When the State fails, the People must be heard

The continuing crisis in Manipur stands as a grave indictment of the Indian State’s failure to discharge its most fundamental obligation: the protection of life, liberty, and dignity of its citizens as guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Over two years into ethnic violence, displacement, and lawlessness, the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that neither an elected government nor direct central rule has been able to restore normalcy or public confidence.
The recent killing of an innocent civilian, Rishikanta, only day before yesterday, is not an isolated incident but part of a disturbing pattern that exposes the hollowness of repeated official claims of peace and stability. Every such death erodes the credibility of governance and deepens the collective trauma of a society already pushed to the brink. For the victims and their families, assurances from authorities offer no consolation when justice remains elusive and security absent.
The collapse of the elected government marked the first institutional failure. The inability or unwillingness of political leadership to act decisively during the early stages of the conflict allowed violence to spiral out of control. Administrative paralysis, selective silence, and the politicisation of suffering created an environment where armed groups could operate with impunity while ordinary citizens paid the price.
The imposition of President’s Rule was expected to correct this failure. Instead, it has exposed another layer of institutional inadequacy. Despite the presence of a massive security apparatus, killings continue, highways remain unsafe, villages are abandoned, and internally displaced persons continue to live in uncertainty. President’s Rule, which is constitutionally justified only as a temporary corrective mechanism, has failed to achieve its stated objective in Manipur.
Against this backdrop, public statements by constitutional authorities, including the Governor of Manipur, Ajay Kumar Bhalla, claiming restoration of peace, appear disconnected from lived reality. For citizens who fear travelling beyond their localities, for families still unable to return home, and for those mourning fresh losses, such declarations sound less like reassurance and more like denial.
At the heart of the crisis lies a deeper constitutional question. If the elected representatives have failed, if militant groups cannot dictate the future, and if the government itself is unable to enforce the rule of law, then who has the moral authority to decide Manipur’s destiny? In a democracy, the answer must inevitably return to the people.
The idea of allowing the people of Manipur to decide their own future should not be viewed with fear or suspicion. Democratic culture is founded on the principle that sovereignty ultimately resides with the people. Suppressing public opinion, avoiding political dialogue, or treating popular aspirations as a security threat only strengthens alienation and mistrust.
History shows that enduring solutions to political crises cannot be imposed through force or administrative fiat. They must emerge from inclusive dialogue, consent, and democratic participation. Ignoring the collective will of the people of Manipur risks pushing the crisis into a more dangerous and irreversible phase.
Manipur today stands at a crossroads. Continuing with failed models of governance while issuing routine statements of normalcy will only prolong suffering. The time has come for honesty from those in power and courage to listen to the people. Democracy cannot survive where citizens are reduced to silent spectators of their own tragedy.
If the State can no longer protect its citizens or uphold their constitutional rights, it must, at the very least, respect their right to be heard. Fear of the people’s wishes is not governance; it is an admission of failure.