Biren Singh's Exit And President's Rule In Manipur: Peace Or Politics?

The resignation of Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh and the subsequent imposition of President’s rule mark a critical juncture in the state’s troubled political landscape. The move comes against the backdrop of prolonged ethnic violence between the Meitei and the Kuki-Zo communities, a conflict that has exposed deep fissures in governance and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) ability to manage the crisis. While Singh’s resignation was inevitable given his administration’s failure to restore order, the imposition of President’s rule raises serious questions about the BJP’s political strategy, the role of the central government, and the long-term implications for Manipur’s stability. Is this a step toward restoring peace, or merely a calculated manoeuvre by the BJP to reset its political strategy in the northeast?

Manipur has been in turmoil since May 2023, when violence erupted between the Meitei and the Kuki-Zo communities over demands for the Scheduled Tribe status and land rights. What began as a legal dispute quickly escalated into full-blown ethnic strife, leaving more than 250 people dead and displacing over 60,000. The state government, led by Singh, failed to contain the violence, with accusations that his administration was complicit in worsening the divide. Instead of acting as a mediator, the government appeared to align with the Meitei community, further alienating the Kuki-Zo population. The unchecked spread of armed civilian groups, the deepening of ethnic fault lines, and the failure to implement confidence-building measures all contributed to an erosion of trust in the administration.

Singh’s resignation was not just a response to public outcry but also a result of internal pressure within the BJP. The party’s central leadership, already struggling to maintain control over the crisis, could no longer afford the reputational damage caused by a government that had lost its ability to govern. The National People’s Party (NPP), an important ally, had withdrawn support earlier, citing Singh’s failure to handle the situation. Though it later rejoined the coalition, the political instability persisted. Singh himself had been seen as a liability, and his removal was a necessary, albeit belated, damage-control exercise for the BJP. However, it is important to ask whether his resignation alone is enough to address the deeper governance crisis that Manipur faces.

The imposition of the President’s rule underscores the extent to which the state’s administration has collapsed. Constitutionally, it is a provision meant to restore governance when a state government is deemed incapable of functioning. But in this case, it also exposes the BJP’s inability to manage its own political house. The party, which has aggressively expanded its footprint in the northeast, has been caught off guard by the complexities of ethnic politics in Manipur. The erosion of its alliances and the fragmentation of its support base indicate that its earlier strategy of consolidating power through aggressive electoral manoeuvres has not translated into effective governance.

This crisis also raises larger questions about the BJP’s approach to governance in conflict-ridden states. The party, which prides itself on strong leadership and decisive action, has been conspicuously hesitant in dealing with Manipur’s crisis. The central government’s delayed response, its reluctance to intervene meaningfully, and its ultimate decision to impose President’s Rule all point to a reactive rather than proactive strategy. The BJP’s fear of alienating its Meitei vote base has been evident in its calculated silence on many aspects of the crisis. By allowing the conflict to spiral out of control for so long, it has not only deepened ethnic divisions but also weakened its own standing in the region.

President’s rule now presents both a challenge and an opportunity. In the immediate term, it provides the central government with direct control over the administration, theoretically allowing it to take neutral steps toward peacebuilding. However, the real test lies in whether this period is used to address the root causes of the conflict or merely to manage optics until the next election. Ethnic reconciliation cannot happen through top-down interventions alone. It requires sustained engagement with both Meitei and Kuki-Zo leaders, confidence-building measures that go beyond military deployment, and concrete steps to rebuild trust between communities. The central government must demonstrate that the President’s rule is not just a temporary political fix but a genuine attempt at restoring long-term stability.

The crisis in Manipur also serves as a warning about the perils of ignoring regional complexities in pursuit of electoral dominance. The BJP’s national leadership must recognise that stability in the northeast cannot be achieved through political opportunism alone. The handling of Manipur’s conflict will set a precedent for how the party deals with similar crises in the future. If the goal is genuine peace, then this must be the moment when governance is prioritised over political calculations. Singh’s resignation and the President’s rule may have created the conditions for a reset, but whether that reset leads to peace or further political manoeuvring will depend entirely on what the central government does next.

The author, a columnist and research scholar, teaches journalism at St. Xavier’s College (autonomous), Kolkata. His handle on X is @sayantan_gh.