Popular Government or Prolonged Uncertainty

Speculation surrounding the formation of a popular government in Manipur has intensified as the period of President’s Rule moves closer to its next critical milestone. Divergent political positions, internal party pressures, unresolved ethnic tensions, and questions of administrative viability have combined to create an atmosphere of deep uncertainty. At the centre of this debate lies not merely the question of government formation, but the credibility of democratic governance in a state that has endured prolonged instability.
Within the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, views are far from uniform. Some legislators, including Sapam Kunjekeshor, have expressed confidence that a popular government could be formed before January 26. This optimism is rooted in the BJP’s numerical strength and its mandate from the last Assembly election, where the party secured an absolute majority. For this group, the restoration of an elected government is seen as both a constitutional necessity and a political imperative, particularly to counter perceptions that democratic processes have been weakened under prolonged central rule.
In sharp contrast, Khurai MLA and former minister L Susindro, also known as Yaima, has voiced scepticism about the feasibility of forming a popular government under current conditions. His assessment reflects a broader concern that political stability cannot be manufactured through numbers alone. Without a credible roadmap for peace and reconciliation, he argues, any government formed would struggle to function effectively and may further deepen the crisis rather than resolve it. Such caution highlights the gap between political arithmetic and political reality in Manipur today.
The Congress party has taken a more definitive stance by demanding the dissolution of the Manipur Legislative Assembly and calling for fresh elections. From its perspective, the existing Assembly no longer reflects the political and social realities that have emerged since the outbreak of violence. The Congress leadership appears to be positioning itself for the 2027 elections, calculating that prolonged President’s Rule may erode public confidence in the BJP and create space for an alternative political narrative. This approach, however, also raises questions about the cost of extended central rule on democratic institutions and public morale.
For the BJP, the stakes are particularly high. Failure to form a popular government would inevitably be seen as a blow to a party that had secured a clear mandate in the previous election. An inability to translate that mandate into governance risks damaging the party’s standing, not only in Manipur but nationally, where it projects itself as a force of political stability. At the same time, forming a government without ensuring conditions conducive to peace could prove equally damaging. A return to power that is followed by renewed unrest or administrative paralysis would undermine the party’s credibility far more severely.
The situation of the Kuki BJP MLAs adds another layer of complexity. These legislators are reportedly under intense pressure not to support the formation of a popular government. Yet, significantly, none of the ten Kuki MLAs has resigned from the Assembly. Their continued membership indicates that, constitutionally, they remain stakeholders in any future government. The formation of a popular government would automatically make them part of the Manipur Legislative Assembly’s functioning once again, whether or not they actively participate in governance. This dual reality reflects the tension between political compulsions on the ground and the formal structures of representative democracy.
Beyond party calculations, the central question remains whether the formation of a popular government can realistically contribute to restoring peace. Governance in a conflict-scarred state requires more than a change of political arrangement. It demands trust-building, inclusive dialogue, and a credible assurance of security for all communities. Without these elements, any elected government risks being perceived as partisan or ineffective, thereby aggravating rather than alleviating tensions.
President’s Rule, while constitutionally permissible, is not a substitute for democratic governance. Its prolonged continuation can foster political alienation and weaken institutional accountability. Yet, lifting it prematurely, without addressing the underlying causes of instability, may expose the state to renewed turmoil. The dilemma before policymakers is therefore not merely about timing, but about preparedness.
As the deadline for the extension or withdrawal of President’s Rule approaches, Manipur stands at a crossroads. The formation of a popular government could help restore democratic confidence and reaffirm the BJP’s mandate, but only if it is accompanied by a clear and credible peace strategy. Failure to stabilise the state after returning to power would amount to a political and moral setback of serious proportions. The coming days will reveal whether political will can align with ground realities, or whether Manipur will continue to drift in a cycle of uncertainty.