The Silence on Manipur: A Question of Leadership

In a democracy as diverse and dynamic as India, the voices of elected representatives serve as both a reflection of ground realities and a beacon for addressing the needs of the people. Recently, two Members of Parliament (MPs) from Manipur raised the critical issue of ongoing violence in their state. This violence has left countless lives disrupted, communities fragmented, and a pall of fear hanging over the state. Yet, the conspicuous silence from the central Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leadership on this matter raises serious concerns about accountability and governance.
The two MPs, representing different constituencies and political perspectives, have made an urgent plea for attention to the escalating violence in Manipur. Their statements highlight the deteriorating law-and-order situation, the displacement of families, and the urgent need for reconciliation and justice. The fact that they had to raise these issues in Parliament shows a troubling gap in communication and action at the central level.
Manipur, like much of the Northeast, has historically struggled with issues of ethnic conflict, resource distribution, and a sense of alienation from the rest of the country. The recent spate of violence has only deepened these fault lines. In such a scenario, the absence of a robust response from the central leadership sends a distressing message: that the concerns of the Northeast remain peripheral in the national discourse.
The central government, particularly under a party with a strong majority like the BJP, has a responsibility to address issues of national importance with urgency and sensitivity. Manipur is not just a distant northeastern state; it is an integral part of India’s fabric. The violence there is not an isolated incident but a manifestation of deeper systemic issues that require immediate attention.
The BJP leadership’s silence could be attributed to multiple factors: political calculations, lack of prioritization, or an underestimation of the issue’s gravity. However, none of these justifications hold water when lives are at stake. The central government’s failure to acknowledge the situation risks alienating an entire region and eroding the trust of its people.
The lack of response also raises questions about the BJP’s commitment to its slogan of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas” (“Together with All, Development for All, Trust of All”). If the leadership remains unresponsive to the plight of Manipur, it risks being perceived as selective in its approach to governance and development. This could have long-term implications for the party’s credibility, not just in the Northeast but across the country.
Moreover, the silence contrasts sharply with the BJP’s otherwise proactive approach to crisis management and public engagement. Whether it is disaster relief, communal tensions, or foreign policy challenges, the party’s leadership has often taken a hands-on approach. The absence of a similar response in Manipur is both puzzling and disheartening.
Most importantly, leadership is tested not in moments of convenience but in times of crisis. The violence in Manipur is not just a state issue; it is a national challenge that demands a unified and empathetic response. By remaining silent, the BJP leadership risks not only the lives and livelihoods of those affected but also the very ideals of democracy and unity that India stands for.
The two MPs from Manipur have done their duty by raising the issue in Parliament. It is now incumbent upon the central government to rise to the occasion. The people of Manipur deserve more than silence; they deserve action, empathy, and assurance that their lives matter. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust placed in the country’s leadership.