Context

• The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur on February 13 marks a significant political development in India, particularly considering the protracted violence that has gripped the state for over 21 months.
• The decision, taken after the resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, underscores the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) strategic retreat rather than an outright resolution to the ongoing turmoil.
• This move highlights not only the limitations of the double-engine sarkar but also raises broader concerns about governance, state legitimacy, and institutional trust in Manipur.

The Consequence of the Prolonged Crisis: Erosion of Trust and Legitimacy in the State

• One of the most critical consequences of the prolonged crisis has been the erosion of citizens' trust in the state and its institutions.
• Reports suggest that the Manipur government under Biren Singh played a partisan role, aligning with Meitei ultranationalist sentiments.
• This favouritism has fractured the shared territorial space and contributed to deeper communal divisions.
• The recent forensic report linking Singh to inflammatory rhetoric further tarnishes the credibility of the state machinery.
• Given this backdrop, President’s Rule is a necessary intervention, but it is not a sufficient measure to restore normalcy.

Challenges to State Power and Restoring Governance in Manipur

• Erosion of State Authority and Legitimacy
  • One of the most fundamental challenges facing governance in Manipur is the erosion of the state’s authority.
  • The concept of ‘infrastructural power,’ as described by political sociologist Michael Mann, refers to a state's capacity to implement policies and maintain effective control over its territory.
  • In Manipur, this power has been significantly weakened due to the state’s perceived bias in handling the ongoing ethnic violence.
  • For governance to be effectively restored, the state must work toward re-establishing its infrastructural power by demonstrating neutrality and enforcing the law without bias.
• Politicisation of Law Enforcement and Administrative Machinery
  • A significant challenge in restoring order is the politicisation of the law enforcement agencies and the administrative machinery.
  • Reports suggest that the Manipur police and security forces have been accused of taking sides in the conflict, either through inaction or direct complicity with certain groups.
  • Law enforcement agencies are seen as extensions of political or ethnic factions rather than as neutral enforcers of justice.
  • Different communities perceive that the state favours one group over another, which further fuels resentment and violence.
  • To overcome this challenge, the central government must ensure that security forces operate without political interference and adhere strictly to constitutional principles.
  • The deployment of neutral agencies such as the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) under direct federal supervision could help rebuild public confidence in law enforcement.
• Failure to Maintain Neutrality and the Rise of Majoritarian Narratives
  • One of the most dangerous developments in Manipur’s crisis has been the rise of majoritarian nationalist narratives, which have exacerbated tensions between communities.
  • The state government under N. Biren Singh has been accused of adopting a populist, Meitei-majoritarian approach, which has alienated other ethnic groups, particularly the Kuki-Zomi-Hmar tribes.
  • This aligns with the broader critique of majoritarian politics, where dominant groups attempt to rewrite history and redefine national identity at the expense of marginalized communities.
  • The challenge for the BJP-led central government is to reverse this trend and ensure that governance in Manipur is inclusive, representative, and impartial.

The Debate on Manipur’s Administrative Structure

• One of the proposed solutions to address Manipur’s political turmoil is to declare it a ‘hill state,’ which could potentially neutralise demands for a separate administration by the Kuki-Zomi-Hmar groups.
• However, such a move must be carefully evaluated for its constitutional implications, particularly concerning Article 371C, which provides special provisions for Manipur’s hill areas.
• Any attempt to dilute these protective measures could exacerbate tensions and further alienate tribal communities.
• Additionally, the push to centralise power under President’s Rule raises concerns about its potential misuse to advance a majoritarian agenda.
• While national unity is often invoked as a justification for such centralisation, a failure to recognise and respect the distinct identities of Manipur’s hill and valley communities could be counterproductive.
• The risk is that it may instead strengthen the call for a separate administration among Kuki-Zomi-Hmar groups rather than quell the unrest.

The Way Ahead: Ensuring Equitable Representation and Power Distribution

• The long-term solution to Manipur’s crisis lies in decentralisation rather than centralisation.
• The President’s Rule period should be used to conduct a thorough institutional audit to address existing gaps in political representation, resource distribution, and governance.
• Marginalised communities must be given a voice in decision-making processes, and meaningful autonomy must be devolved to tribal regions to ensure a fair balance of power.
• History has shown that when institutions fail to represent and protect diverse communities equitably, democracy deficits emerge, leading to recurring cycles of violence and instability.
• Thus, the state must recalibrate its governance structures to strengthen constitutional protections for all groups, rather than dissolving them in the name of national unity. 

Conclusion

• The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur represents both a challenge and an opportunity.
• While it provides a temporary mechanism to stabilise the region, it also exposes the limitations of the BJP’s governance model and the fragility of state institutions in the face of ethnic and political conflict.
• To achieve lasting peace, the government must go beyond mere law-and-order approaches and work toward fostering genuine trust and legitimacy through equitable governance, fair representation, and adherence to constitutional principles.