Reconciliation before Revival – The complex road to popular Government in Manipur

The political crisis in Manipur, which erupted on May 3, 2023, continues unabated, casting a long shadow over the state’s democratic institutions. The imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution followed a complete breakdown of law and order, marked by violence, displacement, and a loss of public trust in the state machinery. Over a year later, some suspended MLAs are pressing for the revival of a popular government. However, such a demand, while politically understandable, seems unworkable without first addressing the fundamental causes of the unrest.
Under the Constitution, the President may revoke President’s Rule if convinced, on the advice of the Union Cabinet, that constitutional governance can be restored. Theoretically, this can happen at any moment. But in Manipur’s case, the ground reality continues to reflect a fractured society, a divided political class, and ongoing security challenges. Revoking President’s Rule in this situation without ensuring a broad-based political consensus and a return to law and order could further destabilize the region. The Centre has a duty under Article 355 to ensure that the government of every state functions in accordance with the Constitution. Premature withdrawal of central rule would contradict that responsibility.
Suspended BJP MLAs claim they have urged Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla to form a new government. While this is within their rights, their call seems hollow in the face of the clear absence of majority consensus. The 10 Kuki-Zo MLAs have refused to participate in Assembly proceedings since the violence began. Their consistent demand for a separate administration effectively renders any attempt at forming a united government futile. One of these MLAs recently stated that they might consider joining a government only if their demand for separate administration is formally considered. This stance underlines the deep political and ethnic divide that still dominates Manipur’s legislature. Without the participation or support of these 10 MLAs, any claim to form a majority-backed government loses constitutional validity under Article 164, which requires the Chief Minister to command the confidence of the House.
Adding to the complexity is the question of dealing with Kuki armed groups under the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreements. These agreements, while designed to pave the way for peace, have become controversial, with many blaming the resurgence of violence on the unchecked activities of armed Kuki groups. Though they are officially under truce, these groups continue to exert influence and control in several areas of the state. The inability of the state and Centre to effectively monitor the SoO groups has contributed to public resentment and prolonged insecurity. Any roadmap toward normalcy and government formation must include a transparent reassessment of the SoO framework. Invoking Article 355, the Centre must ensure that no armed group operates beyond the law under the guise of peace talks.
Amid this chaos, the demand for the immediate formation of a popular government seems more like a political maneuver than a practical solution. Popular government is not just a constitutional formality; it must be rooted in legitimacy, representation, and the ability to govern all communities equally. In the current situation, these conditions are far from being met. The existing ethnic polarization, the mistrust among legislators, and the widespread presence of armed actors mean that any attempt to cobble together a government now would be unstable and ineffective.
The immediate need in Manipur is for reconciliation. The Centre must lead efforts to facilitate a broad peace dialogue, involving both Meitei and Kuki-Zo civil society organisations, elected representatives, and representatives of armed groups under SoO. Only after some measure of trust and cooperation is re-established can the Centre consider revoking President’s Rule. Until then, rushing to install a popular government would only serve to deepen the crisis.
Manipur’s wounds are deep, and its path to recovery must begin with truth, justice, and reconciliation. Only then can the restoration of democratic institutions hold real meaning.