<p>The governance crisis in Manipur is a consequence of the formation of the nation-state. The development of the modern state as a political sovereign authority in the Northeast is contentious in terms of evolution mechanisms and processes.</p>.<p>Therefore, this region has been vulnerable to a variety of socio-political conflicts, ranging from secession to insurgency. Oommen (2001) argues that “most nations in South Asia did not ever demand sovereign states; they are state-renouncing nations”. This does not mean that these regions do not have states as such; they do have states of their own, which differ from modern nation-states.</p>.<p>Manipur’s current spell of President’s rule (since February 13) is its 11th, the highest for any state post-independence. How do we explain the failure or breakdown of the constitutional machinery?</p>.<p>The ongoing political crisis in Manipur has presented a serious challenge to the BJP leadership since May 2023. On March 21, 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah stated in the Rajya Sabha that peace prevailed in Manipur as dialogue had been initiated between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities. However, the further extension of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) from April 1 in the entire state (excluding 13 areas) indicates gaps between the government’s rhetoric and reality.</p>.<p>The strict separation of identities from the state is difficult in our nation, more so in the Northeastern region, given the complexities involved in the evolution of the state. Tribal identities and their dominance over society make it much more difficult to apply the Treaty of Westphalia and the concept of the nation-state.</p>.<p>Wherever identities are strong within a society, therein the hegemonic forces acquire necessary strength in a republican system of democracy to establish cultural nationalism, argued Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci.</p>.<p>The 22 months of political turmoil in Manipur provide ample evidence for the case of cultural nationalism. To illustrate, the Meiteis have established cultural superiority in the state while compromising on political sovereignty to some extent.</p>.<p>The case of Manipur and its integration with the Union of India is different (Manipur-Constitutional Monarchy) from that of other princely states. The 1949 merger agreement between Bodhachandra Singh, Maharaja of Manipur, and the Indian government was based on the assurance that internal autonomy would be retained. Consequently, the Government of India took over the administration of Manipur on October 15, 1949. This merger agreement took place largely by forcing the King than by democratic persuasion.</p>.<p>The recent demand for a separate administration in the form of a Union Territory by Kuki-Zo communities and its rejection by the Union government needs to be looked into from this historical context. The denial of autonomy stands in contradiction to the spirit of the Constitution, especially from the perspective of the Sixth Schedule.</p>.<p>The Kuki insurgency during 1916-1919 and the present political situation in Manipur show certain similarities, with the state’s apathy and gross apathy to the aspirations of Kuki-Zo communities being the commonality.</p>.<p>Cleavages that developed between Meitei and Kuki communities demanded a political solution; yet there was none. This was due to the political economy of identity, nation-building, self-autonomy and the idea of cooperative federalism. The conflict that erupted in May 2023 is the continuation of these historical factors and not entirely driven by the Meiteis’ demand for the ST status.</p>.<p>Soon after the Kuki insurgency, the British government took steps to reform the administration in tribal areas. The hill areas of Manipur were excluded under the Government of India Act, 1935.</p>.<p>After Manipur merged with the Union of India, the political awakening gave rise to the demand for a North-East India Frontier Province (NEFP), which was declined by the Congress leadership. The recent extension of AFSPA reflects the Union government and home ministry’s security-centric approach to the political and governance-related factors, especially democracy and administrative autonomy.</p>.<p>The conflict in Manipur acquired complexity with issues such as tribal land alienation, non-application of Sixth Schedule to the autonomous district councils, illegal migration from Myanmar, and the loss of land and livelihood. The Union home ministry is unable to find the solution to Manipur’s crisis fundamentally because of the flawed security-centric approach. Reducing the conflict to a majority (Meitei)-minority (Kuki-Zomi) binary and the security, law and order problem have only precipitated the conflict.</p>.<p>There is a clear sense of trust deficit and political alienation among local communities and the government due to the securitisation of Manipur society. The policy crisis with respect to Manipur is a reflection of poor political wisdom and statecraft.</p>.<p><strong>Participation in governance</strong></p>.<p>The continuation of the colonial template of governance in the form of Sixth (fully excluded areas) Schedule of the Constitution and measures such as the Inner Line Permit (ILP) are issues that need a political dialogue between the Union government and the state government.</p>.<p>Though there is a demand within Manipur for the application of the Sixth Schedule, given the ineffective implementation of its provisions, there is a necessity for reforms within these schedules. The demand for self-governance and autonomy in decision-making is natural, given the long, time-tested indigenous political systems among tribal communities.</p>.<p>The Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution do provide opportunity to accommodate such demands of administrative autonomy without losing or compromising the national or political sovereignty of the modern nation-state.</p>.<p>The post-colonial state in India demonstrated that it has the potential to assimilate such demands for autonomous administrative units. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1992-93 together, with robust functioning of the Sixth Schedule and Article 371C, are the way out to mitigate the conflict, thereby providing an opportunity to the voice of local communities in the decision-making process.</p>.<p>Trust and peace in Manipur can be restored only with the active participation of local citizens in governance.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is an assistant professor at SVD Siddhartha Law College, <br>Vijayawada)</em></p>
