Why Do Our Leaders Flee to Delhi in Times of Crisis?

Since May 3, 2023, Manipur has been engulfed in a devastating crisis, marked by ethnic divide, displacement, and despair. Over 300 lives have been lost, and more than 70,000 people have been uprooted, forced into relief camps where they endure unimaginable hardship. 

Yet, as the state burns, its elected leaders—primarily from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—have repeatedly fled to Delhi, citing urgent consultations with central leaders. Locally dubbed “Leaderna Kourake” (“called by central leaders”), this pattern of evasion is not just a betrayal of public trust but a mockery of Manipur’s resilient spirit and India’s storied history of leadership in adversity.

This modern “Delhi Chalo” stands in stark contrast to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s iconic 1940s call, which rallied millions to march toward the capital in a courageous fight for independence. Netaji’s cry was a symbol of unity and sacrifice, galvanising a nation to confront colonial oppression. Today, however, Manipur’s leaders have reduced this historic phrase to a hollow excuse, using it to justify their absence while their own people suffer. Their frequent trips to Delhi produce little beyond vague promises, leaving behind a state grappling with violence, displacement, and a growing sense of abandonment.

Manipur’s crisis is staggering in its scale. Communal clashes, primarily between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, have razed villages, shattered families, and crippled livelihoods. Relief camps, intended as temporary shelters, have become semi-permanent homes, plagued by inadequate food, water, sanitation, and medical care. Children are deprived of education, women face heightened risks of violence, and the elderly struggle in squalid conditions. The state’s economy is in tatters, with businesses shuttered, agriculture disrupted, and tourism—a vital lifeline—virtually nonexistent. In such times, one would expect elected leaders and party workers to be on the ground, coordinating relief efforts, engaging with communities, and working tirelessly to restore peace.

Also Read: Biren Singh returns to Imphal after Delhi talks; Amit Shah reaffirms stand on Manipur's integrity

Instead, they are often found boarding flights to Delhi. Since May 2023, dozens of such trips have been recorded, involving senior leaders, including the state president, cabinet ministers, and legislators from both BJP and Congress parties. Each visit is justified with promises of high-level interventions, yet tangible outcomes remain elusive. What policies, funds, or peace initiatives have these trips yielded? The answer is painfully clear: none that have meaningfully alleviated Manipur’s suffering.

The frequent and unjustified visits to Delhi by politicians and party leaders significantly undermine the credibility of legitimate engagements undertaken by legislators summoned by Central authorities for essential discussions. These unjustified trips cultivate widespread skepticism among the public. As a result, confidence in the authenticity of such visits, even when officially mandated by the Centre, has been profoundly compromised. Furthermore, the inconsistent and vague press statements issued by these leaders exacerbate public distrust.

Consequently, the public view both the visits to Delhi and the accompanying public statements with significant suspicion, questioning their underlying motives regardless of the stated objectives. This pervasive erosion of trust not only diminishes the credibility of political parties and leaders but also weakens the democratic process, as genuine efforts to address our immediate issues are overshadowed by perceptions of political opportunism.

A recent example exposes this failure. Following the arrest of Arambai Tenggol members last week on June 7, which sparked widespread protests, the state BJP president and several office bearers promptly left for Delhi, raising hopes of a resolution—perhaps even the restoration of a popular government after nearly four months of President’s Rule, imposed in February 2025. Yet, they failed to convince the Central leaders, with little more than platitudes about “fruitful meetings,” leaving behind escalating protests and deepening communal divides. Such incidents are not isolated; from May 2023 to June 2025, these Delhi pilgrimages have become a recurring farce, with leaders spending more time in the capital’s boardrooms than in Manipur’s conflict-ridden villages.

As noted in posts on X and Facebook, leaders from Manipur frequently travel to Delhi during periods of crisis, ostensibly to consult with their superiors. This recurring practice implies that such visits serve as a means to evade the state's pressing issues and challenges. Irrespective of the level of violence or unrest in Manipur, the departure of leaders to Delhi often coincides with a temporary de-escalation of tensions, yet typically without the implementation of substantive or lasting solutions.

This pattern echoes a troubling historical precedent. In the 19th century, during invasions or internal turmoil, Manipur’s royalty often fled to neighboring regions like Cachar, Ahom, or sought colonial protection, leaving their subjects to face the consequences. The party leaders appear to have inherited this legacy of abandonment, treating Delhi as their sanctuary while Manipur languishes. To equate their flight with Netaji’s heroic “Delhi Chalo” is to insult both history and the resilience of Manipur’s people.

The consequences of this leadership vacuum are profound. Relief camps remain neglected, with reports of inadequate sanitation and healthcare. Sporadic violence persists, with curfews, internet shutdowns, and heavy police presence failing to restore stability. Even central directives, such as ensuring free movement along highways, are ignored, leaving roads unsafe. The frequent, poorly justified Delhi visits also erode public trust, casting doubt on even legitimate engagements with central authorities. Vague press statements further fuel skepticism, with citizens questioning the motives behind these trips.

The frequent exodus of state leaders to Delhi highlights a troubling detachment from local governance, driven by structural, political, and cultural factors. The National Parties' centralized system often requires state leaders to seek Delhi’s approval for key decisions, from funding to policy directives, stifling local initiative. Some view these trips as a tactic to evade accountability, allowing leaders to shift blame to central authorities while sidestepping the hard work of addressing Manipur’s crises—violence, displacement, and economic hardship. By framing every issue as needing Delhi’s intervention, they dodge responsibility for the state’s persistent challenges.

