Context

• The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur on February 13 marks a significant political development in India, particularly considering the protracted violence that has gripped the state for over 21 months.
• The decision, taken after the resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh, underscores the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) strategic retreat rather than an outright resolution to the ongoing turmoil.
• This move highlights not only the limitations of the double-engine sarkar but also raises broader concerns about governance, state legitimacy, and institutional trust in Manipur.

The Consequence of the Prolonged Crisis: Erosion of Trust and Legitimacy in the State

• One of the most critical consequences of the prolonged crisis has been the erosion of citizens' trust in the state and its institutions.
• Reports suggest that the Manipur government under Biren Singh played a partisan role, aligning with Meitei ultranationalist sentiments.
• This favouritism has fractured the shared territorial space and contributed to deeper communal divisions.
• The recent forensic report linking Singh to inflammatory rhetoric further tarnishes the credibility of the state machinery.
• Given this backdrop, President’s Rule is a necessary intervention, but it is not a sufficient measure to restore normalcy.

Challenges to State Power and Restoring Governance in Manipur

• Erosion of State Authority and Legitimacy
  • One of the most fundamental challenges facing governance in Manipur is the erosion of the state’s authority.
  • The concept of ‘infrastructural power,’ as described by political sociologist Michael Mann, refers to a state's capacity to implement policies and maintain effective control over its territory.
  • In Manipur, this power has been significantly weakened due to the state’s perceived bias in handling the ongoing ethnic violence.
  • For governance to be effectively restored, the state must work toward re-establishing its infrastructural power by demonstrating neutrality and enforcing the law without bias.
• Politicisation of Law Enforcement and Administrative Machinery
  • A significant challenge in restoring order is the politicisation of the law enforcement agencies and the administrative machinery.
  • Reports suggest that the Manipur police and security forces have been accused of taking sides in the conflict, either through inaction or direct complicity with certain groups.
  • Law enforcement agencies are seen as extensions of political or ethnic factions rather than as neutral enforcers of justice.
  • Different communities perceive that the state favours one group over another, which further fuels resentment and violence.
  • To overcome this challenge, the central government must ensure that security forces operate without political interference and adhere strictly to constitutional principles.
  • The deployment of neutral agencies such as the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) under direct federal supervision could help rebuild public confidence in law enforcement.
• Failure to Maintain Neutrality and the Rise of Majoritarian Narratives
  • One of the most dangerous developments in Manipur’s crisis has been the rise of majoritarian nationalist narratives, which have exacerbated tensions between communities.
  • The state government under N. Biren Singh has been accused of adopting a populist, Meitei-majoritarian approach, which has alienated other ethnic groups, particularly the Kuki-Zomi-Hmar tribes.
  • This aligns with the broader critique of majoritarian politics, where dominant groups attempt to rewrite history and redefine national identity at the expense of marginalized communities.
  • The challenge for the BJP-led central government is to reverse this trend and ensure that governance in Manipur is inclusive, representative, and impartial.

The Debate on Manipur’s Administrative Structure

• One of the proposed solutions to address Manipur’s political turmoil is to declare it a ‘hill state,’ which could potentially neutralise demands for a separate administration by the Kuki-Zomi-Hmar groups.
• However, such a move must be carefully evaluated for its constitutional implications, particularly concerning Article 371C, which provides special provisions for Manipur’s hill areas.
• Any attempt to dilute these protective measures could exacerbate tensions and further alienate tribal communities.
• Additionally, the push to centralise power under President’s Rule raises concerns about its potential misuse to advance a majoritarian agenda.
• While national unity is often invoked as a justification for such centralisation, a failure to recognise and respect the distinct identities of Manipur’s hill and valley communities could be counterproductive.
• The risk is that it may instead strengthen the call for a separate administration among Kuki-Zomi-Hmar groups rather than quell the unrest.

The Way Ahead: Ensuring Equitable Representation and Power Distribution

• The long-term solution to Manipur’s crisis lies in decentralisation rather than centralisation.
• The President’s Rule period should be used to conduct a thorough institutional audit to address existing gaps in political representation, resource distribution, and governance.
• Marginalised communities must be given a voice in decision-making processes, and meaningful autonomy must be devolved to tribal regions to ensure a fair balance of power.
• History has shown that when institutions fail to represent and protect diverse communities equitably, democracy deficits emerge, leading to recurring cycles of violence and instability.
• Thus, the state must recalibrate its governance structures to strengthen constitutional protections for all groups, rather than dissolving them in the name of national unity. 

