The Samushang or Sinai camp episode in Kangpokpi district has once again brought the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement under scrutiny, raising serious questions about the credibility of the arrangement, the enforcement of its ground rules and the accountability of the authorities responsible for monitoring compliance. At a time when Manipur continues to grapple with the consequences of the conflict that erupted on May 3, 2023, the government cannot afford to treat alleged violations of the agreement as routine security incidents.
The SoO arrangement involving the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and the United People’s Front (UPF), along with the governments of India and Manipur, was intended to provide a framework for maintaining a ceasefire and facilitating political dialogue. Such an arrangement, however, cannot become a shield against accountability. Its continuation must depend on compliance with agreed conditions, and violations must invite timely, transparent and credible action.
The Sinai camp episode demands precisely that. If evidence indicates that armed groups operating under the SoO arrangement have violated the prescribed ground rules, the authorities must establish the facts, identify those responsible and initiate action under the agreement. The government must explain what action has been taken, what findings have emerged from the investigation and whether the incident constitutes grounds for terminating the arrangement. Silence or administrative delay will only deepen public distrust.
A central question concerns the Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) and the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC), whose respective responsibilities must be clearly distinguished. The mechanism envisaged under the agreement is expected to monitor compliance and address violations. If the JMC is required to meet monthly, as stipulated in the applicable arrangements, the public deserves to know whether these meetings have been held regularly, what violations have been examined and what recommendations have been made. If the committee has failed to act despite credible evidence, the reasons must be made public. If it has acted, the government must explain what followed.
Why has there been no clear, publicly communicated recommendation on the future of the SoO arrangement in the wake of repeated allegations of violations? Has the committee examined the Sinai camp episode? Has it recommended disciplinary measures, corrective action or termination? These are not unreasonable questions. They concern the functioning of an agreement that has direct implications for the security and territorial integrity of Manipur.
The reported position of Union Home Minister Amit Shah that the SoO agreement would not be extended unless weapons were surrendered makes the government’s responsibility even more pressing. The precise context and terms of that statement should be established from the original record. Nevertheless, if the continuation of the arrangement is conditional on the surrender of weapons, the authorities must clarify whether that condition has been fulfilled, how compliance is being verified and what consequences follow from non-compliance.
Equally disturbing is the question of security oversight at the designated SoO camps, reportedly numbering 14. If the agreement has not been extended, the government must clarify the legal and operational status of these camps and the measures being taken to prevent the movement, concealment or misuse of weapons. Appropriate search and verification operations should be conducted wherever legally authorised and operationally necessary. Any such exercise must be impartial, evidence-based and consistent with applicable law. Neither political sensitivity nor the identity of a group should determine whether security agencies enforce the rules.
The Manipur government cannot simply pass the responsibility to the Centre, just as the Centre cannot avoid explaining the status of an arrangement negotiated with its participation. The state Home Department, under the authority of the designated officials, must demand a clear account of compliance and ensure that the monitoring mechanism functions as intended. If the agreement provides for termination in cases of serious violations, the competent authorities must examine whether the threshold has been met and act accordingly.
