The clamour for Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s resignation grows louder each day. But will his resignation represent the end game to the year-long ethnic conflict and hold the key to peace and reconciliation in Manipur? Or is it merely a diversion from addressing the core issues that have plagued the state for decades?
Would Biren Singh’s resignation change anything?
The idea of replacing N. Biren Singh to resolve Manipur’s ethnic turmoil is undoubtedly a reductive approach to a historically rooted and systemic crisis. Will the resignation of one leader from the Manipur Legislative Assembly possibly undo the marginalization, structural inequities, and decades of deliberate neglect that have shaped the lives of the state’s diverse communities is a deep-seated question for people less familiar with the state’s politics.
In the event of Singh stepping down or being removed, the question remains whether his successor could deliver lasting peace. This challenge remains an uncharted territory for the BJP in Manipur, despite a similar trial faced by the Congress in 2015-17. Would a new Chief Minister acknowledge and address the grievances of the Kuki-Zomi-Hmar community or any other marginalized group that has long been excluded from the political and social framework of Manipur?
This line of thought and questions obscures the uncomfortable truth that Manipur’s unrest is not the fault of a single administration or leader. They are the result of a long-standing political system that prioritises majoritarian interests while systematically alienating minorities. The state has repeatedly failed to recognise its pluralistic nature, much less promote an inclusive environment where different communities can coexist with dignity and mutual respect.
The history of the state offers a grim pattern: successive governments, regardless of their political affiliations, have clung to a centralized governance model that suppresses the aspirations of its ethnic minorities. From the O. Ibobi Singh led-Congress government’s handling of the passage of three Bills — Protection of Manipur People’s Bill, 2015, Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015, and Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 — in the Assembly to the N.Biren Singh led-BJP government’s which came to power in 2017, disregard for tribal voices during the current crisis, leaders have changed, but the oppressive system remains the same. The centralized power structures in Imphal have consistently ignored the needs of the hills, treating its communities as peripheral actors in their ancestral land.
Replacing Singh would only result in another leader perpetuating this broken system—a mere reshuffling of faces within a framework that has long been rigged against meaningful change. It is not just the leader but the entire approach to governance that needs a relook. Without addressing the root causes—historical injustices, lack of equitable representation, and failure to honour the autonomy and aspirations of ethnic groups—Manipur’s unrest will persist, regardless of who occupies the Chief Minister’s chair.
It is time to acknowledge that the demand for Biren Singh’s resignation, while symbolic, is not a solution. The state’s deeply flawed governance model must be replaced by an inclusive political framework that respects the aspirations of all communities, including the demand for autonomy. Only then can Manipur hope to break free from its vicious, violent cycles and build a future based on mutual respect and coexistence.
Lessons from 2015: A cycle of repression and unrest
Manipur’s current turmoil is not an isolated incident but a tragic echo of its troubled past. The 2015 crisis, where nine tribes lost their lives on the issue of the infamous 3 Bills under the Congress-led government, serves as an utter reminder of how deeply rooted systemic failures perpetuate cycles of repression and unrest. Passage of three Bills — Protection of Manipur People’s Bill, 2015, Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms (Seventh Amendment) Bill, 2015, and Manipur Shops and Establishments (Second Amendment) Bill, 2015 — in the Assembly perceived as a direct threat to tribal land rights, sparked violent protests and deepened the rift between the state’s hill and valley communities. The infamous 3 Bills, pushed through without meaningful consultation or regard for the concerns of the hill tribes, exposed a governance model that has long prioritized majoritarian interests over inclusive decision-making.
Fast forward to 2023, and the N. Biren Singh-led BJP government appears to be repeating history. The ongoing ethnic conflict in Manipur, marked by violence, mistrust, and systemic neglect, demonstrates that changing political regimes does little to address the state’s deeply ingrained structural issues. Regardless of their ideological differences, the Congress and BJP governments have failed to uphold the state’s pluralistic fabric. Rather than promoting dialogue and inclusivity, they have consistently viewed Manipur’s ethnic diversity as a problem to be solved rather than a strength to be celebrated.
The parallels are striking: just as the Congress government failed to consult tribal communities in 2015 on issues affecting their land and rights, the BJP government since 2017 has ignored the voices of the hills in favour of centralised decision-making in Imphal. This approach fuels resentment and establishes a governance structure that consistently undermines tribal communities’ aspirations.
