When Words Wound The Biren-Bimol verbal war and the poverty of political discourse in Manipur

Dr Raj Singh
(Backdrop: After three years of failure, Manipur’s politicians seem to have gone out of their wits to save their own backs. The war-fatigued and reconciliation-hungry people still see no leader who can guide them to peace. The relief-starved displaced families start seeing suicide as the only form of emancipation)
A Clash That Exposed More Than It Concealed
The recent exchange of barbs between former Chief Minister N Biren Singh and Prof Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, Congress MP representing the Inner Manipur Constituency, has left Manipuris dismayed rather than enlightened. What could have been an exchange of ideas about restoring peace, rebuilding governance, and addressing the deep wounds of the Kuki-Meitei conflict, instead degenerated into a spectacle of ego, anger, and cheap political theatre.
In a State struggling for normalcy after three years of ethnic turmoil, thousands displaced, and livelihoods ruined, such verbal duels are not mere political gossip. They are psychological assaults on a weary public yearning for seriousness and compassion. Unfortunately, both leaders, once seen as promising voices of change, fell into the familiar Indian pattern of high-pitched politics, where volume substitutes for vision and rhetoric replaces responsibility.
The Politics of Noise: Why Loudness is Mistaken for Leadership
Political communication theorists such as Murray Edelman (1964) described politics as the “dramatization of power.” In many developing democracies, including India, leaders learn early that loudness creates the illusion of control. The microphone becomes a weapon, not a bridge.
But the Biren-Bimol exchange exposes the bankruptcy of this performative model. Rather than presenting data or arguments on issues like displaced persons, community reconciliation, or State rebuilding, the conversation descended into personal accusations - “who did less” and “who betrayed more.”
Contrast this with the restrained demeanour of leaders in East Asia. In Japan, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe rarely resorted to public confrontations. Policy debates occurred through white papers and committee reports, not through shouting matches. Even Xi Jinping, for all his authoritarian opacity, understands the symbolic value of silence. His rare public statements are carefully choreographed to project decisiveness rather than emotional volatility.
Political sociologist Erving Goffman’s theory of “front-stage performance” helps explain the divergence. In Western and developing societies, politics is performed publicly to sustain legitimacy. In Asian bureaucratic States, legitimacy is drawn from continuity and efficiency, not drama. Hence, where action speaks, talk is minimal. Where talk is the only visible action, it grows deafening.
Manipur’s Moral Fatigue and the Politics of Distraction
Manipur is today a society on edge - fractured by ethnic divisions, drained of economic energy, and fatigued by fear. For the displaced people living in relief camps in the hills and valleys, daily life revolves around survival, not slogans.
The State’s leadership, regardless of political colour, has yet to demonstrate the restorative empathy that conflict societies require. Political scientist John Braithwaite’s theory of restorative justice underscores that reconciliation depends on acknowledgment, apology, and empathy, not competitive righteousness.
Instead, Manipur’s politicians are caught in what psychologist Deborah Tannen calls the “argument culture”, a habit of framing every issue as a fight to win, not a problem to solve. The Biren-Bimol duel exemplifies this. Both men, instead of modelling statesmanship, sought dominance through verbal punches. But their noise only deepened public despair.
This behaviour echoes what Noam Chomsky termed “manufactured consent” - media-fuelled verbal wars distract from deeper failures. The spectacle becomes the story, while the real crisis -the ongoing humanitarian disaster- stays unaddressed.
Erosion of Credibility: When Both Parties Fail Together
The people of Manipur have seen the erosion of credibility in both major National parties. The BJP, under Biren’s leadership, failed to prevent or contain the ethnic conflict despite Central support. The Congress, long discredited for indecision and internal fragmentation, has not offered a viable roadmap either.
In communication terms, both suffer from what Stephen Covey called “the trust deficit.” Covey’s Speed of Trust model argues that competence and character must converge to generate belief. In Manipur’s case, both are in short supply. Biren’s Government was perceived as partisan and reactionary; Bimol’s intellectual interventions often sound moralistic but detached from governance realities.
In societies traumatized by conflict, trust is rebuilt through symbolic humility - leaders visiting camps, initiating transparent dialogue, or forming bipartisan committees. Instead, the optics of confrontation reinforce the belief that politicians care more about optics than outcomes.
Global Lessons: Silence and Substance in Statesmanship
Globally, history shows that true leadership often expresses itself through measured speech and meaningful action.
