The controversy surrounding the construction and inauguration of the illegal bridge over the Manipur River has taken a new turn, exposing what appears to be a serious failure of governance, administrative oversight and law enforcement in Manipur.
On July 11, Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh told the media that he had no knowledge of the construction or inauguration of the bridge. The statement has raised troubling questions. If the Chief Minister was unaware of the project, it inevitably suggests that the bridge was constructed without the approval or knowledge of the competent government authorities.
The issue became more contentious after BJP MLA Paolienlal Haokip, who attended the inauguration, openly declared that he would urge the State Government to reimburse the cost of constructing the bridge.
His remarks during the inaugural function have now become central to the controversy.
Declaring that he would not have attended had it been a Government of Manipur project, the BJP legislator instead described the bridge as an achievement of the “Government of Khulmigam” and praised those who undertook its construction. He argued that the government had failed to provide essential connectivity and questioned why authorities opposed the construction when local people built the bridge themselves.
The MLA further stated that all legislators should collectively defend the bridge if it came under challenge and press the State Government to approve the structure retrospectively and reimburse the entire expenditure incurred in its construction.
More significantly, Paolienlal disclosed that he had previously confronted security authorities, including senior Assam Rifles officers, over attempts to halt the bridge’s construction, alleging that they were acting on the directions of the then Chief Minister.
The remarks have raised a series of disturbing questions.
If the bridge was constructed without statutory approval, under whose authority was work carried out? Which agency permitted construction over the Manipur River? Were mandatory technical clearances, environmental approvals, land ownership verification and safety inspections obtained? If no approvals existed, why was construction allowed to continue until completion?
Equally significant is the political implication of a ruling party legislator publicly referring to the project as an achievement of the “Government of Khulmigam” rather than the Government of Manipur. The statement has fuelled concerns over parallel administrative structures allegedly operating in parts of the state while the constitutional government remains silent.
Infrastructure projects, particularly bridges across major rivers, ordinarily require approval from departments such as Public Works, Water Resources and district authorities besides security clearance in sensitive areas. The apparent absence of official oversight has prompted questions about whether the government’s administrative machinery has effectively ceased to function in certain conflict-affected regions.
The controversy has also led to speculation regarding the bridge’s intended purpose. While no evidence has emerged to suggest that it was constructed to facilitate illegal activities, security analysts note that any major transport infrastructure built outside the government’s regulatory framework warrants thorough scrutiny to ensure it is not misused for unlawful movement of people, arms, narcotics or other contraband. Given Manipur’s long-standing concerns over cross-border smuggling and drug trafficking, the issue cannot be dismissed without an impartial investigation.
Despite the Chief Minister’s assertion that he had no knowledge of the bridge, the State Government has so far neither ordered a public inquiry nor explained how such a permanent structure could be built and inaugurated without official sanction.
The illegal bridge controversy is no longer merely about an unauthorised structure. It has become a test of the State’s authority, exposing serious questions about administrative accountability, the rule of law and whether government institutions retain effective control over public infrastructure in conflict-affected areas. Until these questions are answered, the government’s silence is likely to invite even greater public scrutiny.