It’s blank. True. It is because nothing has been said yet. But, the silence of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi can be interpreted in thousands of ways. There is a saying, “Silence is Golden.” The power of silence can be profound, but in the case of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi, his silence regarding the crisis in Manipur is anything but golden. As speculations continue to swirl among people across communal lines, questions arise as to why the head of the Indian government has remained silent while one of his states burns for over two months. General opinion, including that of opposition parties, suggests that there may be a hidden agenda behind his silence, and this silence is causing worry among the residents of Manipur who constantly face fear and terror.
Acts of arson, killings, firing, and property destruction have been reported throughout the state. Even the deaths of central and state security forces have occurred, with both the state and union governments failing to control the situation. Modi’s lack of words and actions to demonstrate his capabilities in quelling the violence has invited ire, hatred, mistrust, and criticism from all quarters.
The striking contrast is seen when, on Friday, PM Modi, currently in France, made a call to Home Minister Amit Shah to inquire about the flood-like situation in Delhi. This act raises eyebrows, highlighting his apparent concern for Delhi while avoiding any comment or address regarding the situation in Manipur. The opposition has rightly questioned why no such call was made while Modi was in the US and Manipur was burning. His silence speaks volumes about his differential approach to different parts of India, even to places like Manipur, where people also call India “home.”
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi took to Twitter to express his views on the current situation and Modi’s silence, stating, “Manipur burns. EU Parliament discusses India’s internal matter. PM hasn’t said a word on either!” Interpretations of Modi’s silence have garnered criticism after criticism. Some see it as a lack of concern or empathy for the situation, a failure to acknowledge the gravity of the issue, or a disregard for the suffering of the affected people. While some supporters argue that his silence may be a deliberate choice to allow experts and relevant authorities to handle the crisis, it has been more than two months, and hope and normalcy remain distant dreams.
Initially, his silence may have been interpreted as prioritizing informed decision-making over immediate public response. However, this approach has proven inadequate. Another interpretation suggests that his silence is an attempt to avoid being held responsible or accountable for the crisis, particularly if he believes it could harm his political standing. But even after more than 140 deaths and the torching of thousands of houses and properties, his silence fails to warrant constructive discussion considering the gravity of the situation and the sentiments of over 3 million people.
In times of crisis, leadership entails not just action but also solace, reassurance, and direction for those affected. By remaining silent, Prime Minister Modi has failed to address the concerns, fears, and aspirations of the people of Manipur. His silence, rather than being seen as a golden quality, rings as a deafening alarm. It raises serious questions about his commitment to all citizens of India, regardless of their location or circumstances. It is high time for the Prime Minister to break his silence, acknowledge the severity of the situation, and take concrete actions to restore peace and security in Manipur. The people of Manipur deserve nothing less.