The lesson of 2015 is clear: Manipur’s crises cannot be resolved solely by changing political actors. Replacing one Chief Minister or political party with another precisely perpetuates the same flawed system of governance—one that sees dissent as a threat, diversity as a weakness, and autonomy as an inconvenience. Without addressing the root causes of these conflicts—historic injustices, systemic inequities, and a lack of a truly inclusive political framework—Manipur will be doomed to repeat its past, with each crisis worse than the last.
To break this cycle, Union leadership needs to forgo party politics and repressive politics in favour of a governance model that genuinely respects the rights, aspirations, and autonomy of its diverse communities within the framework of the Constitution. Any attempt to minimise the problem with a simple change in leadership would only ensure that the lessons of 2015 were forgotten and the state’s future remained as fractured as its past.
New wine in an old bottle
The metaphor of “new wine in an old bottle” encapsulates Manipur’s political leadership—a series of cosmetic changes that conceal a deeper, unresolved crisis. Governments may change, but systemic inertia persists, preventing new leadership from addressing the root causes of ethnic tensions, land rights, and exclusionary governance. If N. Biren Singh steps down, his successor will most likely inherit not only the title but also the same outdated system that has repeatedly failed to meet the aspirations of Manipur’s diverse communities.
Manipur’s governance framework has long been fragile, capitalising on a centralised model that ignores the state’s diverse ethnic composition. This structural inability to embrace diversity as a strength has culminated in a governance “bottle” that is inept at meeting the needs of its people. When the Congress-led government passed the infamous anti-tribal bills in 2015, it ignored tribal concerns, putting valley interests ahead of inclusivity. Similarly, the BJP-led government of Biren Singh has continued this exclusionary policy, exacerbating ethnic divisions and allowing unrest to escalate into violence.
These recurring crises are more than just political blunders; they are the unavoidable result of a governance structure that is fundamentally outdated. The Union’s leadership has repeatedly opted for quick fixes—replacing one leader with another—rather than addressing the systemic flaws at the root of the conflict. The outcome is predictable: the “bottle” of governance bursts, whether in the flames of 2015 or the ongoing chaos of 2023.
True resolution lies not in rearranging political figures but in rethinking the governance structure. This includes dismantling the centralisation of power in Imphal, respecting tribal communities’ autonomy and aspirations, and encouraging genuine dialogue among all stakeholders. Without these structural reforms, any new leader will be new wine into an old, brittle bottle, paving the way for future crises.
More than just a change in leadership, Manipur’s diverse communities require a system that values their voices, addresses historical injustices, and ensures equitable governance. Until such a transformation occurs, the cycle of repression and unrest is going to persist, and the state and region’s aspirations for long-term peace will remain a pipe dream.
Embracing diversity through separate autonomy and respect
To break this cycle, leadership at the Union must move beyond party politics and the politics of repression and embrace a governance model that genuinely respects its diverse communities’ rights, aspirations, and autonomy within the framework of the Constitution. Any attempt to minuscule the issue with a mere change to the face of the leadership would only ensure that the lessons of 2015 remain unlearned and the state’s future remains as fractured as its past.
Separate autonomy—where each community governs itself while maintaining cooperative ties—is a viable and equitable solution. This is not an act of division but rather an acceptance of Manipur’s inherent reality: its people, with their unique histories, identities, cultures, and aspirations, are too diverse to be governed by a single, monolithic authority. Such a system would enable communities to maintain their identities, address grievances, and pursue self-determination while maintaining respectful, neighbourly relationships.
The Kuki-Zomi-Hmar people’s demand for separate autonomy is more than just a political stance; it is a fundamental assertion of justice, dignity, and the right to self-government. This aspiration will persist regardless of who holds the Chief Minister’s chair. Political reshuffles and symbolic gestures will not bring peace; only a genuine commitment to addressing the structural inequities and historical injustices that underpin Manipur’s governance will.
The time has come for Manipur to break free from the cycle of repression and unrest that has defined its history. The state can chart an alternative course towards long-term peace and prosperity by embracing diversity as a strength rather than a threat and institutionalising mutual respect through separate autonomy. This is more than a political necessity; it is a moral imperative—an opportunity to build a future in which Manipur’s diverse communities coexist with dignity and harmony, finally breaking free from the constraints of the past.
The time has come for Manipur to embrace its rich diversity as a strength to be celebrated rather than a problem to manage or part ways. The region can only hope to break free from the cycle of repression and unrest that has defined its history.
Views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not reflect the opinion of EastMojo on this or any issue.
Also Read: Manipur: Tripartite Talk over ‘district rollback’ take place in Senapati