The Future of Manipur in the shadow of the SoO Agreement

The northeastern state of Manipur has long been a land of diverse cultures and communities, each with its own rich history and identity. However, this diversity has also been the source of numerous conflicts, particularly between the Meitei and Kuki communities. The ongoing strife in Manipur, which has claimed over 200 lives and disrupted the social fabric, is intricately linked to the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement between the Government of India and Kuki armed groups. While the abrogation of the SoO agreement may seem a hasty and imprudent move from the central government’s perspective, it is also crucial to recognize the overwhelming sentiment among the indigenous people of Manipur who see the continuation of this agreement as one of the major catalysts for the ongoing conflict.
The SoO agreement was initially conceived as a temporary truce, a mechanism to bring militant groups to the negotiating table while maintaining peace in the region. The government’s strategy hinged on the idea that dialogue would eventually lead to a peaceful resolution of the insurgency problem, particularly among the Kuki community. However, as time passed, it became clear that the agreement was not achieving the intended goals. Instead, it has led to increased tensions between the Kuki and Meitei communities, with the latter perceiving the agreement as a tacit endorsement of Kuki militancy and their demands for a separate administration.
The demand for the abrogation of the SoO agreement by a majority of the indigenous people of Manipur is rooted in a deep-seated fear: that the continuation of this agreement might ultimately lead to the balkanization of Manipur. The shifting of SoO cadres from designated camps situated close to Meitei settlements is viewed by many as a prelude to the creation of a separate Kuki administration, which would effectively divide the state. The recent media reports suggesting that the central government might be surreptitiously continuing the SoO agreement, even as the state government appears to distance itself from it, have only served to exacerbate these fears.
From the perspective of the Indian government and the Assam Rifles, the continuation of the SoO agreement might seem like a pragmatic approach. The northeast region, with its complex ethnic tapestry and history of insurgency, requires a delicate balancing act. The government’s primary objective is to maintain peace and stability in a region that has been a hotbed of militancy for decades. In this context, the SoO agreement provides a framework for dialogue and a semblance of control over the insurgent groups.
However, this reasoning fails to address the legitimate concerns of the people of Manipur, who see the SoO agreement as a threat to the territorial integrity and unity of their state. The indigenous Meitei population, which has historically been the majority community in Manipur, feels particularly aggrieved. They perceive the SoO as an agreement that has emboldened Kuki militant groups, allowing them to push for a separate administration at the cost of Manipur’s unity. This perception has led to widespread demands for the abrogation of the SoO, as many believe that only by dismantling this agreement can lasting peace be achieved in the state.
The state government’s inability to challenge the central government’s stance on the SoO agreement has further compounded the situation. The Manipur government’s silence on this issue is seen as a betrayal by many, who feel that the state’s leadership is failing to protect Manipur’s interests. The lack of a clear and assertive position on the SoO agreement has left a vacuum that is being filled by growing discontent and unrest among the people.
It is worth considering that the continuation of the SoO agreement might inadvertently lead to the realization of Kuki demands for a separate administration. Such an outcome would be disastrous for Manipur, as it would not only undermine the state’s territorial integrity but also erode the sense of unity and shared history that binds its diverse communities together. The idea of Manipur, a state that merged with the Indian Union with its complete identity intact, is under threat, and this is a matter of concern for everyone who values the state’s rich history and cultural heritage.
The central government must therefore review its strategy with regard to the SoO agreement. While the desire for peace and stability is understandable, it cannot come at the cost of the state’s unity and the aspirations of its indigenous people.