Empower the State else avoid blame on the Chief Minister

Birendra Laishram
Ethnic clashes are complex, but the conflict in Manipur primarily centres on land disputes, territorial boundaries, and the aspiration for autonomy or independence. Foreign intervention supporting the Kuki-Zo ethnic group has intensified these clashes, which are further fuelled by strategic interests. Initially, it was reported that the clash was between Hindus and Christians; illegal immigration, deforestation, poppy cultivation, the drug trade, and links to terrorism and separatism. However, the Union Home Minister claimed that the conflict is an ethnic clash between the Meitei of the valley and the Kuki-Zo groups in the surrounding hills, unrelated to terrorism but the cause of the ethnic clash was not mentioned in his statement. Till the real reason for the clash is not known, the solution for normalcy remains distant.
The ruling Central Government’s silence raises concerns about militants’ influence on the election process, complicating governance. Politicians may prioritize their political survival over constituents’ needs to appease these militants. If the KNO spokesperson’s affidavit is accurate, it indicates a serious breach of democratic principles and electoral integrity.
The militants’ involvement in elections and the lack of accountability for benefiting politicians undermine the rule of law and public trust in the political system.
In a democratic society, it is essential that elections are free and fair, and that any allegations of misconduct are thoroughly inves- tigated and addressed. The lack of action against politicians involved in such activities can erode public confidence in the Government and its institutions.
Addressing these issues requires a robust legal and institutional framework to ensure accountability and transparency. It is crucial for the judiciary and law enforcement agencies to act impartially and uphold the principles of justice.
Academicians and Constitutional experts have repeatedly emphasized that State Governments in Indian Union are primarily responsible for maintaining law and order. However, the Central Government can intervene when serious disruptions threaten a State’s stability. Articles 355 and 356 of the Indian Constitution permit such intervention to protect States from internal disturbances and ensure compliance with Constitutional guidelines. Union Home Minister Amit Shah has addressed the crisis in Manipur by evaluating security measures and deploying Central forces to restore order. While this intervention aligns with Constitutional norms, it raises concerns about State autonomy. The balance between State autonomy and Central intervention is fundamental to India’s federal structure. Although the Constitution empowers the Central Government during crises, the frequent use of Articles 355 and 356 has sparked debate over its implications for State sovereignty. Critics argue that these interventions can undermine State authority, leading to perceptions of Central overreach, particularly in regions like Manipur, where local sentiments and ethnic dynamics significantly impact governance and stability.
Moreover, restoring normalcy should not focus solely on immediate security measures but also address the underlying issues that drive discontent. Economic development, social justice, and political representation are vital for long-term stability. The Central Government, while acting as a stabilizing force, should empower State Governments to take ownership of local issues, reinforcing federal principles. Only then, genuineness of the blames pouring over the Chief Minister will be justified.
To navigate these challenges, both Central and State Governments must collaborate. By prioritizing a cooperative federalism approach, they can create a framework that respects State autonomy while ensuring National integrity. Ultimately, the goal should be to cultivate an environment where states can thrive independently yet remain connected to the broader Nation, fostering unity in diversity.
The use of Articles 355 and 356 is often debated. However, others see it as an infringement on State autonomy, a fundamental aspect of India’s federal framework. The justification for such actions depends on the circumstances and the effective- ness of State governance.
Some stakeholders argue that Central intervention is essential for restoring peace, while others perceive it as an overreach that disrupts the federal balance. The success of these measures will be evaluated based on their outcomes and the prevailing political and social context. Balancing law enforcement with respect for State autonomy is a significant challenge. The Chief Minister of Manipur has faced criticism for his handling of the violence, with many viewing his inability to control the situation as a failure of leadership, leading to calls for more decisive action and improved governance.
The ongoing crisis in Manipur underscores the challenges of maintaining law and order within a federal system, especially amid external influences and internal conflicts. Although the Central Government’s role is Constitutionally backed, it highlights the need for cohesive governance that tackles the root causes of unrest and fosters long-term stability. Quick fixes or unilateral actions could exacerbate tensions, making it essential to include local leaders, civil society, and grassroots movements in discussions to understand grievances and build trust.
Manipur is grappling with unemployment, inadequate education, and poor infrastructure, which has fuelled youth discontent however, the present crisis is not related to these deficiencies. Establishing transparent dialogue without the condition of a separate administration for each ethnic group is crucial for peace. Collaborative dialogue platforms involving the Government, indigenous leaders, and local communities will foster an inclusive environment for diverse viewpoints.
The media plays a key role by responsibly reporting positive narratives that focus on resilience and unity can help heal the divisions caused by conflict. Moving forward, Manipur needs a comprehensive strategy that integrates immediate security measures with long-term development and reconciliation efforts. While Central interventions may be needed in the short term to restore order, they should respect democratic principles and empower local governance to promote healing and prosperity to avoid blaming the Chief Minister.
By nurturing a shared vision for a peaceful future, these grassroots initiatives can strengthen societal bonds and encourage harmony, rather than allowing narratives of separation and violence to take hold.