IT News
Imphal, Feb 18:
In an article written at The Indian Express, MP Bimol Akoijam has criticized the Union government’s decision to impose President’s Rule in Manipur, stating that the move raises questions about its role in the state’s ongoing crisis. He pointed out that the government justified the action by citing a breakdown in constitutional governance but argued that deeper political motives were at play.
He remarked that while some viewed the move as necessary to restore constitutional order and peace, others dismissed it as delayed and inadequate. However, he believed that these perspectives overlooked the root causes of the decision and the Union government’s questionable involvement in the developments that led to Manipur’s turmoil.
According to him, the imposition of President’s Rule was not prompted by a complete collapse of law and order, as the Supreme Court had observed two months after the outbreak of violence on May 3, 2023. He recalled that despite the severity of the crisis, the Prime Minister had not visited Manipur, even though he had traveled extensively abroad and had intervened in international matters such as the Ukraine conflict. He noted that the Prime Minister had repeatedly insisted, including in Parliament, that the situation in Manipur had improved, with schools, colleges, and offices functioning as usual.
Bimol Akoijam alleged that Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s removal was not due to his failure in handling the crisis but rather because he had served as a convenient figure for the BJP’s political strategy. He claimed that Singh had been instrumental in advancing a divisive agenda and that the Union government had used his tenure to polarize society. He reminded that Union Home Minister Amit Shah had admitted in Parliament that the Chief Minister was cooperating with the central government, while Singh himself had publicly stated that his actions were carried out with the consent and advice of the Prime Minister and the Home Minister.
The MP further argued that the Union government had overstepped its constitutional limits by interfering in the state’s administration without following due process. He cited Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s view that states possessed “sovereign and plenary” authority, which he claimed was undermined by the central government’s direct control over key appointments, including the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police. He accused the Centre of dictating the state government’s decisions from the beginning of the crisis.
He also pointed out that Biren Singh himself had publicly acknowledged this interference on multiple occasions. He recalled that the former Chief Minister had lamented that the state police’s CID wing had not reported to him for 15 months. Reports of central security agencies disregarding his directives and conflicts between various law enforcement bodies had also surfaced in the media, further highlighting the extent of the Union government’s encroachment on state authority.
Bimol Akoijam’s remarks underscored his concerns about the Union government’s handling of the Manipur crisis and the broader implications of its intervention in the state’s administration.
