Amid the continuing unrest and fragile peace in Manipur, fresh rumours are swirling through the political corridors of Imphal. Sources have hinted at clandestine meetings and strategic mobilisations by a group of BJP MLAs and their allies pushing for the formation of a new popular government. This political buzz, however, raises far more questions than it answers—particularly regarding legitimacy, inclusivity, and functionality. Can a government that claims to represent the people truly stand if it excludes key segments of those very people?
At the centre of this conundrum lie the seven BJP MLAs and three others from the Kuki-Zo community who have been absent from the Assembly and politically disengaged from the mainstream state machinery since the eruption of ethnic violence in May 2023. Their absence is not merely symbolic; it reflects a deep-seated communal fracture that has yet to be addressed. Any government formation that proceeds without their participation is bound to carry the taint of incompleteness and potentially worsen the divide. The idea of a government that ignores the voice of an entire community is neither popular nor democratic in spirit.
Further complicating the picture are the five Congress MLAs who have taken a public stand, declaring unequivocally that they will not align with the BJP MLAs under any circumstances. Their stance, while rooted in ideological opposition and a reflection of public sentiment, makes the arithmetic of government formation even more challenging. This means that even if a splinter group of BJP MLAs and allies muster some numbers, they fall short of forming a stable or representative government without crossing several political and communal red lines.
In this highly polarised environment, the recent visit by BJP North East in-charge Dr. Sambit Patra to Manipur added a new layer of intrigue. His visit, though not publicly detailed, was seen as a firefighting mission—either to pacify internal rifts or to facilitate backdoor talks. Yet, no concrete progress appears to have emerged. The visit has only amplified the uncertainty, with the public still in the dark about whether it was a prelude to reconciliation or a last-ditch effort to salvage the BJP’s image and control in the state.
Meanwhile, the stand of the Kuki-Zo militants under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement remains unwavering. They continue to press for their core demand—a separate administration. This demand, once dismissed as fringe, has now evolved into a non-negotiable position for the Kuki-Zo political and civil leadership. Their resolve is expected to crystallise further during the upcoming May 19 meeting in Guwahati, where Kuki-Zo MLAs and CSOs are scheduled to chalk out a unified stand. This meeting could very well determine whether the community will continue with its political disengagement or take a definitive turn toward administrative separation.
The arithmetic of Manipur’s fractured assembly makes it clear: any move to form a government that excludes not only the Kuki-Zo MLAs but also the Congress faction will be nothing more than a political farce. The moral authority and legitimacy of such a government will be heavily contested, both on the streets and in the larger constitutional discourse. A ‘popular’ government in name, perhaps—but in reality, it would be a patchwork coalition with a narrow mandate, operating in a deeply polarised and partially represented society.
In such a precarious scenario, the prospect of President’s Rule in Manipur emerges not just as a constitutional option but perhaps the only viable administrative recourse left. With no clear pathway toward forming an inclusive and representative government, and with the Assembly itself practically dysfunctional, the imposition of central rule may be the most stabilising measure available. It would provide a breathing space for both communities, allow for a neutral administrative hand, and offer time to rethink and restructure a more sustainable political solution.
Manipur needs healing, not hurried political deals. It needs bridges, not barricades. Until the voices of all communities are heard, respected, and represented, the idea of a “popular government” remains not only premature but also dangerously divisive.