Manipur direct rule

The Indian government's decision to impose direct rule on the state of Manipur is a deeply troubling move that undermines the country's constitutional principles of federalism and democratic governance in favour of partisan and bigoted Hindutva ideology. While the central government has cited administrative instability and law and order concerns as justification, the heavy-handed approach risks exacerbating tensions in a region already grappling with complex sociopolitical challenges, because even though lawlessness and violence are major issues, they are the effect, not the cause, of the state's problems.

The government refuses to recognise the actual source of the spark that lit the fire in the state — the BJP-led state government's decision to grant ethnic Meitis, who are predominantly Hindu, the Schedule Tribe status while depriving the Kukis, who are almost universally Christian, of their rights.

The imposition of President's Rule reflects a failure of political dialogue and a disregard for the aspirations of the people of Manipur. Like many states in India's Northeast, Manipur has a long history of marginalisation and discontent. The region's unique cultural identity, historical grievances and demands for greater autonomy have often been met with indifference or repression by successive central governments.

By dismissing the elected government and assuming direct control, New Delhi has sent a message that it prioritises control over collaboration. This approach not only alienates the people of Manipur but also reinforces the perception that the Centre views the Northeast as a problem to be managed rather than a partner in the nation's progress. Such iron-fisted rule will also lead to the country backsliding not just in terms of law and order but also in terms of development and trade. Still, if done right, it could be the only chance to penalise the men behind the violence. Better still, however, would be to let states decide what is right and what is wrong.