The controversy surrounding the appointment of Professor Ganga Prasad Prasain at Manipur University has exposed more than an administrative dispute. It has revealed the weakening of institutional principles, the failure of the system to respect its own rules, and the increasingly compromised position of those who are expected to safeguard university norms. What should have remained a clear question of legality, procedure, and academic dignity has now become a disturbing example of how public institutions in Manipur are being reduced to spaces of manipulation, adjustment, and quiet surrender.
At the centre of the controversy is the allegation that the appointment violates the university’s Statute 2(6), which reportedly provides that the senior-most professor should be appointed as Vice-Chancellor in charge. If this is indeed the rule, then the matter is not merely about one individual occupying one office. It concerns the sanctity of university statutes and the credibility of the system that is supposed to uphold them. A university cannot function on convenience. It cannot bend its own rules whenever it suits those in power. Once statutes are ignored, the university ceases to be a rule-governed academic institution and becomes an administrative playground for arbitrary decisions.
This is where the role of the Manipur University Students’ Union (MUSU) becomes deeply troubling. The union initially appeared to take a strong position by shutting down the administrative block. Such an action created the impression that MUSU was prepared to defend the dignity of Manipur University and resist any violation of its rules. However, the later decision to lift the shutdown after submitting a five-point memorandum to the Governor, the Chief Rector of the university, weakened the entire movement. The union also sought the intervention of the Visitor and the concerned Ministry, but this bureaucratic route did not answer the immediate question: if the appointment violated the statute, why was the protest withdrawn without securing a clear corrective action?
Memorandums are not a substitute for principled resistance. Appeals to higher authorities may be necessary, but they cannot become an excuse for retreat. MUSU cannot claim that the university’s rules have been violated and then behave as though the matter can be settled through symbolic gestures. This contradiction has created the impression of a double-faced stand. On one side, the union speaks the language of justice, transparency, and academic integrity. On the other, its actions suggest hesitation, weakness, and unwillingness to confront the system with firmness.
The larger problem is the co-option of student politics. MUSU was once associated with powerful student movements and moral courage. It had the capacity to speak on behalf of the university community and challenge authority when required. Today, however, many observers feel that the union has lost that clarity. Its actions appear confused, politically influenced, and carefully limited. Instead of functioning as an independent watchdog, it seems to have become vulnerable to pressure from the very system it is supposed to question.
This is how institutions are weakened. They are not always destroyed through open repression. Sometimes they are weakened by absorbing dissent, managing anger, and converting resistance into negotiation. Student bodies are allowed to protest for a while, issue statements, submit memorandums, and then quietly withdraw. The public is left with the appearance of struggle, while the system remains unchanged. In such a situation, protest becomes performance, not resistance.
The suspicion that some MUSU leaders may expect personal benefits or future favour from the university administration cannot simply be dismissed as gossip. Even if such allegations remain unproven, the very fact that they have emerged shows how much public trust has declined. When a student union loses credibility, every compromise begins to look like a deal. Every soft statement appears calculated. Every retreat raises questions. This is the danger of weak leadership: it not only fails in the present but also damages the moral authority of future student movements.
The responsibility, however, does not rest on MUSU alone. The university administration, the Governor as Chief Rector, the Visitor, and the concerned Ministry must also answer why a statutory controversy was allowed to arise in the first place. If the rules are clear, they must be followed. If there is ambiguity, it must be publicly clarified. Silence and delay only deepen suspicion.