What does ‘territorial integrity’ of Manipur mean in modern India? 

The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur, following months of escalating ethnic violence and political breakdown, has exposed the Indian government’s selective governance playbook. While the ruling party insists on an inviolable ‘Akhand Manipur’, history contradicts this claim. In reality, India has continuously reorganized its internal boundaries to reflect linguistic, ethnic, and administrative realities—not as acts of national betrayal but as measures of responsible governance.

Just days after PR was declared, ten Kuki-Zomi MLAs called for a comprehensive political roadmap for peace, urging the Indian government to act decisively. The MLAs, who have kept their distance from the Meitei-dominated Imphal Valley and Assembly since the ethnic conflict began in May 2023, demanded time-bound measures to end the suffering of conflict-affected and internally displaced people.

BJP leader Sambit Patra’s assertion that the ruling party remains committed to Manipur’s territorial integrity sparked backlash, with Kuki-Zomi leaders rejecting his premise and reaffirming their demand for political restructuring.

This moment should serve as an inflexion point. Without a clear political roadmap, PR will only delay the inevitable. The failure to address systemic discrimination, political exclusion, and the state-sponsored persecution of Kuki-Zomi communities will not vanish with mere administrative reshuffling. 

The question remains: Why is Manipur’s crisis treated as an untouchable issue when similar reorganizations have long been accepted in India’s history?

At stake is not just Manipur’s future but the credibility of India’s federal structure. Suppose India could peacefully reorganize Bihar and Jharkhand, Punjab and Haryana, Maharashtra and Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

Why is the very suggestion of a political roadmap for Manipur considered treasonous? Is this about protecting the nation, or is it about preserving a failed political strategy?

The government’s 21-month inaction, silent endorsement of ethnic militias, and blatant favouritism toward one community have manufactured a crisis of legitimacy—one that it now seeks to justify through nationalism rather than accountability.

If similar reconfigurations have strengthened governance elsewhere, why should Manipur’s situation be any different? If the government is serious about restoring peace, it must move beyond rhetoric and confront the realities that necessitate structural change.

A nation built on reorganisation

India’s political landscape has never been static; it has evolved, reshaped, and redefined itself through its history.

The very foundation of modern India was built upon the principle of reorganization, where territories were structured not by arbitrary lines drawn in colonial offices but by the socio-political and cultural realities of its people.

At the dawn of independence in 1947, India inherited a patchwork of princely states, provinces, and colonial enclaves stitched together to form the Indian Union. The country was then divided into Part A, B, C, and D states, a temporary arrangement meant to evolve as India adjusted to its newfound democratic identity.

Over the years, India witnessed the peaceful reorganization of its internal boundaries—not as a concession to separatism but as a constitutional commitment to federalism and governance.

Yet today, we are being told that Manipur’s territorial configuration is immutable and that even discussing political restructuring is akin to national betrayal. But history asks otherwise:

• Did India disintegrate when Andhra Pradesh was created in 1953 to recognize linguistic identity?
• Did India weaken when Gujarat was separated from Maharashtra in 1960?
• Did our federal structure collapse when Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, and Uttarakhand were carved out of Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh in 2000?

If the reorganization of states was accepted as a legitimate and necessary process in India’s past, why is Manipur’s case being framed as an existential crisis? Why is the ruling party peddling a revisionist doctrine of ‘Akhand Manipur’, which contradicts India’s constitutional history of restructuring? The answer lies not in principles but in political convenience.

Reorganisation as a strength

From the States Reorganization Act of 1956, which redrew India’s internal borders based on linguistic identities, to the creation of new states like Himachal Pradesh (1971), Arunachal Pradesh (1987), and Telangana (2014), the restructuring of India’s political geography has always been a deliberate process meant to enhance representation, governance, and administrative efficiency.

When Punjab was split to form Haryana in 1966, it was not seen as an attack on the nation’s integrity. When Mizoram was granted statehood in 1987 after years of insurgency, it was hailed as a political success, not a territorial loss.

Why is the same logic not applied to Manipur today?

For 21 months, the Kuki-Zomi people have endured targeted violence, systematic displacement, and the erosion of their political representation. Yet the moment they call for a political roadmap that seeks justice, security, and autonomy, the ruling party dismisses it as a threat to national integrity.

If the government truly believes in India’s democratic framework, it must acknowledge that restructuring has been a tool of progress, not destruction. To say that Manipur’s boundaries cannot be reconsidered is not just a historical inaccuracy but a political manipulation of facts to serve an electoral agenda. India did not break when its map changed to reflect the aspirations of its people. It will not break now if it finally listens to those it has ignored for far too long.

When India gained independence in 1947, it was not the India we know today. The country was a mosaic of over 562 princely states, provinces, and fragmented administrative units, brought together under a singular national vision. The idea of a unified India was not imposed; it was meticulously constructed through diplomacy, political negotiations, and the recognition of regional diversities. The nation’s strength was never in uniformity but in its ability to adapt to its diverse peoples.

Yet today, the same India that redrew its boundaries repeatedly to reflect its evolving realities suddenly declares that Manipur’s political reorganization is a national threat. If Gujarat had been peacefully carved out of Bombay in 1960, would the Indian Union have collapsed? When Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1953, was India’s sovereignty questioned? When Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Uttarakhand were created in 2000, did anyone cry ‘Bharat ke tukde’? If these reconfigurations were considered necessary for governance, why is Manipur’s case being painted as a catastrophic fracture of the nation?

