Is N Biren Singh the Only Leader Left to Confront Manipur's Suffering Now?

At a time when political establishment in Manipur appears increasingly absorbed in the controversy surrounding Congress MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, former Chief Minister N. Biren Singh has once again drawn public attention to the suffering of ordinary people. 

His visit to the bereaved families of Naga civilians killed in the October 10 violence, followed by his remarks to the media, presents a striking contrast between two political priorities competing for attention in the state. 

While the ruling BJP has found considerable energy to demand the resignation of a Congress parliamentarian, former CM N Biren Singh has chosen to question why civilians continue to lose their lives despite the deployment of security forces. The contrast raises a troubling question: has Manipur reached a stage where a former Chief Minister appears to be the only prominent leader willing to confront the state's continuing humanitarian and security crisis with such force?

The October 10 attack on Makui village in Kangpokpi district, in which three Naga men were killed, was another reminder that the violence in Manipur has not ended merely because the political administration has changed. The circumstances surrounding the killing of Ajinbou Ringkangmai, whose severed head remained missing, have caused particular anguish to his family and community. The refusal of his family to accept his remains without proper identification and the recovery of his head reflects the depth of the tragedy. 

N Biren Singh's visit to the families at the Jawaharlal Nehru Institute of Medical Sciences (JNIMS) was therefore more than a routine political appearance. It placed a senior political figure in direct contact with grieving families at a moment when the state was once again confronted with the consequences of its inability to prevent civilian killings.

What followed was a speech that deserves serious attention, particularly from those currently holding political and administrative authority. Biren Singh appealed to elected representatives to have a spine, questioning a political culture in which the protection of positions and privileges appears to take precedence over the protection of human lives. His criticism of security arrangements was equally pointed. Security forces, he argued, should not exist merely to count the dead, record the burning of villages and collect bodies after violence has occurred. 

Their primary responsibility must be to prevent such tragedies through effective intelligence, timely deployment and decisive intervention. His argument goes to the heart of the crisis confronting Manipur, where the presence of substantial security forces has not always translated into the safety that ordinary citizens have a right to expect.

There is a particular significance to these remarks coming from N Biren Singh. His political career, especially his years as Chief Minister, has been marked by controversy, confrontation and decisions that attracted both support and criticism. The former Chief Minister has continued to articulate concerns about civilian security, armed violence, illegal activities and the territorial integrity of Manipur. At a time when many political leaders appear reluctant to speak beyond carefully measured statements, his willingness to address these issues directly has made him an increasingly conspicuous voice in the state's political discourse.

This brings us to the political priorities of the ruling establishment. The controversy involving Inner Manipur MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam is unquestionably serious. Jawaharlal Nehru University dismissed him following an internal inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment, while the MP has denied the allegations, challenged the university's handling of the proceedings and indicated that he would pursue legal remedies. 

The allegations deserve proper investigation, the complainants deserve protection and justice, and the accused must have access to due process. Nothing in this argument seeks to diminish the seriousness of the complaints or prevent political leaders from demanding accountability. However, the intensity of the BJP's political response raises a separate question about the distribution of its attention and energy.

On October 10, the Manipur BJP organised a protest demanding Akoijam Bimol's resignation, with state party president A. Sharda Devi who is also the Rajya Sabha MP taking a leading role, while Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh publicly called upon the Congress MP to relinquish his Lok Sabha membership. The controversy has also attracted national BJP leaders and women parliamentarians. 

The ruling party has demonstrated that it possesses the organisational capacity, political determination and public voice to pursue an issue when it considers that issue important. Why, then, does the same collective determination appear less visible when more than 70 people are killed since February, villages remain vulnerable and displaced families continue to wait for the restoration of normal life?

The point is not that the BJP should remain silent about the allegations against Congress MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam. The point is that a ruling BJP party should be capable of pursuing accountability in that case without allowing the larger crisis in Manipur to recede from its political agenda. 

If BJP party leaders can mobilise demonstrations, issue strong statements and demand immediate political consequences for an opposition MP, they should be equally prepared to demand answers from the security establishment when civilians are murdered. The death of an innocent citizen should command at least as much political urgency as a controversy involving a political opponent. These responsibilities are not mutually exclusive, and a government that treats them as such risks confusing political competition with the larger purpose of public office.

