As crumbling hill infrastructure returns to the spotlight, Biren Singh’s social media post has ignited fierce criticism. While he blames low-bidding contractors, many argue the real failure lies in the government’s own approval process.
BY PC Bureau
A social media post by former Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh has reignited debate over the pitiable infrastructure in the state’s hill districts. In his post, Singh pointed fingers at contractors who, he claimed, submitted abnormally low bids—some up to 36.48% below government estimates. “How can we expect quality roads in the hills at such low rates?” he asked, echoing the long-held frustrations of tribal communities who feel perpetually neglected.
But Singh’s question skirts a more fundamental issue: Who approved these bids?
While the former CM targets contractors, he omits the government’s crucial role in approving these tenders. Public procurement rules are clear– authorities can reject unviable low bids. They can demand justifications, insist on safeguards like performance guarantees, or disqualify offers that threaten quality.
So, when contractors quoted ₹64–₹68 for work estimated at ₹100, why weren’t these tenders rejected? If, as Biren now claims, such cost-cutting led to poor-quality roads, the obvious question is: Why did his government allow it?
Many don’t realize it, but when contractors bid far below the estimated cost just to grab the project, it’s the people who pay the price. In our hill districts, this has become a pattern—roads built on the cheap lead to poor quality, faster damage, and dangerous conditions.
— Gisa Rose (reborn) (@gisa_rose) April 19, 2025
REALTED STORY: Life in the Hills (Part 2): Breath Fades Away on Mountain Roads—The Cruel Journey for Healthcare in Churachandpur
Public Anger Mounts
The backlash on social media was swift and scathing.
-
@Lin_Luwang: “In addition to naming contractors, list the officials who approved this shoddy work. How much commission did they eat?”
-
@AsemSurindro, scientist: “Shouldn’t the government be held accountable for quality checks? Why blame only the contractors?”
-
@HminglianaFanai: “If bids are way below the schedule of rates, why were they not rejected? This is basic negotiation.”
-
@LenHaokip538319: “The government can’t escape responsibility. It awarded the contracts.”
-
@Boldveracity666: “Biren acts as if the state is helpless. But the government controls tender approvals, contractor selection, and oversight.”
Another user, @yongnao_lolly, went further: “Name the contractors. Or are they your henchmen? By the way, how’s the leaked audio trial going?”
Singh’s post reads less like a technical concern and more like a political deflection. He even tags the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank for oversight, subtly shifting accountability. But public works departments already have the discretion to reject risky bids. The failure wasn’t just at the contractor level—it was in institutional decision-making.
The Hills Pay the Price
In the hills, where poor roads mean delayed ambulances, school dropouts, and deepening isolation, these aren’t abstract debates. The Kuki-Zo, Nagas, and other tribal communities have long protested the valley-centric development model. They see these roads not just as symbols of neglect—but as daily proof of systemic apathy.
While funds have been allocated to hill districts, the question remains: What was done with them? And if the outcomes are subpar, the problem lies not just with who executed the work—but who greenlit it.
ALSO READ: Special Story: Timber Smuggling in Manipur: Assam Rifles Crackdown Exposes Deep-Rooted Illicit Trade
Yes, contractors must be held to account. But so must the government that endorsed their bids. Blaming the private sector while ignoring the public institutions that enabled the mess only deepens distrust.
Even the NSCN, an armed insurgent group, had cautioned the PWD against awarding tenders below the Schedule of Rates. If insurgents understand that low bids mean poor roads, surely the state does too.
The real issue here isn’t just greedy contractors. It’s a regulatory and political failure to uphold public interest. The state had both the tools and the discretion to prevent this. That it didn’t reflects not helplessness—but neglect, convenience, or worse—wilful disregard.
Singh’s viral post has struck a chord—but unless it’s followed by introspection and reform, it risks becoming just another distraction. Transparency is not enough. What’s needed is accountability—from contractors, yes, but from the state itself, most of all.
