Manipur appears to be entering a strange phase of its prolonged crisis. The intensity of violence has eased, movement between Imphal and Guwahati has begun to resume, some Kuki-Zo legislators have returned to the Assembly, and the government under Y. Khemchand Singh has begun efforts to restore political normalcy.
Yet unrest continues to find new vocabularies and new points of mobilisation. The question is no longer simply why the conflict has continued for so long, but whether the political uncertainty surrounding the previous dispensation has itself become a condition that allows unrest to survive.
This question inevitably brings former chief minister N. Biren Singh back into the political conversation. He was chief minister when the violence erupted in May 2023 and remained in office during its most devastating phase.
His political accountability for the functioning of the state during that period therefore cannot simply disappear with his resignation. The comparison with Narendra Modi after the Gujarat riots is relevant not because the two situations are identical, but because the principle of democratic accountability should be consistent.
The head of a government cannot be entirely separated from a major breakdown of law and order under his administration. Accountability, however, should not be confused with personal criminal liability. Nor should every subsequent incident in Manipur automatically be attributed to Biren Singh.
The more complicated issue is his political afterlife. Biren Singh remains politically visible, but his future within the BJP is uncertain. Unlike several former chief ministers who were subsequently accommodated in important organisational or central government positions, his next political destination remains unclear.
He is no longer chief minister, but neither has he disappeared from the political imagination of his supporters. This uncertainty creates a peculiar political condition in which the possibility of his return, rehabilitation or gradual marginalisation remains unresolved.
It is here that the politics of unrest becomes relevant. Political uncertainty can create incentives for continued mobilisation.
If a former leader or the political ecosystem around him believes that sustained public dissatisfaction can preserve political relevance or keep open the possibility of a comeback, unrest can acquire political utility.
This does not establish that Biren Singh personally directs protests, strikes or violent incidents. Such an allegation would require evidence. But his continuing political interventions, particularly when they question the present government, inevitably become part of the political environment in which those mobilisations occur.
Manipur’s continuing unrest also cannot be explained through Biren Singh alone. The conflict has developed its own social and political dynamics.
The dominant Meitei-Kuki confrontation has increasingly been accompanied by tensions involving other communities, including incidents framed through Kuki-Tangkhul and Kuki-Liangmei relations.
Older Naga-Kuki grievances can consequently be brought back into contemporary politics. A conflict that began with one principal fault line can acquire several others, allowing historical memories to replenish present-day antagonisms.
This is how conflict becomes self-sustaining. Every new incident is interpreted through an older grievance; every grievance creates a new organisation or mobilisation; and every mobilisation reinforces the perception that the conflict remains unresolved.
Eventually, the original political questions become obscured by an expanding network of competing claims and identities.
The political economy of civil society deserves scrutiny here. Manipur’s valley has witnessed a proliferation of organisations, committees, pressure groups and ideological fronts. Many emerged from genuine public fears and the need for community protection during the crisis.
But the mushrooming of organisations has also created a crowded political landscape in which ordinary citizens often struggle to distinguish community organisations from political networks, ideological groups and partisan interests. RSS-linked organisations and other ideological formations have also become increasingly visible.
The problem is not that civil society is politically active. Democratic societies need an active civil society.
The problem arises when the capacity to mobilise against a perceived threat becomes far greater than the capacity to mobilise for reconciliation. Manipur has demonstrated extraordinary ability to organise protests and shutdowns, but comparatively little sustained mobilisation for peace.
After more than three years of disruption, ordinary people are exhausted. They want to travel, work, educate their children, conduct business and live without anticipating another shutdown or confrontation.
This exhaustion should not be mistaken for reconciliation. The wounds remain deep, and communities remain separated. But it creates a political opening that should not be wasted.
Recent developments offer some cautious grounds for hope. The physical return of some Kuki-Zo legislators to the Assembly, renewed movement between Imphal and Guwahati and various initiatives for dialogue demonstrate that political contact is possible.
Peace-building efforts involving the state and security forces may also help create limited spaces for engagement. But these openings will remain fragile if every new grievance becomes another reason for mobilisation.
The renewed emphasis on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) illustrates how quickly the vocabulary of political mobilisation can change. Concerns about immigration, demographic change and indigenous protection have existed in Manipur for years and deserve legitimate democratic debate.
But they can also become another vehicle for sustaining anxiety if presented primarily through fear and exclusion. The danger is that Manipur moves endlessly from one political emergency to another without addressing the deeper crisis of trust.
This is why Biren Singh’s unpredictable political future matters. If he eventually receives a significant role, his supporters may interpret it as political rehabilitation. If he is marginalised, his supporters may interpret that as political injustice.
If he remains in the state as an active political figure, his interventions will continue to be measured against the legacy of his tenure. In each scenario, his political status can become a source of mobilisation.
But this should not be allowed to become Manipur’s permanent condition. Biren Singh has every democratic right to remain politically active, criticise the present government and seek a future role.
His supporters have the same right to organise. Yet democratic politics also requires accepting that political uncertainty cannot be resolved through permanent social disruption.
The responsibility also lies with the present government. Khemchand Singh cannot build peace merely by distancing his administration from the previous government.
He must demonstrate that governance has moved from personality-driven politics towards institutions, dialogue and accountability. That requires addressing legitimate grievances while resisting the temptation to answer every political challenge through counter-mobilisation.
Ultimately, Manipur needs accountability without collective blame, political competition without ethnic mobilisation, and civil society that can organise not only against perceived threats but also for peace.
The events of May 2023 and the failures of governance surrounding them deserve serious institutional examination. But accountability should be universal and evidence-based, extending to political leaders, armed groups and civil society actors wherever warranted.
The central question is therefore not whether N. Biren Singh will return as chief minister. It is whether the uncertainty surrounding his political future is being allowed to become another source of instability. His political destiny should be determined through democratic processes, not through the continuation of unrest.
Manipur has already spent more than three years living with uncertainty. It cannot afford to make the unpredictable political future of one former chief minister another reason to remain trapped in conflict.
Biren Singh’s political future may be unpredictable. Manipur’s future should not be.
Views expressed are that of the author and do not reflect EastMojo’s stance on this or any other issue.
Also Read: From Vikram to classrooms: Why we still don’t learn about the Northeast
You just read a story that took days to report. Help us keep our reporters on the ground in the Northeast.
Ad-free reading, support and keep important stories alive
Support once (any amount)
Scan to pay via UPI