Politics thrives on protest. In a democracy, demonstrations are a legitimate means for citizens and opposition parties to express dissent, demand accountability and seek policy changes. But when those entrusted with governing the state themselves take to the streets in protest, an obvious and uncomfortable question arises: Who, exactly, are they protesting against?
The unprecedented scenes witnessed in Imphal yesterday deserve serious reflection. On one side, the opposition Congress staged its protest. On the other, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), led by Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh, ministers, MLAs and party workers, also organised demonstrations. It is difficult to recall another moment in Manipur’s recent political history when both the government and the opposition simultaneously occupied the streets as protesters.
A Chief Minister is not merely the leader of a political party; he is the head of the executive government. His constitutional duty is to administer, decide, implement and resolve problems. Protest is generally the weapon of those without executive authority. Governance is the responsibility of those who possess it. When these two roles become blurred, democratic accountability suffers.
If the Chief Minister himself is protesting, citizens have every right to ask: Against whom is the protest directed? Is it against the Union Government? Or is it an admission that the government itself is unable to exercise its authority? These are not rhetorical questions. They go to the heart of constitutional governance.
Equally troubling were reports from B.T. Road in Imphal, where BJP workers gathered outside the Congress Bhavan, raising slogans against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. More disturbing was the sight of at least one individual attempting to force his way towards the Congress office before being stopped by the police. The timely intervention of security personnel prevented what could have become an ugly confrontation between political workers.
For a state that has endured more than three years of violence, displacement, economic hardship and deep social divisions, such political brinkmanship is both unnecessary and irresponsible. Manipur cannot afford another spectacle that deepens mistrust or creates fresh tensions.
Ironically, the passion displayed by party workers could have been channelled towards issues that genuinely concern the people. Had thousands marched together demanding a lasting political solution to the Manipur crisis, restoration of normalcy, rehabilitation of displaced families or greater intervention by the Union Government, such mobilisation would have resonated with the aspirations of ordinary citizens. Instead, political energy appears increasingly directed towards partisan confrontation as electoral calculations begin to overshadow governance.
This raises another uncomfortable reality. Elections are approaching, and political parties are naturally positioning themselves. Campaigning is an accepted part of democracy. However, when governance begins to resemble perpetual electioneering, the public interest inevitably becomes secondary. The people of Manipur have waited too long for peace, stability and effective administration to become spectators in a political contest dominated by symbolism rather than solutions.
The deeper concern is the message such events send to the public. Governments are elected because people expect them to govern. They expect roads to be repaired, security to be ensured, livelihoods to be protected and crises to be resolved. They do not expect those in power to behave as though they are powerless observers of unfolding events.
This is particularly significant in Manipur, where the state has faced extraordinary challenges since May 2023. Public confidence in institutions has already been severely tested. Every political action should therefore seek to restore that confidence—not weaken it further. The sight of the government’s highest leadership joining street protests inevitably creates uncertainty about where responsibility ultimately lies.
Democracy requires both a vigilant opposition and an accountable government. Each has distinct roles. When the opposition protests, it seeks answers from those in power. When those in power protest, the lines of accountability become dangerously blurred.
The people of Manipur deserve clarity, not confusion. They deserve governance, not political theatre. If the government believes there are injustices that require correction, it possesses constitutional mechanisms to pursue them. If there are demands to be placed before the Centre, they should be articulated through institutional channels backed by firm political leadership.
Street protests may generate headlines, but they do not substitute for governance.
The people did not elect a government to join them on the streets. They elected it to ensure that they no longer have to be there.