The resignation of N. Biren Singh as chief minister of Manipur and the imposition of president’s rule has come rather late and brought little hope for the state. Had he and the Union government accepted responsibility for the unrest and violence that has plagued the state for the past 21 months, there might have been some reason to be hopeful. In fact, the Centre was surrendering to political compulsions when it accepted N. Biren Singh’s resignation. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faced mounting pressure from its allies at the Centre, and in the state, including the National People’s Party (NPP) and the Naga People’s Front (NPF), as well as its own disgruntled MLAs. Political analysts in Manipur believe that merely the chief minister’s resignation followed by imposition of president’s rule will not alter the situation in the state. Discontentment with N. Biren Singh among BJP MLAs has been evident, with signs of rebellion within their ranks recently. Furthermore, the alliance parties, such as the NPP, NPF, and the Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)] were also dissatisfied. The resignation of N. Biren Singh and imposition of President’s rule was the only option left for the BJP to retain control over Manipur. The BJP MLAs were facing backlash from the public, and ultimately, the party had to take this step to save face.
On January 24, all Meitei MLAs and MPs were summoned by Arambai Tenggol to the Kangla Fort in Imphal. Except N. Biren Singh, the remaining 38 MLAs and 2 MPs attended the meeting. The attendees pledged to uphold the political integrity of Manipur and the unity of the Meitei community. The script for N. Biren Singh’s resignation and his future political strategy was written at this meeting. The reasons for this summons included:
- There was pressure from the Naga organization, the United Naga Council (UNC), which demanded the abolition of seven districts. The Congress government led by Ibobi Singh had created seven new districts in Manipur in December 2016. The Naga community is dissatisfied with the creation of these new districts, which puts them outside the purview of the proposed united Nagaland territory and brings them under the control of the Kuki and Hmar communities.
- A tripartite consensus involving the UNC, the Manipur government, and Meitei organizations was reached in January to withdraw the notification issued for the formation of these districts.
- Implementing this consensus could reignite the Naga-Kuki conflict, as district boundaries are a very sensitive issue in Manipur.
- N. Biren Singh was consolidating power in a way that had never been seen before in Manipur.
- Differences had emerged between Arambai Tenggol and the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), a militant organization of the Meitei.
- There was a revolt against N. Biren Singh within the BJP, as well as dissatisfaction among the allies such as the NPP and NPF.
- There was both domestic and international pressure on the BJP, in power both at the Centre and in the state, concerning the situation in Manipur.
During the meeting at Kangla Fort, a consensus demanding N. Biren Singh’s resignation was reached and signatures obtained to this effect, reinforcing political unity among Meitei MLAs and MPs, and fostering consensus among various organizations within the community.
Dissatisfaction with the BJP’s handling of the Manipur crisis led seven party MLAs to hold a silent sit-in at Jantar-Mantar, New Delhi, wearing black masks on December 10 of last year. In December 2024, allies also withdrew from N. Biren Singh’s government. Naga organizations issued an ultimatum to the central government demanding that the Naga Peace Accord of 2015 be made public before January 26, putting pressure on its implementation. The state government has only taken superficial action against armed organizations, which has not changed the ongoing violence and unrest. Central security forces have also struggled to maintain a balance in their dealings with the Meitei and Kuki communities, resulting in a perception of bias in their deployment and actions.
Youth organizations from both communities have become armed and communalized, engaging in guerrilla-style struggle. A parallel administration is run by armed youth organizations in Manipur. The Kuki community has established a system of separate administration, believing it to be a permanent solution. The movement of official files between Churachandpur and Imphal takes place by helicopter and is handled by either Naga or Nepali officers. Conversely, the Meitei community has been demanding the removal of illegal Kuki settlers from the hilly areas and the fencing of the border with Myanmar while the Kuki community has sought a separate administration. The so-called “double-engine government” has failed to identify the illegal settlers in hills and fenced merely 30 kilometres of the international border. Individuals displaced in the violence have not yet been returned to their homes, and state administration in Kuki areas has been far from effective. Education, health services, government transport, and other public services are not operating smoothly. The administration in the Kuki area no longer relies on Imphal for essential services and supplies, which often come from adjoining Mizoram.
The identity that Manipur has cultivated over the past 50 years as a state where various ethnic communities coexist has been shattered by the violence and unrest of the past 21 months. No government, community, or political leader has been willing to take responsibility for this turmoil. The future of the state appears bleak, and many residents, troubled by the present situation, are being forced to migrate elsewhere, leaving them anxious about their future. Ethnic divisions have eroded the state’s unity, leaving it diminished both culturally and politically. Manipur is not just a state but a geo-cultural family that comprises the Meitei, Naga, Kuki, Mizo, Nepali and Muslim communities.
