By – Md Ziaur Rahman and Makakmayum Furkan Sharief
A closer critical scrutiny is needed for citizens in Manipur on the ongoing premature projection of Dr. Bimol Akoijam (the present INC M.P of Manipur) as the Indian National Congress’s rightful chief ministerial face. In democratic politics, being popular is not the same as being legitimate for the citizens, intellectual distinction (even if it is conducive) does not automatically translate into political leadershipand an electoral victory of one does not, by itself, naturally follows a coronation and a mandate to govern a state. The political leader has to proof his worthiness by being accountable to its’ citizens. This is the fundamental distinction between democracy and other forms of government. Yet these distinctions appear to be increasingly overlooked in sections of Manipur’s public discourseand is increasingly seen in the case of projecting Dr. Bimol Akoijam as the natural, if not rightful, chief ministerial candidate of the Indian National Congress in the upcoming Assembly Election of Manipur.
To be clear, there is little reason to dispute Dr. Akoijam’s intellectual credentials, concise politicalvocabulary or the political significance of his victory in the Lok Sabha Election. His scholarly background and ability to articulate the anxieties of a society enduring a prolonged ethnic crisis have contributed substantially to a well praised public standing. His electoral victory was also significantand deserves recognition for it.But the question is not whether Dr. Akoijam is capable, articulate, or popular. The more pertinent question which we have to ponder upon is this: On what democratic grounds is he being projected as the most deserving candidate to lead a Congress government in Manipur when he is still yet to be democratically tested by citizens in Manipur State Assembly Election?This is not an argument against Dr Akoijam or his political ambitions. It is an argument against the construction offetish populism as a political alternative for a democratic Manipur.
A parliamentary victory is not a state-level mandate
Dr Akoijam’s Lok Sabha electionshould be understood in the political circumstances which had shaped its’ victory. The prolonged ethnic violence, widespread disillusionment with the BJP government led by the then C.M, N. Biren Singh, the stifling of oppositional voices and narratives and the anger and frustration of people confronting an unprecedented social and political crisis had majorly shaped the political culture of Manipur. The people of Manipur needed an intellectually oriented critical voice. And, Dr. Akoijam happened to be that person who hadcritically channelised and mainstreamed that political culture for the citizens of Manipur. Doing such had humanised the Manipuri citizens. The above circumstances led people to rally behind him and offer an immense support and subsequently elected as oppositional voice for Manipurin the Indian mainstream.
Electoral outcomes are rarely the product of one individual alone. They emerge from an intersection of public sentiment, political organisation, the credibility of available alternatives and the particular circumstances of the moment. The oppositional national political alternative, i.e. the INC and the fielding of Dr. Angomcha as its’ candidate and the subsequent victory of oppositional voice (carried as mandated through him) also reflected the wider political environment, including the efforts of its elected representatives, party workers and organisational network to challenge the ruling establishment. Acknowledging these factors does not diminish Dr Akoijam’s achievement. It places that achievement in its proper political context.
An election contest of Parliamentand a State Assembly are fundamentally different. They involve different constituencies, responsibilities and expectations. Voters may choose a parliamentary representative just because of the candidate’s ability to articulate regional grievances at the national level. Choosing a chief minister, however, requires consideration of a broader set of questions; administrative competence, legislative experience, organisational strength, constituency-level credibility, political judgement and the ability to build a workable coalition.
A victory in one electoral arena cannot automatically be treated as proof of suitability for another.If Dr. Akoijam is indeed the most suitable person to lead Manipur, why should he be exempt from the electoral test faced by every other aspiring leader? Contesting an Assembly election, securing a mandate from a constituency and demonstrating an ability to connect with voters at the state level would strengthen his claim to leadership, not weaken it.The issue is not whether a parliamentary victory has political value. It plainly does. The issue is whether that victory should be treated as an automatic qualification for the highest executive office in the state.
Is there a lack of legitimate oppositional leaders in Manipur?
The enthusiasm surrounding Dr Akoijam becomes more consequential when viewed against the contributions of senior INC leaders such as former chief minister and Manipur Pradesh Congress Committee President Okram Ibobi Singh, Congress Legislative Party Leader K. Meghachandra Singhand Deputy CLP leader K. Ranjit Singh, among others.They are not political newcomers who have suddenly appeared on the scene. They have spent years representing constituencies, engaging with voters, building party networks and navigating the demanding realities of electoral politics. Their experience, institutional memory and sustained association with the INC deserve serious consideration in any discussion about the party’s future leadership.
