Long road to recovery

Supreme Court Justice B.R. Gavai struck a note of cautious optimism when he underscored the necessity of resolving the state’s crisis through constitutional mechanisms and expressing faith in the combined efforts of the executive, legislature, and judiciary. His remarks made while addressing the Duodecennial Celebration of the Manipur High Court, on March 23, also carried a stark reminder: faith in institutions is meaningless without decisive action. It may be noted that the ongoing turmoil in Manipur demands more than political rhetoric-it calls for an unwavering commitment to constitutional governance. Despite such reassurances, Manipur remains trapped in a cycle of unrest. Sporadic violence continues, and the threat of further escalation looms large. What began as a dispute over granting Scheduled Tribe status to the Meitei community and contentious land reforms has morphed into a deep-rooted ethnic and religious conflict. The policies of the BJP-led state government, under Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, were perceived by tribal communities-particularly the Kuki-Zo group-as existential threats. Initially confined to student protests in early 2023, the crisis soon spiraled into widespread arson, the desecration of churches, and mass displacement. Whether the spark that lit the ethnic keg was by chance of design is a matter of debate but the toll has been staggering: over 60,000 people displaced and hundreds of lives lost. Equally damning as the violence was the central government’s prolonged inertia. For months, New Delhi remained a passive spectator as Manipur edged closer to civil war. It was only on February 13, 2025-nearly two years after the initial outbreak-that President’s Rule was finally imposed under Article 356. By then, the damage was beyond repair. The resignation of Chief Minister Biren Singh, reportedly orchestrated by the BJP leadership, came far too late to salvage trust or restore stability. The delay laid bare a troubling disconnect between constitutional duty and political expediency. Justice Gavai’s call for institutional solutions is both timely and urgent. However, history has shown that constitutional mechanisms are only effective when wielded with conviction. The road to reconciliation in Manipur now rests on three critical imperatives. First, justice for victims must take precedence. Legal accountability should replace impunity, and the judiciary must ensure impartial investigations into the atrocities-irrespective of the perpetrators’ affiliations. Without justice, any attempt at reconciliation will be hollow. Second, inclusive dialogue is essential. Manipur’s diverse communities need a structured, mediated platform where grievances can be addressed, not through force, but through meaningful discourse. Suppressing dissent or ignoring marginalized voices will only deepen the fissures. Finally, rebuilding trust requires the reinforcement of constitutional safeguards. Land rights, religious freedom, and tribal autonomy must be protected, with firm assurances that such policies will not be manipulated for electoral gains. Without these guarantees, discontent will continue to fester. The alternative-continued neglect-risks fracturing Manipur beyond repair. The Constitution was designed to mediate crises like this, but its effectiveness depends entirely on those entrusted with upholding it. Justice Gavai’s words must now translate into action. For Manipur’s future, and for the integrity of India’s democratic fabric, there is no time left to waste.