As Manipur continues to reel under a prolonged crisis marked by ethnic violence, civil unrest, and institutional breakdowns, a fundamental question echoes across the valley: “Who gives the orders?” When a military unit acts in a manner that causes public outrage, when people are pushed to the edge of despair, and when democratic accountability is clouded by a wall of silence—this question becomes not just political, but deeply moral.
Public anger intensified following reports involving the 4th Mahar Regiment of the Indian Army. A senior officer—said to be simply executing orders—has become the face of decisions that are seen by many as aggravating the already fragile situation in Manipur. The officer’s defense, that he is “just following orders,” has raised troubling parallels with historical injustices where obedience without conscience has led to catastrophic consequences.
This moment demands clarity, not just from the military but from the government of India. Who are these faceless authorities giving the orders? Are these directives being made in consultation with ground realities and local sentiments? Is there civilian oversight? Are democratic norms being followed, or are we sliding into a state where the chain of command is shielded from public scrutiny?
It must be said—India is proud of its military. The Indian Army is often called the most disciplined force in the country, and rightly so. It has earned global respect for its professionalism, restraint, and service. But discipline is not synonymous with silence. Accountability does not weaken a military institution; it strengthens public trust in it. In a democracy, every institution—no matter how revered—is answerable to the people and their elected representatives.
In Manipur, however, this accountability is missing. The central government’s response has remained largely bureaucratic, often deflecting questions or reducing the conflict to administrative hurdles. On the ground, there is a crisis of communication and compassion. The Indian Army, which should be seen as a peacekeeping force, is now being viewed by sections of the population with suspicion and fear. This is not just a public relations issue—it is a moral failure of leadership at the highest levels.
The situation in Manipur cannot be resolved through military deployments alone. What is unfolding in the state is not merely a law-and-order problem; it is a humanitarian and political crisis that requires a comprehensive, just, and sensitive approach. Civil society, community leaders, and state-level stakeholders have been sidelined while security strategies dominate headlines. Peace cannot be imposed through orders; it must be cultivated through dialogue, empathy, and democratic engagement.
It is also time to reflect on the dangerous precedent being set. If institutions can operate without transparency and accountability, if decisions are taken without owning responsibility, and if people’s pain is met with silence or indifference, we erode the very foundations of a democratic republic. “Following orders” cannot be an excuse in a nation governed by the rule of law and the values enshrined in the Constitution.
The people of Manipur deserve answers, not evasions. They deserve respect for their voice, their history, and their identity. The army must remain above reproach—not only by showing restraint in action but also by committing to ethical clarity and transparency. And the central government must break its silence and take ownership of what is happening in one of its most sensitive border states.
India must ask itself: In Manipur, are we upholding the ideals of justice and democracy? Or are we watching them slip away, hidden behind the phrase “just following orders”?