Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh’s assertion that the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement is “not a state subject” deserves closer scrutiny—not merely for what it says, but for what it conveniently leaves unsaid.
Constitutionally, the statement carries a measure of truth. The Government of India, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, has always taken the lead in negotiating with insurgent groups. National security, defence and peace negotiations with armed organizations fall largely within the Union’s domain. Yet, to stop the discussion there is to present only half the picture.
The SoO arrangement in Manipur has never been a bilateral agreement between New Delhi and Kuki armed groups. Since its inception in 2008, it has been a tripartite agreement involving the Government of India, the Government of Manipur and the participating armed organizations. The State Government is not a passive observer. It is a signatory. A signatory does not merely witness an agreement; it accepts obligations arising from it.
The Government of Manipur participates in the Joint Monitoring Group that oversees compliance with the ground rules. It is responsible for maintaining law and order outside designated camps, monitoring violations in coordination with security agencies and ensuring that the agreement does not become a licence for parallel authority. These are neither ceremonial nor symbolic responsibilities. They are fundamental to the functioning of the SoO itself.
When the Chief Minister says that the SoO is “not a state subject,” the public may reasonably infer that the State Government bears little or no responsibility for its consequences. Such an interpretation would be misleading. While the State may not possess the unilateral authority to terminate or renegotiate the agreement, it certainly has both the constitutional authority and the administrative duty to document violations, recommend corrective measures, oppose extensions where justified, and press the Union Government to act in the interest of Manipur.
The distinction between lacking exclusive authority and lacking responsibility is crucial. They are not the same.
If successive governments in Manipur have repeatedly expressed concern over alleged violations of the SoO ground rules, the obvious question follows: what institutional mechanisms were activated? How many violations were officially reported? What recommendations were placed before the Union Government? How vigorously did the State pursue enforcement? These are legitimate questions in a democratic system, especially when public confidence in the arrangement has steadily eroded.
Political accountability cannot be compartmentalized. Governments readily claim credit for peace, development and security when conditions improve. The same principle requires them to acknowledge their responsibilities when policies become contentious. To invoke constitutional limitations only when criticism arises risks appearing less as a constitutional clarification than as a political defence.
The people of Manipur are not asking the State Government to assume powers that belong exclusively to the Union. They are asking whether their elected government has exhausted every constitutional, legal and political avenue available to protect the interests of the State. Those are entirely different questions.
A mature federal system functions through cooperation, not the shifting of responsibility. The Constitution envisages shared governance where the Union and the States work together on matters that inevitably overlap. The SoO is one such example. Although negotiations may be led by New Delhi, implementation depends substantially on the participation of the State Government. Without the cooperation of Manipur, the agreement cannot effectively function on the ground.
The Chief Minister’s remark therefore reveals a broader problem in contemporary governance: the tendency to invoke constitutional boundaries selectively. When policies are successful, multiple stakeholders share the applause. When they become unpopular, responsibility is often redirected elsewhere. Such an approach may offer temporary political convenience, but it weakens public trust in institutions.
Manipur today needs candour more than convenience. If the State Government believes the existing SoO framework no longer serves the interests of peace or public safety, it should articulate its position unambiguously before the Union Government and the people. If it believes reforms are necessary, it should advocate them with conviction. If it considers the agreement indispensable, it should explain why and outline how compliance will be strengthened.
What it should avoid is creating the impression that it is merely a spectator in an arrangement to which it remains a constitutional participant.
History will judge governments not only by the powers they possessed, but by how resolutely they exercised the powers they did possess. Responsibility cannot be suspended, even if operations can.