Conclusion

• The imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur represents both a challenge and an opportunity.
• While it provides a temporary mechanism to stabilise the region, it also exposes the limitations of the BJP’s governance model and the fragility of state institutions in the face of ethnic and political conflict.
• To achieve lasting peace, the government must go beyond mere law-and-order approaches and work toward fostering genuine trust and legitimacy through equitable governance, fair representation, and adherence to constitutional principles.

Q1. What is the primary issue with data collection in the Manipur conflict?
Ans. The lack of reliable and comprehensive data, leading to underreported displacement and humanitarian needs.

Q2. Why are official displacement figures often inaccurate in the Manipur conflict?
Ans. Many displaced individuals are unregistered or living in temporary shelters, and those fleeing the state for various reasons are not accounted for.

Q3. How has the physical separation of Meitei and Kuki-Zomi communities impacted data collection?
Ans. The separation has broken down communication channels, leading to fragmented and biased data that fails to capture the full scale of displacement.

Q4. What are some overlooked categories of displaced people in Manipur?
Ans. Youth leaving for education or employment, and individuals seeking medical care outside the state, are often not recorded.

Q5. How does misinformation affect the understanding of the humanitarian crisis in Manipur?
Ans. Misinformation distorts public perception and leads to inefficient allocation of resources, further exacerbating the crisis.n

Source:The Hindu

Context

• The visit of India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri to China in January 2025 marked a significant diplomatic engagement, signifying a possible thaw in tensions.
• However, while both nations have announced the restoration of key exchanges, several underlying issues, such as border stability, economic concerns, and geopolitical influences, continue to shape the evolving relationship.
• Amid these developments, it is important to examine the factors behind the renewed engagement, the complexities at the Line of Actual Control (LAC), and the need for greater transparency in India's diplomatic approach.

Diplomatic Engagements and Announcements During Foreign Secretary’s China Visit

• During his visit to China, Foreign Secretary Misri met with high-ranking Chinese officials, including Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Liu Jianchao, Minister of the International Department of the Communist Party of China.
• The Indian government later announced the revival of various bilateral exchanges, such as media and think-tank interactions, the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra, and increased connectivity through flights.
• These initiatives suggest a strategic effort to rebuild diplomatic channels that had been largely suspended since 2020.
• However, these developments alone do not confirm a complete resolution of outstanding tensions, particularly regarding military disengagement at the border.

Geopolitical and Economic Factors Influencing India-China Relations

• The Trump Factor and Its Impact on India-China Relations
  • The return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency has injected a new element of unpredictability into global geopolitics.
  • Trump’s first term (2017–2021) was marked by a trade war with China, aggressive economic sanctions, and diplomatic hostilities.
  • Given his track record, China anticipates a renewed period of U.S.-China tensions, potentially leading to stricter trade barriers, sanctions, and geopolitical confrontations.
  • For China, stabilising its regional relationships, including with India, might serve as a strategic buffer against future American pressures.
  • Historically, whenever China faces external challenges, it has sought to stabilise relationships on other fronts to prevent multiple simultaneous conflicts.
  • For instance, following the 1989 Tiananmen Square crisis, China made significant diplomatic overtures to India, recognising that it needed to focus on internal stability and economic growth.
• China’s Economic Slowdown and the Need for Stability
  • China’s economy has been facing mounting challenges in recent years.
  • Sluggish growth, a real estate crisis, and declining foreign investments have forced Beijing to rethink its economic priorities.
  • The collapse of major real estate firms like Evergrande, combined with falling consumer confidence and rising unemployment, has led to increased domestic pressures on the Chinese government.
  • In such a scenario, prolonged geopolitical tensions with India, one of its largest trading partners, could further strain China’s economy.
  • India is an important market for Chinese exports, particularly in electronics, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing components.
  • Despite political tensions, trade between the two countries remains robust. In 2023, bilateral trade exceeded $136 billion, with China enjoying a significant trade surplus.
  • A continued breakdown in relations could jeopardize these economic benefits, making stability a more attractive option for China.
• India’s Economic Growth and Strategic Calculations
  • While China grapples with economic difficulties, India has emerged as one of the fastest-growing major economies.
  • With its expanding manufacturing sector, growing middle class, and increasing foreign direct investment (FDI), India is positioning itself as an alternative to China in global supply chains.
  • Companies looking to diversify away from China have turned to India as a key production hub. However, for India to fully capitalize on this shift, it needs geopolitical stability.
  • A prolonged border standoff with China could deter investors who seek a predictable business environment.
  • By engaging with China diplomatically, India may be attempting to ease tensions enough to create a more stable atmosphere for economic expansion while maintaining its firm stance on border issues.

