The Yumnam Khemchand Singh government is operating in a Manipur far more fractured and politically volatile than the one inherited by the previous government of the same party. The scale and complexity of the crises confronting the present administration appear several times greater, with old wounds remaining open even as new fault lines emerge.
Yet there is one significant difference. The Chief Minister appears more visibly engaged in confronting the crises confronting the State. His efforts to rebuild the trust shattered between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities are increasingly visible, even if the results remain fragile and incomplete. There are signs of an attempt to reopen channels of communication and restore a measure of confidence that had virtually disappeared.
But just when one conflict begins to show signs of political engagement, another fault line has opened between the Naga and Kuki communities. What was once largely perceived as a confrontation between two major sides of the conflict is increasingly becoming a triangular crisis involving Meitei, Kuki-Zo and Naga interests. This makes the task of governance considerably more difficult.
The government also continues to face a serious credibility problem over the rehabilitation and return of internally displaced persons. Despite repeated assurances, a convincing and visible roadmap for restoring displaced families to their homes remains elusive. For thousands still living away from their places of origin, peace cannot simply mean the absence of gunfire. It must mean the restoration of homes, security, dignity and livelihoods.
The NRC issue presents another test of the government’s political credibility.
The previous Assembly had discussed the demand for updating the NRC and even adopted a resolution calling for the exercise before the Census. However, the absence of a clearly stated 1951 base year in that resolution has left a significant section of the public unconvinced. Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s assurance in the Assembly that 1951 would be the base year should have helped reduce the anxiety. It has not.
The reason is straightforward: people are asking for something more concrete than political assurances. Civil society organisations, including the Campaign for Just and Fair Delimitation, continue their agitation because the government has not produced a written commitment from the Centre that clearly establishes the sequence and terms of the exercise.
This raises a fundamental question: if the government is genuinely committed to conducting the Census only after completing the NRC updation, why is it proving so difficult to communicate that commitment convincingly to the people?
Governments do not lose public trust only because of wrong decisions. They also lose it when correct intentions are poorly communicated.
In a crisis as deep as Manipur’s, communication is not a cosmetic exercise. It is an essential instrument of governance. A calm voice, persuasive political leadership and the ability to explain difficult decisions in language people understand can prevent legitimate uncertainty from becoming another source of confrontation.
The Chief Minister’s relative calmness and willingness to engage are valuable political assets. But they must be accompanied by a much stronger communication strategy. Every major assurance needs a clear timeline, a responsible authority and, where possible, a written commitment. Every ambiguity creates space for suspicion. Every unexplained delay deepens the trust deficit.
The government must understand that people are no longer prepared to judge it merely by what leaders say from public platforms. They want to see what has been decided, who has agreed to it, when it will happen and what mechanism will ensure implementation.
The same principle applies to the return of IDPs, restoration of normalcy, management of inter-community tensions and the NRC issue. Good intentions are meaningful only when translated into credible action—and credible action becomes politically effective only when people understand and trust it.
Manipur does not need another government that merely promises peace. It needs a government capable of explaining the path to peace, demonstrating progress and taking people into confidence at every critical stage.
The Khemchand government still has an opportunity to bridge the widening trust deficit between the people and the government. But that opportunity will not remain indefinitely.
Political leadership is not only about making decisions. It is also about making people believe that those decisions are genuine, achievable and in their interest.
For Manipur, where mistrust has already become a crisis in itself, communication is governance. And unless the government learns to communicate its intentions with greater clarity, consistency and credibility, even genuine efforts at restoring peace may continue to fall short of public expectations.
