Beyond N Biren Singh: What President’s Rule Means for Manipur’s Future

President's Rule in Manipur is not a bold move. It's a placeholder, writes Sangmuan Hangsing.

For the 11th time in its history, Manipur is once again under President’s Rule, after months of political turmoil, ethnic violence, and a governance crisis that saw Chief Minister N Biren Singh step down under mounting pressure.

(Photo: Kamran Akhter/The Quint)

For the 11th time in its history, Manipur is once again under President’s Rule, after months of political turmoil, ethnic violence, and a governance crisis that saw Chief Minister N Biren Singh step down under mounting pressure.

The imposition of President’s Rule, under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, is being presented as a solution to Manipur’s deteriorating law and order situation. However, history suggests otherwise. The last instance of President’s Rule in Manipur lasted for 277 days between 2001 and 2002 — and yet, the core political and ethnic fault lines remained unaddressed.

The crisis that led to President’s Rule this time is multifaceted. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Sambit Patra called it a “suspended animation,” reflecting that the party is still holding onto power without an elected government in place.

The Congress and the Left have outrightly condemned President’s Rule as a means to evade accountability, demanding fresh elections instead. Meanwhile, Kuki-Zomi leaders cautiously welcome it, but they see it only as a temporary measure, not a path to lasting peace. 

The fundamental question remains: Is President’s Rule a step toward real governance reform, or just another political manoeuvre meant to delay the inevitable reckoning?

Beyond Leadership Change

For months, the demand for Biren Singh’s resignation grew louder, and yet, when it finally happened, there was no clear sense of resolution. The BJP, despite holding an electoral majority in Manipur, was forced to impose President’s Rule on itself — a rare admission of failure, yet one carefully orchestrated to maintain control while appearing to step back.

It is not a bold move; it is a placeholder, a pause button pressed while the party scrambles to reorganise its power structure, deliberate, and find a successor who can restore their grip. If history is any guide, President’s Rule in Manipur is less about governance and more about political choreography.

With Singh gone, the BJP has bought itself time — but time for what? After 21 months of ethnic violence, political instability, and governance paralysis, President’s Rule is being presented as a solution, but is it anything more than a desperate delay?

Are we on the verge of a genuine political reset, or is this just a tactical retreat before the same cycle resumes?

They have skirted around Biren Singh’s resignation, dodging a deeper reckoning with the systemic failures that led to this crisis in the first place. The very fact that President’s Rule was imposed not due to a loss of mandate but because the BJP couldn’t settle its own internal conflicts, should be a cause for concern.

What does it say about governance when a party that won a majority finds itself incapable of governing? 

Meanwhile, the Kuki-Zomi leadership is watching closely. Will President’s Rule lead to a neutral administrative framework, or will it be wielded to reinforce the BJP’s existing policies? If it results in intensified crackdowns, particularly in Kangpokpi and Lamka, where resistance against the BJP has been strongest, then the message will be clear — this is not governance, but retribution in disguise.

At the same time, one cannot ignore the BJP’s challenge — governing Manipur requires navigating a deeply divided state where ethnic tensions, political loyalties, and national interests collide.

But does President’s Rule indicate a willingness to resolve these conflicts, or does it merely offer the illusion of control, while the deeper fractures remain unaddressed? 

The Historical Pattern of President’s Rule in Manipur

Elders who have lived through multiple instances of PR in Manipur recall the pattern all too well.

Each time they impose President’s Rule, they tell us it’s to restore order, but nothing ever changes. The government falls, the Centre takes over, and then, after some months, the same political games resume. President’s Rule does not fix our problems; it just freezes them for a while.

Thangkhosei, a 78-year-old resident of Kangpokpi

President’s Rule is an unknown variable for younger generations, a disruption with uncertain consequences. Lamnu, a college student in Lamka, expresses his frustration.

"The internet is frequently cut off for months, our classes are disrupted, and all we hear is that President’s Rule will bring peace. But how can peace come when no one is listening to us? It feels like we are trapped in a cycle of decisions made without us, about us."

Lamnu, a college student in Lamka

Among the common people, particularly women in conflict-hit villages, President’s Rule means another period of uncertainty. Thangpuii, a mother of four, fears what it might bring: "When President’s Rule comes, we are told to stay indoors, to be careful. But careful of what? If it is for the people, why do we feel more afraid?"

If it was truly a remedy, why has Manipur needed it so many times? The issue lies not in the mechanism itself but in the political establishment’s reluctance to engage with the deeper causes of instability. Ethnic grievances, disproportionate representation, economic exclusion, and the failure to build inclusive governance structures — these remain unaddressed every time President’s Rule is lifted, ensuring that instability returns. 

A Political Shield, Not a Reform Strategy

Opposition voices, including the Congress and the CPI(M), have dismissed President’s Rule as a stopgap measure, calling for fresh elections instead. The BJP, too, must recognise the gravity of the situation.

If PR is only used to reinstate Singh’s policies under a different face, or if it results in a top-down authoritarian approach that further alienates marginalised communities, then the crisis will not only persist — it will deepen.

“If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government.”

A Manipur observer

This is the core dilemma—President’s Rule can remove a leader, but it cannot dismantle a system that enables oppression, exclusion, and conflict. Without structural reforms, President’s Rule will not bring peace; it will only reset the countdown to the next eruption of violence. 

So, as Manipur enters another cycle of uncertainty, the real question is not just what happens next but what has actually changed. 

Manipur is India’s Test for Leadership

The path to a developed India is paved with the fate of its most vulnerable regions. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promise to make India a global power will ring hollow as long as conflict and deprivation continue to define entire states.

Economic growth alone cannot define a nation’s rise; it must be matched by moral responsibility, inclusive governance, and a commitment to justice and reconciliation.

Manipur today is not just a crisis—it is a test of India's resolve. It is an opportunity for the Indian state to prove that it does not abandon its people.

At the heart of this crisis lies an uncomfortable truth: India cannot claim to be a rising global power while parts of its own territory remain in turmoil, left to fester under short-term political calculations. If India is serious about its Act East Policy and economic ambitions in the Northeast, it must be equally committed to addressing the root causes of conflict and instability.

Peace cannot be an afterthought to development; it must be its foundation.

India cannot truly be a developed nation, while regions like Manipur remain trapped in violence, digital darkness, and political neglect. Until peace is restored in the Northeast, India’s aspirations of greatness will remain incomplete.

The real question is — does India have the political will, the courage, and the vision to make this happen?

(Sangmuan Hangsing is a Public Policy student at the Kautilya School of Public Policy. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)