Unresolved Tensions at the LAC and the Way Forward

• Unresolved Tensions at the LAC
  • Despite these diplomatic strides, ambiguity remains regarding the situation at the LAC.
  • India has not provided a clear statement on whether de-escalation and demobilisation of troops have occurred.
  • Since the Galwan clashes in June 2020, both nations have maintained significant military presence along various flashpoints, including Galwan, Depsang Bulge, Charding Nala, Gogra Post, Hot Springs, and the Pangong Lake region.
  • Without concrete evidence of troop withdrawals, questions persist about whether the border situation has truly improved or if India has merely accepted a status quo that favours China.
  • Furthermore, India has consistently argued that border stability is a prerequisite for broader engagement, while China has taken the opposite stance, insisting that other aspects of the relationship should progress irrespective of border disputes.
  • If India remains silent on whether pre-2020 border arrangements have been restored, it risks conceding to China's narrative that the conflict is no longer a pressing issue.
• The Way Forward: The Need for Clarity and Strategic Caution
  • The Indian government’s guarded approach to communicating progress at the LAC raises concerns.
  • A clearer articulation of India’s position is necessary to reassure domestic and international audiences that its core interests are being upheld.
  • While diplomatic prudence is understandable, a lack of transparency could weaken India’s negotiating position and allow China’s perspective to dominate international discourse.
  • India-China relations have historically been cyclical, fluctuating between periods of cooperation and tension.
  • Given the structural differences in their geopolitical outlooks, their bilateral relationship is unlikely to achieve full convergence soon.
  • Thus, India must exercise caution and ensure that diplomatic engagements do not come at the cost of territorial or strategic compromises. 

Conclusion

• India’s recent engagement with China represents a step toward diplomatic normalization, but critical uncertainties remain.
• While economic and geopolitical considerations may have driven this shift, the lack of clarity on the border situation raises valid concerns.
• As India moves forward, it must balance diplomacy with firm strategic positioning to ensure that any restoration of relations does not come at the expense of its security interests.
• Greater transparency and a principled approach will be essential in maintaining an equitable and stable relationship with China.

Q1. Why is the timing of India-China diplomatic engagement significant?
Ans. The engagement comes amid Donald Trump's election, China's economic slowdown, and India's economic growth, creating a need for both nations to stabilize their relations for strategic reasons.

Q2. How does Donald Trump's presidency impact India-China relations?
Ans. Trump's unpredictable foreign policy and tough stance on China have pushed both nations to seek stability in their bilateral ties to avoid exacerbating geopolitical tensions.

Q3. What economic challenges is China facing that may have influenced its outreach to India?
Ans. China is dealing with sluggish economic growth, a real estate crisis, and declining foreign investment, making regional stability with India an attractive option to safeguard economic interests.

Q4. How does India's economic growth affect its diplomatic relations with China?
Ans. India’s rapid economic growth and its increasing role in global supply chains create an incentive for diplomatic stability, allowing for continued trade and investment, particularly in sectors like electronics and pharmaceuticals.

Q5. What role do broader regional dynamics play in the India-China relationship?
Ans. Both countries are navigating complex regional factors, including their differing stances on the Russia-Ukraine war, involvement in the Indo-Pacific, and strategic concerns regarding Pakistan, all influencing their diplomatic interactions. 

Source:The Hindu