The silence of influential political figures becomes even more difficult to understand when one considers the number of experienced legislators and senior leaders within the ruling establishment. Manipur has no shortage of politicians who have held ministerial office, occupied important organisational positions and repeatedly claimed to speak for the interests of the state.

However, how many are prepared to question security failures with the same directness that N Biren Singh displayed? How many have publicly demanded a comprehensive assessment of vulnerable villages, intelligence failures and operational responsibility following the latest killings? How many are willing to raise uncomfortable questions with the state administration or the central authorities without first calculating the possible consequences for their political careers?

N Biren Singh's appeal for elected representatives to have a spine becomes particularly relevant in this context. Political courage cannot be measured by the ability to criticise an opposition politician, especially when doing so is consistent with the position of one's own party. The more demanding test is whether a leader can question failures within the system that sustains his own political authority. It is easy to join a collective political campaign when the target is a rival party. It is considerably more difficult to ask why security arrangements have failed, why vulnerable communities remain exposed to attacks or why the restoration of normal life continues to elude Manipur despite repeated assurances.

There is also an uncomfortable historical question surrounding N Biren Singh's departure from office. He resigned as Chief Minister in February 2025 amid the prolonged ethnic crisis and mounting political pressure. His supporters continue to regard him as a leader who was prepared to take strong positions on matters he believed were important to the state, while his critics argue that some of those decisions contributed to the political and social divisions that emerged during his tenure.

Whatever judgment history ultimately delivers, one question remains relevant today: have other leaders interpreted his political downfall as a warning against speaking too boldly or taking positions that might displease those who control their political futures? It would be wrong to assert such a motive without evidence, but the apparent reluctance of many leaders to engage forcefully with the state's most difficult questions makes the possibility worth examining.

The former Chief Minister's remarks about the purpose of security deployment deserve particular attention. If security personnel are present in substantial numbers but violence continues, the government must examine whether intelligence, deployment strategies and coordination between agencies are functioning effectively. Biren Singh's insistence that security must be preventive rather than merely reactive is not a partisan proposition. 

It is a basic principle of governance that should command agreement across political divisions. The people of Manipur do not need a security system that becomes visible only after houses have been burned or lives have been lost. They need one capable of identifying threats and preventing attacks before another family is forced to mourn.

His warning against the belief that burning villages can establish ownership over land is equally significant. Manipur's land, identity and territorial disputes cannot be resolved through armed intimidation, displacement or the destruction of settlements. No community should be permitted to believe that violence can create legitimate territorial rights. 

The protection of every community, whether Naga, Kuki, Meitei or otherwise, must remain an obligation of the state, independent of political considerations. The killing of civilians cannot be treated differently according to their ethnic identity, nor should political leaders reserve their sympathy and concern for communities from which they expect electoral support.

The larger question is therefore not whether N Biren Singh is without fault or whether he alone possesses the answers to Manipur's problems. No individual leader can claim exclusive ownership of the state's interests, and the former Chief Minister must remain accountable for his own record. 

The question is why his interventions continue to stand out so prominently when Manipur has an entire elected political establishment entrusted with representing and protecting its people. If a former Chief Minister can speak forcefully about security failures, civilian deaths and the need for political courage, what prevents other ministers and legislators who currently enjoy the authority and privileges of office from doing the same?

BJP leaders must understand that the public is capable of distinguishing between genuine concern for the state's future and political activity directed primarily at weakening an opponent. The allegations involving MP Bimol Akoijam must be addressed through proper institutional and legal processes. 

But the tragedy of Manipur cannot be pushed into the background while the ruling establishment devotes its most visible political energy to the controversy surrounding one Congress MP. The families who have lost their loved ones, the displaced people still waiting to return home and the communities living under the threat of violence deserve political attention that is at least as determined and sustained.

A state with a Chief Minister, ministers, legislators, parliamentarians and an entire political establishment should never have to look repeatedly towards a former Chief Minister for its strongest expressions of concern over civilian suffering. If N Biren Singh increasingly appears to be the only leader prepared to confront these questions publicly, the explanation may lie less in his individual political strength than in the failure of others to demonstrate comparable courage.

The ruling BJP has shown that it knows how to raise its voice when the political future of an opposition MP is at stake. The people of Manipur are entitled to ask why that voice does not appear equally forceful when their own lives, homes and future are at stake.