Sidelining DIPR and Mismanagement of MIC Delhi: How Manipur’s Government is failing public trust?

The controversial appointment of an Information Assistant to the Manipur Information Center (MIC) in New Delhi, bypassing established recruitment procedures, has sparked serious concerns about governance, transparency, and accountability in the state. At a time when Manipur is grappling with deep-rooted social unrest, the mishandling of this crucial appointment raises alarm over the state’s approach to managing key departments, particularly the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR).
The MIC, a crucial branch of the state government based in New Delhi, is responsible for promoting Manipur’s image and managing its communication and public relations on a national stage. Given the ongoing conflict and heightened media scrutiny, an efficiently run MIC is vital for projecting a balanced narrative and fostering positive engagement with the wider public. Yet, rather than strengthen this key institution, the state government has delayed and undermined its effectiveness by making a non-transparent, last-minute appointment. In fact, given the ongoing crisis, this appointment was overdue—if anything, the MIC should have been fully staffed and operational long ago.
Despite its significance, the appointment of the Information Assistant was made without a formal recruitment test, public advertisement, or competitive examination. These are essential procedures that ensure fairness, equal opportunity, and merit-based selection in public sector hiring. Bypassing these norms not only reflects a lack of adherence to good governance practices but also sends a worrying message about how key positions in the government can be filled through favoritism or political convenience.
What is particularly alarming is the sidelining of the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR), which should have played a central role in the appointment process. The DIPR is responsible for overseeing public relations and managing information dissemination, and its role is crucial in ensuring that government communication is professional, effective, and accountable. In neighbouring states like Assam and Mizoram, the importance of the DIPR is well understood. These states have empowered their DIPR offices to even manage social media platforms and craft strategic communication plans to engage with the public. In contrast, Manipur’s government appears to have marginalized the DIPR, allowing private individuals, often not employed through proper channels, to handle key communication tasks.
Reports suggest that these private individuals, some of whom are not vetted by the DIPR, are being paid large sums of money from the department’s budget. This not only raises ethical concerns but also questions the proper allocation and use of public resources. If funds intended for the DIPR’s operations are being diverted to private actors who are not officially employed, it points to deeper systemic issues in the management of the department and the government’s financial governance as a whole.
The consequences of mismanaging the DIPR extend beyond recruitment practices. By sidelining the department, the government is not only weakening a key institution but also failing to adequately address the state’s communication needs during a time of crisis. The DIPR should be at the forefront of crafting effective communication strategies to manage the public’s perception of the ongoing conflict. Instead, it has been sidelined, its budget used for purposes that may not align with its mandate. If the government continues on this path, the credibility of its public sector management will only deteriorate further.