Selective amnesia in BJP’s Doctrine of ‘Akhand Manipur’

The BJP today insists that Manipur’s territorial integrity is sacrosanct, dismissing any discussion of political reorganization as ‘separatist’ rhetoric. Yet, history betrays this stance. The formation of new states has never been a betrayal of national unity but rather a recognition of political and administrative realities. Why does the same BJP that championed the creation of Telangana in 2014 suddenly treat Manipur as untouchable?

The demand for political reorganization in Manipur is not about secession. It is about security, representation, and self-governance—ensuring a community is not left defenceless by state-backed aggression. If the Indian Union has always found ways to accommodate linguistic and ethnic aspirations, why is the conversation different now? Is this about national integrity, or is it about protecting a status quo favouring one group?

The irony is inescapable. The BJP, which has historically pushed for statehood and political restructuring when it served its electoral goals, now peddles a rigid, inflexible ‘Akhand Manipur’ doctrine to silence legitimate political grievances. This is not about preserving the nation—it is about maintaining political dominance.

History is replete with examples of state reorganizations strengthening India rather than weakening it. Why was the creation of Telangana a ‘necessary correction’ but Manipur’s case an untouchable subject? Why was Himachal Pradesh’s separation from Punjab in 1971 seen as administrative wisdom, but even a discussion on autonomy for Manipur’s marginalized communities condemned as a national betrayal?

The hypocrisy is evident. The BJP’s newfound territorial fundamentalism in Manipur is not ideological but political. It is about preserving a regime, not a republic.

A government’s silence, a community’s betrayal

For nearly two years, the crisis in Manipur has been shaped by a deliberate government bias—a policy of appeasement toward the dominant Meitei leadership, particularly under former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. While thousands of Kuki-Zomi homes have been burned, entire villages razed, and people forced into displacement camps, the central government chose silence. Worse, it allowed the rise of radicalized militias like Arambai Tenggol, who operated with impunity, masquerading as defenders of Meitei identity while unleashing terror.

This brings us to a fundamental contradiction—Biren Singh’s deep inclinations and networks with Meitei valley-based insurgent groups, many of which are categorized as proscribed or terrorist organizations by the Government of India. His tenure saw the convergence of militant Meitei nationalism and state power, creating an unprecedented alliance between political leadership and armed insurgency. This fusion resulted in a new front that combined state resources with the ideological currents of Meitei militancy, legitimizing extremist elements under the banner of law and order.

At the heart of this transformation was the resurgence of Sanamahism, the revivalist movement seeking to re-establish the Meitei indigenous religious identity, often in opposition to Hindu and Indian nationalist influences. Under Biren Singh’s leadership, Sanamahism was strategically merged with Meitei militancy to construct a radicalized ethno-nationalist front that thrived on state patronage while positioning itself against the Indian Union’s constitutional framework.

If the BJP’s ideological mission is to protect and expand Hindutva, how does it justify nurturing a movement that seeks to erase Hindu traditions? One realizes that even the BJP’s projected staunch Hindutva stance is malleable to political convenience. In the case of Manipur, it is in the form of an unholy alliance with a rising tide of militant Sanamahism, which is more political than religious.

The contradiction, however, is glaring—the BJP, which projects itself as the custodian of Hindu identity, has empowered a movement that explicitly rejects its ideological foundations. This marriage of convenience has allowed Meitei militancy and Sanamahism to merge into a state-supported force.

Its manifestation is the direction of communal hatred towards the entire Kuki-Zomi population, who have been continually denied their rights.

This is not just political favouritism—it is a dangerous precedent. By legitimizing radicalism under the guise of governance, the BJP has not only deepened the ethnic divide in Manipur but has also undermined its claims of national unity.

The real threat to national unity

The real threat to India’s unity is not the demand for political restructuring but the government’s insistence on suppressing it. If the BJP’s ‘Akhand Manipur’ doctrine were truly about national strength, then it must answer:

• Did India collapse when Maharashtra and Gujarat were separated?
• Did Punjab disintegrate when Himachal Pradesh was created?
• Did Jharkhand’s formation weaken India’s sovereignty?

If all of these were legitimate, necessary, and peaceful processes, why is Manipur’s case different?

The answer is political expediency. The BJP fears a change in the status quo, not for India’s sake, but for its hold over the Northeast. Instead of acting as a mediator in Manipur’s conflict, it has spent 21 months legitimizing state-sponsored violence, suppressing political dialogue, and enabling the rise of radicalized Meitei militias.

If the BJP were truly invested in national unity, it would recognize that real unity is built on justice, fairness, and representation—not on the selective appeasement of one group at the expense of another.

Unity through justice, not suppression

Manipur does not need hollow slogans of ‘Akhand Manipur’. It needs genuine political solutions—ones that recognize the failures of the past 21 months and rectify them with justice and inclusion.

• It needs a political framework that acknowledges the legitimate grievances of the Kuki-Zomi people.
• It needs a government that stops legitimizing violent radical groups while ignoring ethnic cleansing.
• It needs a leadership that does not twist nationalism to serve its political survival.

History has already answered the question—state reorganization has never broken India. Political dishonesty, however, has the power to divide and destroy.

The real question is: Will the Indian government choose justice, or will it continue to let political convenience dictate the fate of Manipur?

Views expressed in this article are that of the author and do not reflect EastMojo’s views on this or any other matter.

Also Read: How the Kuki blended into Manipur’s indigenous tapestry