The Optics of a Helicopter Journey in Manipur

Chief Minister N Biren Singh’s decision to travel by helicopter to Senapati, after the Kuki Zo Council in Churachandpur has threatened that they would block his travel through Kangpokpi district, raises serious questions about the government’s priorities and its credibility. While the chief minister’s safety is undeniably important, his choice to bypass road travel in favor of a helicopter flight sends a contradictory and damaging message to the people of Manipur, especially when the government has repeatedly insisted on the necessity of road connectivity and bus services.
The government has repeatedly emphasized the importance of restoring peace and normalcy, pushing for bus services and road connectivity to bridge the divide between the communities. Yet, when the chief minister himself is unable to travel by road due to safety concerns, it highlights the stark contrast between the leadership’s rhetoric and reality. If the roads are so unsafe that the highest-ranking official in the state cannot use them, how can ordinary citizens be expected to trust these same routes, let alone use them as a means of daily transportation?
The government has also pushed for bus services to pass through areas affected by ethnic violence, calling it a necessary step for reconciliation. However, the chief minister’s helicopter journey undermines these efforts. If the state’s leader cannot travel by road without resorting to air travel, it casts doubt on the feasibility of these proposed services. The message it sends is that the government is asking its people to do something it cannot even expect from its own officials. This creates a clear disparity between what the government says and what it is willing to do.
This situation raises an important question about leadership. The chief minister’s safety is, of course, a priority, but the choice to bypass the roads instead of confronting the challenges on the ground directly is a troubling signal. It implies that the government is not willing to engage with the reality of the situation that its citizens face daily. If the government cannot guarantee the safety of its own leadership on the roads, it becomes difficult to trust that the safety of ordinary citizens will be ensured.
In the end, the optics are damning: the government calls for people to return to normalcy, to travel freely, and to embrace reconciliation, but when it comes time for the chief minister to follow these same roads, he opts for the air. This sends a message of hypocrisy—how can the government promote the use of these roads for the public when it is clear that they are deemed too dangerous even for the leader? The decision to travel by helicopter reinforces the idea that the government does not view the roads as safe for travel, despite their public promises of restoring peace and connectivity.
So, the optics of this helicopter journey are damaging. It highlights the contradictions in the government’s messaging, showing that while it calls for peace and reconciliation, its leadership is unwilling to directly engage with the risks that come with the territory. The people of Manipur are left to wonder: if the chief minister cannot take the road, how can the government expect them to? This incident shows the need for a more consistent and honest approach to both governance and conflict resolution.