This is not to suggest that seniority should automatically determine who becomes Chief Minister of Manipur. Nor should years of party service be treated as an entitlement to the office. But neither should experience, organisational contribution and demonstrated political ability be casually discounted in favour of novelty, public visibility or the appeal of a newly emerging political personality in Manipur.
Let us consider K. Ranjit Singh. His ability to communicate with ordinary people in their own languages, understand local concerns and convey political messages in familiar idioms is an important political asset. Political communication is not simply a matter of eloquence in English or the ability to command attention in elite public forums. It is also about the everyday experiences of people; understanding how people live, how they express their anxieties and what makes citizens trust their representative through its’ history of political accountability.
A leader who can explain complex political questions in the everyday language of ordinary people possesses a form of political intelligence that academic distinction alone cannot provide.The same consideration applies to K. Meghachandra Singh. His public image as a secular leader and his ability to engage across ethnic and communal lines are relevant considerations in a state where political trust and inter-community relations have become exceptionally fragile. The Congress’s victories on both Inner and Outer Manipur in the Lok Sabha election, during his tenure as MPCC president, are also part of the political record that deserves consideration.
Then there is Okram Ibobi Singh, a former chief minister whose years in government and leadership experience give him an established place in the party’s political history. His age may invite questions about generational transition, but it would be equally unreasonable to dismiss his political judgement, institutional knowledge and governing experience merely because a newer figure commands greater attention.
But this question of overlooking political credentials does not end with the above established Congress leaders. The case of Alfred Kan-Ngam Arthur makes the debate considerably more complicated.Arthur, too, is an intellectually articulate and outspoken parliamentarian. He has demonstrated an ability to express political concerns forcefully in Parliament, while his prior experience as a Member of the Manipur Legislative Assembly gives him an additional credential that Dr Akoijam does not presently possess. If legislative experience, familiarity with state-level politics and the ability to communicate political concerns are relevant considerations in assessing a prospective chief ministerial face, Arthur’s record deserves serious examination.
This is not to suggest that the aforementioned leaders of the INC should automatically be preferred over Dr. Akoijam. It is to ask why the enthusiasm surrounding the latter’s potential political future does not appear to translate into an equally prominent consideration of the former’s credentials.If Dr Akoijam’s intellectual articulation and oratory skills is celebrated as a political strength, why should Ranjit’s grassroots communication, Meghachandra’s cross-community appeal or Ibobi’s governing experience be treated as less valuable or Arthur’s combination of parliamentary articulation and prior legislative experience be treated as less consequential?
The question is not which individual possesses the most impressive single attribute. It is to assessed the different qualities required for political leadership.The Congress must also consider the message it sends to its own workers. If years of organisational commitment and constituency-level engagement can be overshadowed by the sudden arrival of a popular personality, the party risks weakening the very institutional foundations on which electoral success depends.A political organisation cannot sustainably build leadership by treating its established representatives as expendable whenever a more fashionable alternative emerges.
The everyday elitisminthe political imagination of Manipur
There is a deeper issue here that extends beyond the personalities involved. The enthusiastic promotion of Dr. Akoijam as the natural choice for chief minister may, in some quarters, reflect a particular conception of political leadership—one that places a premium on academic credentials, English-language fluency, urban sophistication and the ability to dominate elite public discourse.This need not be a conscious prejudice. Those who admire Dr. Akoijam may be entirely sincere in their assessment of his abilities. Nevertheless, political preferences can reproduce social hierarchies even when the people expressing them have no intention of doing so.
In Manipur’s increasingly digital political sphere, polished English and academic articulation often carry considerable symbolic authority. Someone who frame political arguments in sophisticated language, invoke scholarly concepts and engage confidently with national media can quickly acquire an aura of exceptional competence.Social media amplifies this effect. Repeated endorsements and favourable commentary can create the impression that the preferenceof an articulate online constituency represents a broader social consensus.
