Resignation or Representation? The Kuki-Zo MLAs’ Dilemma in Post-President's Rule

The restoration of a popular government in Manipur on 4 February 2026, after months of President’s Rule, has reopened a difficult and deeply consequential question: should Kuki-Zo Members of the Legislative Assembly resign their seats in response to sustained public pressure from sections of their own community?

This dilemma cannot be understood in isolation. Since the outbreak of ethnic violence in May 2023, Kuki-Zo MLAs have been effectively unable to attend Assembly sessions due to security threats and the breakdown of trust between communities. Their absence was not voluntary; it was the result of a constitutional crisis where the basic conditions for safe legislative participation ceased to exist. President’s Rule acknowledged this failure of governance. The return of an elected government, however, has shifted the burden of choice squarely onto the shoulders of these legislators.

At its core, the issue is not merely about resignation, but about the meaning of representation in a fractured polity.

The Case for Resignation

Those urging resignation argue from a standpoint of moral legitimacy. They contend that participation in a government formed without addressing the root causes of the violence - displacement, loss of life, and demands for political safeguards - risks normalising injustice. From this perspective, resignation becomes a form of political protest, signalling that democratic office cannot be business as usual when large sections of a population remain traumatised and insecure.

Indian political history offers precedents where resignations have reshaped political narratives. In Madhya Pradesh in 2020, mass resignations altered the balance of power and forced a re-mandate through by-elections. In Tamil Nadu and Punjab, resignations ahead of elections have at times helped leaders re-enter politics with renewed legitimacy. For Kuki-Zo MLAs, stepping down now could consolidate community support, clarify political positions ahead of the 2027 Assembly elections, and allow voters to reaffirm - or reject - their stance through by-polls.

Resignation may also strengthen the community’s negotiating position with the Centre by underscoring the argument that normal constitutional functioning in Manipur remains incomplete without a durable political settlement.

The Case Against Resignation

Yet, resignation carries heavy risks. The Constitution of India envisages legislatures as the primary arena for political contestation. Vacating seats means surrendering the only formal platform where laws are debated, budgets allocated, and executive actions scrutinised. At a moment when rehabilitation, security, and reconciliation require sustained legislative intervention, the absence of Kuki-Zo voices from the Assembly could weaken their influence precisely when it is most needed.

By-elections themselves are not neutral exercises. They can deepen polarisation, trigger fresh tensions, and fragment community votes. The experience of Puducherry in 2021 demonstrates how politically motivated resignations can destabilise governance and invite prolonged uncertainty. There is also no constitutional guarantee that resigning MLAs will be re-elected. Electoral setbacks could permanently reduce Kuki-Zo representation in the Assembly, diminishing bargaining power for years to come.

Most importantly, resignation risks conflating moral protest with political withdrawal. The Indian constitutional framework does not require legislators to resign to register dissent. Opposition, boycott, walkouts, and formal motions remain legitimate democratic tools - provided legislators retain their seats.

Between Ethics and Effectiveness

The Speaker’s power to accept resignations under the Representation of the People Act is meant to ensure that such decisions are voluntary and genuine, not the product of coercion. This safeguard is crucial in Manipur’s context, where public pressure, grief, and anger understandably run high. Constitutional democracy must protect both the right to protest and the duty to represent.

Ultimately, the choice before Kuki-Zo MLAs is a test of political judgment rather than legal permissibility. Resignation may offer moral clarity but risks strategic marginalisation. Remaining in office preserves institutional influence but invites accusations of betrayal from within the community.

There are no cost-free options. What is essential, however, is that the decision be guided not by immediacy of emotion alone, but by a long-term vision of justice, security, and political agency. Manipur’s wounds will not heal through symbolic gestures alone, nor through silent participation. They will heal only when representation is used - or relinquished - with clarity of purpose.

In this fragile moment, the real question is not whether resignation is right or wrong, but whether it advances the democratic recovery of a state still struggling to reclaim normalcy.