<p>The governance crisis in Manipur is a consequence of the formation of the nation-state. The development of the modern state as a political sovereign authority in the Northeast is contentious in terms of evolution mechanisms and processes.</p>.<p>Therefore, this region has been vulnerable to a variety of socio-political conflicts, ranging from secession to insurgency. Oommen (2001) argues that “most nations in South Asia did not ever demand sovereign states; they are state-renouncing nations”. This does not mean that these regions do not have states as such; they do have states of their own, which differ from modern nation-states.</p>.<p>Manipur’s current spell of President’s rule (since February 13) is its 11th, the highest for any state post-independence. How do we explain the failure or breakdown of the constitutional machinery?</p>.<p>The ongoing political crisis in Manipur has presented a serious challenge to the BJP leadership since May 2023. On March 21, 2025, Union Home Minister Amit Shah stated in the Rajya Sabha that peace prevailed in Manipur as dialogue had been initiated between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities. However, the further extension of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) from April 1 in the entire state (excluding 13 areas) indicates gaps between the government’s rhetoric and reality.</p>.<p>The strict separation of identities from the state is difficult in our nation, more so in the Northeastern region, given the complexities involved in the evolution of the state. Tribal identities and their dominance over society make it much more difficult to apply the Treaty of Westphalia and the concept of the nation-state.</p>.<p>Wherever identities are strong within a society, therein the hegemonic forces acquire necessary strength in a republican system of democracy to establish cultural nationalism, argued Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci.</p>.<p>The 22 months of political turmoil in Manipur provide ample evidence for the case of cultural nationalism. To illustrate, the Meiteis have established cultural superiority in the state while compromising on political sovereignty to some extent.</p>.<p>The case of Manipur and its integration with the Union of India is different (Manipur-Constitutional Monarchy) from that of other princely states. The 1949 merger agreement between Bodhachandra Singh, Maharaja of Manipur, and the Indian government was based on the assurance that internal autonomy would be retained. Consequently, the Government of India took over the administration of Manipur on October 15, 1949. This merger agreement took place largely by forcing the King than by democratic persuasion.</p>.<p>The recent demand for a separate administration in the form of a Union Territory by Kuki-Zo communities and its rejection by the Union government needs to be looked into from this historical context. The denial of autonomy stands in contradiction to the spirit of the Constitution, especially from the perspective of the Sixth Schedule.</p>.<p>The Kuki insurgency during 1916-1919 and the present political situation in Manipur show certain similarities, with the state’s apathy and gross apathy to the aspirations of Kuki-Zo communities being the commonality.</p>.<p>Cleavages that developed between Meitei and Kuki communities demanded a political solution; yet there was none. This was due to the political economy of identity, nation-building, self-autonomy and the idea of cooperative federalism. The conflict that erupted in May 2023 is the continuation of these historical factors and not entirely driven by the Meiteis’ demand for the ST status.</p>.<p>Soon after the Kuki insurgency, the British government took steps to reform the administration in tribal areas. The hill areas of Manipur were excluded under the Government of India Act, 1935.</p>.<p>After Manipur merged with the Union of India, the political awakening gave rise to the demand for a North-East India Frontier Province (NEFP), which was declined by the Congress leadership. The recent extension of AFSPA reflects the Union government and home ministry’s security-centric approach to the political and governance-related factors, especially democracy and administrative autonomy.</p>.<p>The conflict in Manipur acquired complexity with issues such as tribal land alienation, non-application of Sixth Schedule to the autonomous district councils, illegal migration from Myanmar, and the loss of land and livelihood. The Union home ministry is unable to find the solution to Manipur’s crisis fundamentally because of the flawed security-centric approach. Reducing the conflict to a majority (Meitei)-minority (Kuki-Zomi) binary and the security, law and order problem have only precipitated the conflict.</p>.<p>There is a clear sense of trust deficit and political alienation among local communities and the government due to the securitisation of Manipur society. The policy crisis with respect to Manipur is a reflection of poor political wisdom and statecraft.</p>.<p><strong>Participation in governance</strong></p>.<p>The continuation of the colonial template of governance in the form of Sixth (fully excluded areas) Schedule of the Constitution and measures such as the Inner Line Permit (ILP) are issues that need a political dialogue between the Union government and the state government.</p>.<p>Though there is a demand within Manipur for the application of the Sixth Schedule, given the ineffective implementation of its provisions, there is a necessity for reforms within these schedules. The demand for self-governance and autonomy in decision-making is natural, given the long, time-tested indigenous political systems among tribal communities.</p>.<p>The Fifth and Sixth Schedule of the Constitution do provide opportunity to accommodate such demands of administrative autonomy without losing or compromising the national or political sovereignty of the modern nation-state.</p>.<p>The post-colonial state in India demonstrated that it has the potential to assimilate such demands for autonomous administrative units. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts of 1992-93 together, with robust functioning of the Sixth Schedule and Article 371C, are the way out to mitigate the conflict, thereby providing an opportunity to the voice of local communities in the decision-making process.</p>.<p>Trust and peace in Manipur can be restored only with the active participation of local citizens in governance.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is an assistant professor at SVD Siddhartha Law College, <br>Vijayawada)</em></p>
