The silence to the central government order for a separate budget for the Hill Areas of Manipur exposes an unsettling contradiction at the heart of Manipur’s political discourse. For months, the loudest voices opposing any idea of “separate administration” have presented themselves as guardians of Manipur’s unity. They have condemned, protested, and issued statements warning that any administrative division would threaten the state’s integrity. Yet, when faced with a move that silently lays the foundation for the very separation they claim to oppose-a demand for a separate budget for the Hill Areas-the same forces have retreated into a curious and telling silence.
This silence is not an accident. It is symptomatic of a deeper political inconsistency, one that threatens to erode the clarity required at a time when Manipur faces one of its most complex and fragile moments in recent memory. Two official documents, placed side by side, reveal exactly how problematic this silence has become. The first is the High Court of Manipur’s order dated 17 May 2024 that classified the entire state—both hills and valley—as a “Hill Area/Tough Location” for judicial allowance purposes. The order followed national guidelines and extended a uniform financial benefit across Manipur. What it did not do was divide the state. It did not create separate administrative jurisdictions, nor did it recognise different governing structures. Instead, it upheld unity while acknowledging hardship. It proved that equitable treatment can be extended without redrawing administrative boundaries.
Contrast this with the second document, an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance on 26 November 2025. This memorandum forwarded a petition demanding a separate budget for the Hill Areas of Manipur—a request that goes far beyond the question of financial allocation. A separate budget is not a benign accounting exercise; it carries with it the architecture of administrative separation. Budget control is inherently tied to governance. Whoever controls the budget controls planning, execution and priority-setting. Once a distinct budget is created for a region, separate planning bodies, expenditure committees, and bureaucratic structures inevitably follow. A separate budget is therefore the administrative equivalent of drawing a dotted line around a territory, preparing the ground for a more formalised division in the future.
In this context, the silence of those who loudly proclaim themselves champions of Manipur’s unity becomes alarming. They were loud when the word “separate administration” resonated across political platforms. When there were cries for any kind of division, their condemnation was forceful. But when faced with a fiscal proposal that might trigger exactly the kind of separation they oppose, they remain silent. In such a moment, silence is not neutrality. It is an endorsement-by-omission intentionally or otherwise.
The dangers of such a move cannot be understated. Administrative fragmentation will weaken, rather than strengthen Manipur. Separate budgets imply duplication of governmental machinery: two planning departments, two auditing mechanisms, two lines of decision-making. This duplication will not accelerate development but inflate costs and reduce efficiency. Resources in Manipur are already stretched thin, and to carve them into separate administrative silos would increase disparities, not improve matters. Besides, the state infrastructure-roads, electricity, water supply, and communication networks-operate interdependently. Fragmented planning will result in misaligned priorities and disjointed execution. What began as a financial division will soon grow into an administrative and political gulf.
More troubling still is the political implication in the long run. Once regions take charge of financial matters themselves, demands for self-governance—first administrative, then political—logically follow. India’s own experience has countless examples. An autonomous budget today becomes the justification for autonomous governance tomorrow and autonomous governance becomes the argument for territorial division the day after. The High Court demonstrated that inequalities and hardships can be successfully overcome under uniform policies without allowing any adjustment to administrative unity. This pattern should have been an object of emulation, not automatically eschewed, by those proclaiming to uphold the ideal of “One Manipur.”
Their silence, instead, reveals an inconvenient truth: some appear driven not by principle but by political convenience; others are afraid to challenge the passing of narratives that have gained currency in the national bureaucracy; and still others seem willing to jeopardize Manipur’s long-term cohesion in the name of short-term appeasement. But Manipur cannot afford intellectual dishonesty. It is a state that deserves clear and principled stand-one that resists division in all its forms, whether loud or subtle.
The order for a separate Hill Area budget is not a minor administrative discussion. It is a fundamental question about the future of Manipur. Division begins in the ledger long before it reaches the map. If Manipur is to remain united, its institutions, activists, and political leaders must speak now. Silence at this moment is surrender.