* Angela Merkel of Germany, famously called “the Queen of Silence,” mastered the art of calm persuasion during crises. Her brief, fact-based addresses during the refugee and pandemic crises built enormous public trust.
* Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand used empathy, not aggression, to guide her Nation through the Christchurch massacre and COVID-19. Her words carried weight because they came after listening.
* Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s founding father, seldom engaged in personal attacks even against harsh critics. His authority stemmed from discipline, performance, and clarity of National purpose.
In contrast, the global populists – Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, or Rodrigo Duterte, revealed the dangers of politics driven by constant verbal aggression. Their fiery words created divisions that lingered long after their tenures. Manipur’s politicians appear to be learning from the wrong examples.
The Psychology Behind Verbal Wars
Political psychology offers clues as to why such behaviour recurs. Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory suggests that when leaders feel internally conflicted about failures, they externalize guilt through aggression. By attacking rivals, they momentarily shield themselves from introspection.
Moreover, Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory shows that leaders mobilize in-group loyalty by vilifying opponents. In a divided State like Manipur, this tactic is disastrous as it deepens ethnic and political polarizations. Instead of leading to reconciliation, leaders become combatants in a rhetorical war that the people never asked for.
There is also the emotional contagion effect - the idea that emotional intensity spreads faster than rational ideas. Every insult from one leader amplifies the other’s defensiveness, creating a cycle of mutual provocation. For the public, especially conflict victims, this noise translates into renewed trauma.
India’s Broader Political Echo Chamber
This episode in Manipur mirrors a National malaise. Across India, televised debates and social media exchanges have turned politics into gladiatorial theatre. Parliament sessions are disrupted more often than they are productive. Political analysts note that the “soundbite culture” rewards outrage, not insight.
A comparative study by the Centre for Media Studies (2023) found that Indian politicians spend nearly 60% of their public communication time attacking opponents, compared to 25% in mature democracies like Canada or Germany.
This obsession with spectacle corrodes governance quality. Bureaucrats grow hesitant, policies get delayed, and citizens become cynical. In States like Manipur, where institutions are already fragile, the consequences are magnified.
The Way Forward: From Verbal War to Moral Dialogue
What Manipur needs today is not louder voices but moral dialogues rooted in empathy and facts. Political discourse must shift from self-defence to collective healing. Some pathways are evident:
1. Institutionalized Dialogue Platforms – Like South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission or Northern Ireland’s Good Friday forums, Manipur needs an official bipartisan space for structured dialogue between communities and political actors.
2. Civic Listening Campaigns – Leaders should spend more time listening to displaced people, civil society, and youth groups than giving speeches. Listening generates legitimacy.
3. Ethical Communication Codes – Political parties should adopt a “code of public discourse,” similar to Japan’s political ethics guidelines that discourage personal attacks and prioritize consensus.
4. Media Responsibility – Local media must resist sensationalism and reward informed debates. The obsession with who said what must give way to analysis of what was actually done.
5. Restorative Leadership Training – As Braithwaite’s model suggests, leadership in post- conflict zones must be restorative, not retributive. Training programs for political and civil leaders could emphasize empathy, mediation, and evidence-based dialogue.
Manipur’s Lost Voice of Empathy
It is tragic that Manipur, a land of rich intellectual and cultural heritage, finds itself starved of empathetic voices. Once upon a time, Manipuri political discourse was framed by visionary leaders who spoke softly but carried conviction. Figures like RK Dorendra Singh or Yangmaso Shaiza, were remembered not for shouting but for shaping.
Today, the State’s politics has been hijacked by sound and fury. Leaders measuring their relevance by how loudly they can insult, not by how deeply they can heal.
The Biren-Bimol confrontation symbolizes this moral degeneration. Both may have intended to assert their relevance, but they only reminded the people how irrelevant the current political class has become to their lived realities.
Conclusion: Talk Less, Heal More
When Nations or States pass through deep crises, leadership is measured not by eloquence but by restraint. In Confucian philosophy, silence is the highest form of wisdom because it implies self-mastery. In Gandhian ethics, speech without truth is violence.
Manipur’s leaders, Biren, Bimol, and all others, must internalize this. Their citizens are not spectators but sufferers. Every word uttered in anger adds to the collective exhaustion of a traumatized society.
If politics is to regain its moral authority, it must rediscover the dignity of quiet purpose. Let the new mantra for Manipur’s leaders be: “Talk less, heal more.” The time for noise has long passed; the time for wisdom has come.
(The author is a Manipuri expat settled in Canada. He can be reached at rajkuss@gmail.com)