But Facebook is not Manipur. Nor is the English-speaking public sphere a reliable substitute for the electorate as a whole. Those who shape online political narratives do not necessarily represent the full social, economic, linguistic, ethnic and geographical diversity of the state. Their preferences may reflect genuine public aspirations, but they may also reveal assumptions about what a leader should look like, how a leader should speak and which educational or professional backgrounds are considered markers of political fitness. It might serve some intended objectives to the citizens outside our own. The danger begins when such preferences are presented not as opinions open to debate, but as self-evident political truths.
The underlying assumptions can become a source of a troubling elitism and devoid of any conscious political meanings for the common; that a person with an impressive academic background, fluency in English and a public intellectual’s profile—or someone associated with the relative visibility and social networks of Imphal—is inherently more deserving of political leadership than a representative whose political capital has been built through years of grassroots engagement, constituency work and communication in local languages.Such a hierarchy mistakes the language of presenting a political discourse for the substance of democratic representation.
There is nothing inherently wrong with academic distinction, English-language proficiency or cosmopolitan outlook. These are valuable attributes. The problem arises when they become proxies for political legitimacy, while other forms of knowledge, experiences and mundanity of politics are rendered less visible.Democratic politics must recognise that political intelligence takes different forms. Academic knowledge, administrative competence, legislative experience, local credibility, organisational ability and the capacity to negotiate across communities are not interchangeable qualities.
Social media and the manufacture of fetish populism
Contemporary politics is increasingly shaped by the manufacture of consent and management of noises as information and knowledge for the public.Repeated endorsements, selective narratives and digital amplification by local news outlets and social media handlers have made a particular political outcome appear natural, inevitable and beyond the scope of critical discussion in Manipur. Saying Meiteilon phrases like “Waikhu gi Culture” (Crab’s culture), as if Crabs have anything to do with our lack of thought and thinking, towards someone espousing a critical outlook become a hymn and chant for a new patriotic being in Manipur.
The growing portrayal of Dr Akoijam as the obvious chief ministerial choice risks following this pattern. Admiration for his parliamentary victory and public articulation may gradually develop into a much broader claim—that he is uniquely entitled to lead the Congress in Manipur.But that conclusion does not follow automatically from evidences.Popularity in online discussions is not equivalent to broad-based electoral support. Intellectual visibility is not the same as organisational strength. And public admiration for one individual does not establish that other contenders are unworthy of consideration.The distinction matters because in a democratic society of Manipur, the chief ministership is not an honorary position awarded to the most impressive public personality. It is an executive responsibility that demands political judgement, administrative understanding, legislative confidence and the capacity to govern a complex and deeply divided society. The creation and emergence of cult-like-figure in Manipur deserve utmost criticism as Manipuri needs a creative and responsible public leader, not a theatre of right populism.
The Congress must therefore resist the temptation to confuse a compelling public narrative with a settled political mandate. Its’ leadership question should be approached through a credible assessment of competing candidates, their records, their public support and their capacity to unite the party and serve the people.Prematurely treating one individual as indispensable risks narrowing the party’s democratic space. It can also create unnecessary divisions between established legislators and supporters of a newer political figure, turning a legitimate debate about leadership into a contest between supposedly outdated experience and fashionable novelty.A healthy political party should be capable of discussing leadership without converting admiration into entitlement or disagreement into disloyalty.
Lairen Matung Nga-enba
Leadership must be earned, not manufactured. None of this means that Dr Akoijam should be excluded from the conversation. On the contrary, he should be free to aspire to the highest political office, just as any capable and committed leader should. His parliamentary performance may well mark the beginning of a larger political career.But the right to aspire is not the same as an established claim to lead.And everyone has to right to challenge and question any political narratives and discourses in Manipur. Unnecessary shouting “Waikhu gi culture” won’t do. In fact, being one is a foundational right as “Waikhu gi Culture” is a foundational bedrock on how we have continuously advanced ourselves as a civilisational being in Manipur.
Are we heading towards the political connotation behind the Meitei proverbs of “Lairen Matung Nga-enba”, whereby a divinely oriented charismatic and cult-like figure will rule over Manipur, the people will blindly follow the leader and all the ills and problems in Manipur will be solved altogether by such political culture. Well! in that case, the debate of democracy is almost over for the Manipuri people.
(Md Ziaur Rahman, PHD Scholar, Department of Sociology, Nagaland University and Makakmayum Furkan Sharief, PHD Scholar, Department of Political Science, Manipur University)