Following the resignation of chief minister N. Biren Singh on February 9 and imposition of president’ rule in Manipur on February 13, the question on everyone’s mind is: Can the atmosphere of peace and stability that existed in Manipur before 3 May 2023 be restored? This has become the most pressing question following the imposition of president’s rule in the state. Residents of the state want the government to operate impartially, independently and with consensus. Strict action should be taken against armed groups; they should be disarmed and declared illegal. As long as communities are led by these armed groups, the presence of a democratic government in the state will be undermined.
A significant chasm of distrust between communities has arisen, which can only be bridged by a government that works under the supervision of an inclusive all-community and all-party committee. Constitutional and democratic institutions must function impartially and independently, fulfilling their constitutional obligation alongside their governmental duties. Political, developmental and administrative decisions about Manipur should be taken by representatives and administrative officers in Imphal and not in New Delhi. If such decisions are dictated from the Prime Minister’s Office or the BJP office in New Delhi, the prospects for peace and stability in the state will diminish and the slogan of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas” will become a gimmick.
The imposition of president’s rule in Manipur has ignited hope among the victims of violence and displacement that after the destruction and distrust of the last 21 months, they will be able to return to their homes. The BJP had lost credibility among the general public, and its government no longer enjoyed public support. The state government had failed to address concerns in Kuki areas and a significant part of the state was effectively under president’s rule for the past 21 months as provided for by Article 355.
Having led the government between 3 May 2023 and 9 February 2025, N. Biren Singh should take responsibility for the unrest, insecurity and violence that has plagued the state. Following his resignation, he will lose political power, but he will continue to influence the Meitei community through Arambai Tenggol. However, he will be faced with a consensus and unity among various organizations and political leaders of the community that have perceived his actions to be appeasing the Naga community while undermining Meitei and Kuki interests.
Had N. Biren Singh not resigned as chief minister, and president’s rule not imposed in the state, the following situations could have arisen: 1. Insurgency might have resurfaced in the state (insurgents have already gained strength). 2. The Naga-Kuki conflict could have reignited. 3. There would have been a severe threat to the territorial and political integrity of Manipur.
The assembly session was constitutionally required to convene on February 10. However, the chief minister, who had already lost the confidence of his party MLAs, could not face the assembly. N. Biren Singh stepped down due to pressure from the community, but the imposition of president’s rule became a compulsion for the Union Home Minister and the BJP because the party’s 38 MLAs had not been able to agree on a new chief minister since answering the Arambai Tenggol summons on January 24.
Now that N. Biren Singh has resigned and president’s rule has been imposed in the state, a crucial question arises: what will happen next in Manipur? Although the state assembly has not been dissolved, president’s rule will remain until a consensus is reached on the new chief minister. The next chief minister will likely be from the Meitei community, Radheshyam (a former IPS officer and cabinet minister) or Sharada Devi (the BJP President) being the most probable successors of N. Biren Singh. However, there is little hope for reconciliation and a peace agreement between the two communities in conflict, as the Kukis are unlikely to settle for anything less than a separate administration.
Governmental and political support for a separate administration and unconstitutional demands will not lead to a brighter future for any community in Manipur. While the presence of central security forces can control violence, it cannot establish lasting peace. Only a dedicated government can restore inter-community cooperation and peace. Inter-community violence has occurred multiple times in Manipur over the past three decades, but it has never resulted in a situation that warranted a separate administration or a continuation of a government that has lost public trust. Community representatives and leaders must also take the responsibility for preventing drug cultivation, smuggling and the illegal possession of arms on their land. The people’s representatives and the government are accountable for ensuring that a situation does not arise that fosters extremist youth organizations and makes weapons accessible to them. Communities affected by violence should seek reconciliation and dialogue to rebuild trust for their future in Manipur. Both the valley and the hills are an inseparable part of Manipur’s identity.
(Translated from the Hindi original by the author)
Forward Press also publishes books on Bahujan issues. Forward Press Books sheds light on the widespread problems as well as the finer aspects of Bahujan (Dalit, OBC, Adivasi, Nomadic, Pasmanda) society, culture, literature and politics. Contact us for a list of FP Books’ titles and to order. Mobile: +917827427311, Email: info@forwardmagazine.in)
