When silence breeds agitation -Manipur’s crisis and the Failure of President’s Rule

Manipur is no stranger to protests. In fact, it has become a state where silence from the government often gives birth to agitation, road blockades, sit-ins, and shutdowns. Recent events unfolding across the state paint a familiar, yet increasingly disturbing, picture—one of a people compelled to raise their voices in the streets because those in power remain unresponsive to their needs and cries for help.
Over the last few days, several incidents have underscored a deeper, systemic issue in the state’s governance mechanism. From the continued 48-hour shutdown in Imphal East demanding urgent road repairs, to the sit-in protest by locals in Sagolband against a midnight firing at a children’s home, to arrests of extortionists and underground outfit members by security forces—the message is clear: the people are tired of being ignored.
Take, for instance, the 48-hour total shutdown enforced by the Yairipok to Nongpok Keithelmanbi Road Development Organisation. The 12-kilometre stretch of road, once a vital link for inter-district connectivity, has reportedly not seen any repair or construction work in the past two decades. The public, led by grassroots voices like Premkumar Loukrakpam, co-convenor of the protest committee, had earlier submitted an ultimatum to Governor Ajay Kumar Bhalla. With no response from the administration, the community had no choice but to take matters into their own hands.
This isn’t merely about a neglected road. It’s about years of accumulated frustration, about being made to feel invisible in the eyes of those in power. When citizens, particularly women and students, are forced to burn tyres and sit on roads to demand basic infrastructure, it is an indictment not just of failed governance—but now, also of the failure of the President’s Rule administration to deliver timely and effective interventions.
When President’s Rule was imposed in the state, it came with the expectation of restoring peace, impartial governance, and order. However, the lived reality of the people seems to reflect otherwise. Far from bringing normalcy, the absence of an elected government has only widened the distance between the public and the corridors of power. Decisions are slower, bureaucratic red tape thicker, and the sense of public accountability far weaker.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the tragic incident at a children’s home in Sagolband, Imphal West, where two unidentified gunmen opened fire in the dead of night. Fortunately, there were no casualties, but the very act of targeting a home for orphaned boys—run under the Integrated Child Protection Scheme—reflects a chilling lapse in law and order. That such an act could be carried out with impunity under President’s Rule speaks volumes about the state of security. The administration’s failure to protect the most vulnerable raises serious questions about its capacity and priorities.
Meanwhile, law enforcement continues its reactive posture. The arrest of an extortionist in Kangpokpi and the detention of two active underground cadres in Imphal East and West are commendable, but these actions, while necessary, are not a substitute for good governance. These are not signs of control—they are signs of persistent unrest and insecurity that President’s Rule has done little to remedy.
This cumulative failure of administrative responsiveness, infrastructure development, and public safety highlights that the President’s Rule government has not filled the governance vacuum—it has merely preserved it. Rather than addressing the underlying causes of conflict and social anxiety, it has allowed discontent to simmer, occasionally boil over, and return again with greater intensity.
To move forward, the state must start listening—truly listening—not just reacting when situations spiral out of control. There must be accountability, transparency, and a re-establishment of trust between the administration and the people. Infrastructure development, law and order, and social welfare should not be privileges, but guarantees—irrespective of who governs.
The citizens of Manipur are not just protestors; they are active participants in democracy, reminding the powers that be—whether elected or appointed—that silence is not governance. Their demands are not radical—they are fundamental.
If President’s Rule is to retain any legitimacy, it must transform from a caretaker mechanism into an active engine of recovery and reconciliation. Otherwise, it risks becoming another chapter in the long list of Manipur’s disillusionments.
Let this moment serve as a wake-up call. Because when people are forced to block roads for a voice, burn tyres for a reply, and risk safety for attention, it’s not just infrastructure that’s broken—it’s the very contract between the state and its people.