Betraying Manipur : Centre’s deplayed intervention and PR imposition
|
Heisnam Devan Singh
The State of Manipur, located in the North Eastern corner of India, is currently embroiled in a political crisis that has left its people in turmoil. The region, historically a hotbed of ethnic strife and political unrest, has been struggling with escalating violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities. Clashes intensified and the situation spiraled out of control. The Central Govt led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has been accused of neglecting the political instability in Manipur for much of this period, only to intervene recently by imposing President’s Rule. This delay in intervention has sparked outrage among the people of Manipur, who feel abandoned and betrayed by the very Government that is supposed to protect them. Many critics, including scholars and political analysts, have raised pointed questions about the Central Govt’s handling of the situation, suggesting that the prolonged violence could have been part of a larger political strategy aimed at undermining the State’s autonomy. The question that arises in the wake of President’s Rule is : Why did the Central Government wait for two years before taking a decisive action, and what role did they play in allowing the violence to spiral out of control ? Some people in Manipur have even gone so far as accusing the Central Government of intentionally stoking the fires of ethnic conflict in the region. There are claims that the violence was not merely the result of tensions between the Meitei and Kuki communities, but a politically orchestrated crisis aimed at weakening the State’s regional power and securing control over its administration. As the dust settle over the imposition of President’s Rule, a fundamental question looms : Are the people of Manipur being treated as equal citizens of India, or are they being neglected and sidelined in favor of Centralization and political maneuvering ?
For the nearly two years, Manipur has been gripped by violence, often with little to no intervention from the State or Central Government. Reports of violence, including attacks on civilian population, destruction of property, and ethnic clashes, were frequent but seemingly ignored by the powers that be. Despite several calls from local politicians, civil society groups, and the media for Government action, the response from both the State Government and the Central administration was lackluster at best. Former Chief Minister of N Biren Singh, faced criticism for his inability to bring peace to the State, while the Central Government remained largely silent. Local sources and political observers noted that the situation worsened over time, with little evidence of any coordinated effort to resolve the crisis. As the violence escalated, several lives were lost, and thousands were displaced.
During this period of rising tensions, many in Manipur began questioning the commitment of the Central Government in addressing their needs and concerns. The delay in response raised suspicions that the BJP-led Govt in Delhi was either indifferent to the situation or deliberately allowing the violence to fester. Those accusing the Central Govt of negligence point to the fact that the violence went unchecked for so long, allowing deep divisions between the Meitei and Kuki communities to solidify, making reconciliation more difficult. Some critics argue that the prolonged inaction is a sign that the Central Govt was more focused on political strategy than the well-being of the people of Manipur.
Many scholars and political commentators have criticized the Central Govt’s handling of the situation. One of the most contentious aspects of the response-or lack of-has been the apparent disregard to the gravity of the situation on the ground. The Govt failed to address the rising tensions between the two communities, and the lack of proactive measures to do-escalate the violence has left many questioning whether this delay is intentional. According to some scholars, the inaction points to a possible agenda of weakening the State’s political and social fabrics that it could eventually be easily controlled from the Centre.
The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur came after nearly two years of violence, and it was seen by many as an admission of failure on the part of both the State and Central Govt. Critics argue that the Central Govt’s decision to step in and take control of the administration was a reactive measure, long overdue. By the time President’s Rule was declared, the damage had already been done: ethnic animosities had deepened, lives had been lost, and thousands of people had been displaced.
Moreover, many in Manipur felt that the Central Government’s action were an overt demonstration of its control over the State, undermining its autonomy and reinforcing the perception that Manipur is treated as “Second-Class” State within the Indian Union. The question that arises is why the Central Government allowed the situation to deteriorate for so long before intervening. Some observers suggest that the Central Government’s political strategy in Manipur has been driven by a desire to exert control over the State. Some political analysts argue that the Government’s handling of the crisis-first through inaction and later through the imposition of President’s Rule-fits into a broader pattern of Centralizing power.
In this context, the prolonged violence may not have been an unintended consequences, but rather a deliberate strategy to weaken local political forces and the direct control of the State. The Centralization of power in Manipur is particularly troubling for many people in the State, who feel that the imposition of President’s Rule is an affront to their autonomy and democratic rights.
