Peace, Power and the Promise of Institutions: Reflections on Manipur, Rural India and the Hard Work of Implementation

I carry two images with me these days that refuse to leave. One is of frightened families and a polity strained by violence — the sort of violence that makes a civilized society wince and ask hard questions about who we are becoming. The other is of a village meeting where an old woman argues for a new irrigation pump, where a cooperative account is opened on a phone, and where young people speak about climate-resilient crops as if they are planning their future. Both images are of the same country, and together they tell the story of what development must reckon with: safety and justice on the one hand; institutions, resources and implementation on the other.

When peace is the precondition for development

Recent reporting from Manipur reminds me how brittle the foundations of development can be when peace falters. Voices on the ground — people and leaders — have repeatedly placed the burden on the government to ensure dialogue, clarity and accountability for peace processes "Onus on govt to ensure peace talks, say people in Manipur". Former leaders and opposition voices ask difficult questions about surrenders, the movement of armed individuals, and the information flows that would allow citizens to trust institutions again Mukul Sangma’s critique of government silence.

I have seen this pattern before: instability fractures trust, and when trust is gone, public programmes meant to help farmers, students, entrepreneurs or displaced families can wither on the vine. Peace is not merely an ethical imperative — it is a necessary public good. Without it, capital avoids the region, supply chains are disrupted, and local institutions struggle to do their work.

Institutions matter — but only if they are present, capable and trusted

There is real cause for hope in the continued thrust towards strengthening rural institutions. NABARD’s heavy-lifting — from credit potential projections to PACS computerization and a host of rural development programmes — signals seriousness about structural change at the grassroots (NABARD media room overview). The push to modernize cooperative banks, digitize Primary Agricultural Credit Societies, expand FPOs and introduce green and climate-resilient financing are all essential building blocks.

But I am wary. Institutions can be brilliant on paper and fragile in practice. The effectiveness of institutional support depends on at least four truths I have learned the hard way:

• Local capacity is the bottleneck. Staff, local governance, and credible local leadership determine whether a loan disburses on time, whether a PACS computer roll-out actually helps farmers, and whether climate funds reach adaptive practices rather than evaporating into overheads.
• Trust is a fragile currency. Where political conflict or opaque processes exist, people will opt out. The demands for clearer peace processes in Manipur are a reminder: without trust, institutional interventions are handicapped from the outset "Onus on govt…"; Mukul Sangma, (https://ukhrultimes.com/mukul-sangma-slams-govt-silence-on-ulfa-surrender/).
• Digital is a tool, not a cure. Computerizing PACS or issuing RuPay Kisan cards solve transaction frictions — they don't automatically fix governance, power imbalances, or the skills gap among rural agents (NABARD media room).
• Implementation needs relentless feedback loops. Projects require monitoring, independent audits, and participatory grievance redressal so that errors get corrected before they become systemic.

What would effective institutional support look like? A few things I believe in

I am convinced that institutional support succeeds when it is both systemic and human-centred. Concretely:

• Measurements tied to outcomes, not only inputs. Trackers should measure not just loans disbursed, but livelihoods improved, resilience built, and whether women and marginal farmers actually benefit. NABARD’s focus on credit potential is valuable, but we must complement it with outcome metrics (NABARD media room).

• Decentralized authority with accountability. Empower local cooperative boards, but pair that empowerment with transparency: open ledgers, community audits and independent oversight.

• Invest in civic trust-building where conflict has eroded it. In regions like Manipur, political engagement, inclusive dialogue and truth-building processes are as much development interventions as irrigation schemes coverage highlighting demands for peace talks and government responsibility.

• Combine finance with technical and social support. Grants and loans must be accompanied by training (for PACS staff, FPO managers, and local extension workers), and by predictable, patient finance for climate adaptation.

• Make technology serve human judgment. Digitalization can lower transaction costs and expand access, but it must be accompanied by offline support for those who lack literacy or connectivity. We cannot let the promise of a glowing dashboard hide the absence of functional local governance.

The moral dimension: safety, dignity and the shared public sphere

When a society experiences an act of brutal violence — any place, be it Dallas or a town closer to home — we are reminded that economic schemes cannot substitute for moral coherence. The news cycle reported a horrific beheading and the political responses it elicited TOI Flashreads on the Dallas incident. Those moments force us to confront the social fabric: if public life is permissive of dehumanizing acts, development becomes anemic. Institutions must therefore work across sectors: legal, social, economic and cultural.

A final note on hope and patience

I believe in the power of institutions when they are built to be persistent, transparent and adaptive. NABARD’s large-scale focus on rural credit, cooperatives, and climate resilience is a necessary and welcome piece of the puzzle (NABARD media room). But policy wins are not final victories; they are invitations to long, often tedious practice: to train, to monitor, to listen, to correct.

If I had to offer one underlying principle it would be this: development institutions must be judged by their ability to restore and sustain agency at the local level. That means ensuring safety and peace as preconditions, but also ensuring that a farmer in a remote valley can access credit, technology and markets with dignity — that a cooperative is not merely a legal entity but a living community asset.

I carry both images still: the village meeting and the frightened family. I choose to act on the belief that institutions can bridge the distance between them — but only when they are honest about the work it takes. And honest about the fact that peace, trust and competent implementation are not luxuries. They are the scaffolding on which rural transformation must be built.

---

Regards,
Hemen Parekh