The state of Manipur continues to reel under the shadow of one of the most severe communal conflicts in its history, which broke out on 3 May 2023. What began as an eruption of ethnic distrust has now hardened into an enduring divide between the Meitei and Kuki communities. Nearly two and a half years later, the scars are still fresh—over 250 people have lost their lives, hundreds remain injured, and more than 70,000 continue to live in makeshift relief camps, deprived of the normalcy that once defined their lives. Free movement between the valley and the hills remains restricted, with the so-called “buffer zones” symbolising the deep mistrust that has crippled Manipur’s social and administrative fabric.
Yet, while ordinary citizens continue to suffer, the political class appears consumed with calculations and convenience. The BJP and its alliance partners in the state, now under President’s Rule, are eager to reinstate an elected government. But the central leadership of the ruling party appears reluctant to rush into restoring a BJP-led dispensation—particularly under the same leadership that presided over the state when it descended into chaos. The political dilemma is clear: reviving the government in Manipur before the upcoming Bihar election could risk unsettling national optics, should the new administration once again fail to bring peace and order to Manipur.
The record of the previous N. Biren Singh-led government hardly inspires confidence. Despite multiple interventions from the Centre, peace remained elusive under his tenure. His administration was accused of favouritism, selective policing, and deepening the communal fault lines rather than bridging them. The conflict spiralled beyond the state’s control, with the Chief Minister himself facing allegations in a case pending before the Supreme Court concerning his purported role in stoking the unrest. Against this backdrop, any move to reinstate him—or even to reinstall a government dominated by his loyalists—could reignite tensions that are yet to be doused.
The political leadership in Delhi is well aware of this precarious reality. The BJP’s national strategists understand that the handling of Manipur will have repercussions far beyond the Northeast. The party’s image of strong governance and national unity would take a blow if it appears insensitive to the human tragedy still unfolding in the state. More crucially, any misstep in Manipur could become fodder for opposition campaigns in Bihar and other politically significant states. Hence, the cautious silence from the Centre is not merely indecision—it is a calculated pause dictated by political prudence.
However, delaying a resolution indefinitely is equally dangerous. Governance cannot remain suspended in perpetuity. The absence of a representative government has slowed down the rehabilitation process, delayed economic recovery, and weakened administrative accountability. Relief camps continue to depend heavily on central and NGO assistance, while large sections of the population remain cut off from livelihood opportunities. Manipur, once a vibrant symbol of the Northeast’s cultural diversity, is today a fractured land struggling for identity and survival.
The Centre faces a moral and constitutional responsibility to ensure that Manipur’s return to democracy does not come at the cost of peace. If reinstating the previous regime risks inflaming old wounds, then a fresh leadership must be sought—one that commands the trust of both communities and carries no baggage of the past. Within the BJP’s state unit, there are capable MLAs who could represent a clean slate. But the challenge lies in whether Delhi is willing to take the political risk of disowning a former Chief Minister.
The ideal way forward would involve a tripartite approach: continued central oversee under President’s Rule until a credible peace framework is achieved; initiation of a broad-based reconciliation process involving community leaders, civil society, and religious representatives; and eventual transition to an elected government led by a consensus candidate acceptable to both valley and hill populations. This would not only strengthen democratic legitimacy but also send a strong message that governance in Manipur will not be hostage to individual ambitions or electoral arithmetic.
Manipur’s tragedy is not just a local issue—it is a national test of conscience. The state’s people deserve more than political calculation; they deserve justice, security, and hope. Every day of delay deepens the wounds of division and disillusionment. The Centre must resist the temptation to treat Manipur as a mere variable in the electoral calculus. The restoration of peace and dignity in Manipur should precede political expediency, not be postponed by it.
Only through courage, empathy, and fair governance can the state begin to heal. India cannot afford to let Manipur remain a symbol of administrative paralysis and political apathy. The choice before the Centre is not just about forming a government—it is about restoring faith in the very idea of unity that binds this nation together.