(To be contd)
The State of Manipur, located in the North Eastern corner of India, is currently embroiled in a political crisis that has left its people in turmoil. The region, historically a hotbed of ethnic strife and political unrest, has been struggling with escalating violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities. Clashes intensified and the situation spiraled out of control. The Central Govt led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), has been accused of neglecting the political instability in Manipur for much of this period, only to intervene recently by imposing President’s Rule. This delay in intervention has sparked outrage among the people of Manipur, who feel abandoned and betrayed by the very Government that is supposed to protect them. Many critics, including scholars and political analysts, have raised pointed questions about the Central Govt’s handling of the situation, suggesting that the prolonged violence could have been part of a larger political strategy aimed at undermining the State’s autonomy. The question that arises in the wake of President’s Rule is : Why did the Central Government wait for two years before taking a decisive action, and what role did they play in allowing the violence to spiral out of control ? Some people in Manipur have even gone so far as accusing the Central Government of intentionally stoking the fires of ethnic conflict in the region. There are claims that the violence was not merely the result of tensions between the Meitei and Kuki communities, but a politically orchestrated crisis aimed at weakening the State’s regional power and securing control over its administration. As the dust settle over the imposition of President’s Rule, a fundamental question looms : Are the people of Manipur being treated as equal citizens of India, or are they being neglected and sidelined in favor of Centralization and political maneuvering ?
For the nearly two years, Manipur has been gripped by violence, often with little to no intervention from the State or Central Government. Reports of violence, including attacks on civilian population, destruction of property, and ethnic clashes, were frequent but seemingly ignored by the powers that be. Despite several calls from local politicians, civil society groups, and the media for Government action, the response from both the State Government and the Central administration was lackluster at best. Former Chief Minister of N Biren Singh, faced criticism for his inability to bring peace to the State, while the Central Government remained largely silent. Local sources and political observers noted that the situation worsened over time, with little evidence of any coordinated effort to resolve the crisis. As the violence escalated, several lives were lost, and thousands were displaced.
During this period of rising tensions, many in Manipur began questioning the commitment of the Central Government in addressing their needs and concerns. The delay in response raised suspicions that the BJP-led Govt in Delhi was either indifferent to the situation or deliberately allowing the violence to fester. Those accusing the Central Govt of negligence point to the fact that the violence went unchecked for so long, allowing deep divisions between the Meitei and Kuki communities to solidify, making reconciliation more difficult. Some critics argue that the prolonged inaction is a sign that the Central Govt was more focused on political strategy than the well-being of the people of Manipur.
Many scholars and political commentators have criticized the Central Govt’s handling of the situation. One of the most contentious aspects of the response-or lack of-has been the apparent disregard to the gravity of the situation on the ground. The Govt failed to address the rising tensions between the two communities, and the lack of proactive measures to do-escalate the violence has left many questioning whether this delay is intentional. According to some scholars, the inaction points to a possible agenda of weakening the State’s political and social fabrics that it could eventually be easily controlled from the Centre.
The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur came after nearly two years of violence, and it was seen by many as an admission of failure on the part of both the State and Central Govt. Critics argue that the Central Govt’s decision to step in and take control of the administration was a reactive measure, long overdue. By the time President’s Rule was declared, the damage had already been done: ethnic animosities had deepened, lives had been lost, and thousands of people had been displaced.
Moreover, many in Manipur felt that the Central Government’s action were an overt demonstration of its control over the State, undermining its autonomy and reinforcing the perception that Manipur is treated as “Second-Class” State within the Indian Union. The question that arises is why the Central Government allowed the situation to deteriorate for so long before intervening. Some observers suggest that the Central Government’s political strategy in Manipur has been driven by a desire to exert control over the State. Some political analysts argue that the Government’s handling of the crisis-first through inaction and later through the imposition of President’s Rule-fits into a broader pattern of Centralizing power.
In this context, the prolonged violence may not have been an unintended consequences, but rather a deliberate strategy to weaken local political forces and the direct control of the State. The Centralization of power in Manipur is particularly troubling for many people in the State, who feel that the imposition of President’s Rule is an affront to their autonomy and democratic rights.
(To be contd)