Both Congress and BJP leaders have turned Delhi into a convenient scapegoat, using the Centre as a shield to mask their failure to address Manipur’s pressing issues. When confronted with the state’s deteriorating security, they point fingers at Delhi, deflecting responsibility for their inability to protect vulnerable communities. This blame game is particularly evident in their silence on the arrest of village volunteers and the Arambai Tenggol members, which emerged out of necessity due to the state government’s failure to ensure public safety. These groups, formed to defend communities amid rising violence and ineffective governance, are often left unsupported or even targeted, with leaders failing to advocate for their protection or address the root causes of their formation. Instead of engaging with these groups to foster dialogue and solutions, legislators escape to Delhi, claiming the Centre’s policies or indecision are to blame, further deepening the state’s crisis.

Culturally, proximity to Delhi is a status symbol within the BJP and Congress’s hierarchy. For some leaders, these trips prioritize personal ambition—securing promotions, favorable postings, or favor with national leaders—over resolving Manipur’s issues. This self-serving mindset alienates the people, who feel abandoned by leaders disconnected from ground realities.

The legislators and party functionaries of National parties in Manipur exhibit a demeanor more akin to deferential subordinates than independent leaders, consistently seeking validation from the central authority embodied by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah, and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. As a result, the real meaning of politics in the state is one in which the voices of the populace are overshadowed by directives emanating from Delhi. For many of these MLAs and MPs, their focus remains confined to the priorities of the party, leaving limited scope for the pursuit of local aspirations or substantive engagement with regional concerns.

However, Manipur’s history stands in stark contrast to this leadership vacuum. The political history of Manipur reflects a narrative of courage, defiance, and the assertion of local agency. In May 2010, then-Chief Minister Okram Ibobi Singh defied a directive from the Central government’s Home Minister P. Chidambaram to allow NSCN (IM) leader Thuingaleng Muivah to visit his native village in Ukhrul district. Despite Chidambaram’s approval, part of a ceasefire agreement with the Naga group, Ibobi banned Muivah’s entry, citing risks to Manipur’s peace and public order. This bold decision, prioritizing state stability and Meitei sentiments, faced controversy but exemplified the resolute leadership Manipur needs—unafraid to challenge Delhi’s directives for the state’s sake. Today’s leaders, however, seem more inclined to flee than fight, betraying this heritage with their “Leaderna Kourake” approach.

Moreover, during the tenure of Rishang Keishing as Chief Minister, one of Manipur’s most esteemed leaders, the state experienced a significant period of political dissent within the Congress party. Leaders such as Irengbam Tompok and Wahengbam Nipamacha embodied this spirit of resistance. Together with a substantial group of Congress MLAs, they openly challenged the notion of an unassailable “high command.” Their bold actions, including mass defections that left Rishang Keishing isolated, grappling with the failure of central leadership directives, defiance against threats of expulsion, and public expressions of dissent, dismantled the perception of an invulnerable central authority. These actions were not merely acts of rebellion but profound demonstrations of Manipur’s political dignity and autonomy.

On the contrary, the consequences of becoming sycophantic leaders are severe. Manipur grapples with ethnic divisions, economic disruption, and eroded trust between communities and the state. Effective solutions require local engagement—dialogue with affected groups, collaboration with civil society, and coordination with security forces. Yet, leaders’ absence fuels unrest, sidelines stakeholders, and leaves protesters unheard. Frustrated youth, lacking opportunities and security, turn to radical voices, while women, historically central to Manipur’s social movements, feel ignored as their calls for peace go unanswered. Each Delhi trip deepens the sense of betrayal, eroding trust in a state proud of its resilience and heritage.

This reliance on Delhi undermines Manipur’s agency. The state’s challenges—land disputes, ethnic tensions, historical grievances—are deeply local and demand homegrown solutions. Central interventions, imposed without local input, often fail. By deferring to Delhi, state leaders perpetuate a narrative of dependency, disempowering local institutions and alienating the public, who see their leaders as more loyal to the capital than their own communities.

The dissenting BJP MLAs, who has been camping in Delhi for the past three years, lacks the courage to challenge the central leadership, instead keeping the public uninformed. Hence, public frustration is mounting. Civil society, student unions, and Meira Paibis, with a history of mobilizing for justice, are increasingly vocal. If unchecked, this could lead to escalated protests in Imphal, targeting leaders’ homes as reported in local media, or demonstrations by Manipuri diaspora in Delhi at places like the airport or Manipur Bhawan. Such actions could draw national attention, shaming both the party functionaries and legislators.

The time for excuses is over. Manipur needs leaders who emulate the courage of Okram Ibobi Singh, who stood firm against Chidambaram’s directive, prioritizing the state over external pressures. By staying and leading from the front, they can restore law and order, support displaced families, and foster peace through unity.

Manipur’s resilient, proud people deserve leadership that matches their spirit—one that stays, fights, and rebuilds. The path is clear, and the stakes are critical. Our leaders must rise to the challenge, proving they are not defined by “jee haan” syndrome but by the resolve to lead with courage and accountability.

The people of Manipur demand legislators who serve not as mere extensions of Delhi’s political machinery but as authentic advocates for the state’s aspirations and welfare. Until such representation is achieved, the prevailing influence of subservience may persist. Nevertheless, the prospect of a renewed era of principled and autonomous political leadership remains a cherished aspiration among those who envision a more independent and resolute future for Manipur.