calendar is disrupted, economic activity has slowed, and public morale is at an all-time low. Young students and working professionals are bearing the brunt of this prolonged uncertainty. Civil society organisations are stepping up to fill the vacuum left by an absent state, but that is not a long-term solution. Without trust in institutions, even the best-intentioned peace efforts risk collapse.
Manipur today is at a crossroads. The state does not merely need mediation—it needs intervention. The central government must stop viewing the crisis as a law-and-order issue alone and recognise it for what it is: a failure of political will, institutional accountability, and constitutional duty. Civil society cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of peace alone.
If the MHA truly wishes to restore normalcy, it must stop acting as a go-between and start acting as a government. This includes holding accountable those responsible for acts that undermine state identity, ensuring that central forces respect local sentiments, and engaging transparently with all stakeholders. Anything less will only deepen the current crisis and risk pushing Manipur further into the abyss of disillusionment and discord.