IT News
Imphal, May 6:
As ethnic tensions in Manipur continue to simmer over two years after violent clashes erupted between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities, criticism is mounting over the Government of India’s continued engagement with Kuki militant groups under the Suspension of Operation (SoO) agreement. Despite calls from various quarters—including the Manipur state government and Meitei civil society organizations—for a review or termination of the agreement, Kuki militants continue to remain armed, raising concerns about selective enforcement and double standards in conflict management.
Signed in 2008 between the Indian government, the Government of Manipur, and over two dozen Kuki-Zo insurgent groups, the SoO pact was initially framed as a temporary ceasefire to enable political dialogue. However, critics argue that it has instead allowed militant outfits to maintain their arsenals and influence local populations, while simultaneously pushing for the creation of a separate Kuki administrative unit—an idea strongly opposed by the majority Meitei population.
“This is not a peace agreement; it’s a state-sponsored shelter for armed groups,” said a senior Imphal-based political analyst, requesting anonymity. “While Meitei protesters are charged under UAPA and their weapons seized, the government turns a blind eye to militants who are openly armed in the hills.”
Over the past year, several reports have emerged of SoO groups violating the terms of the ceasefire, including allegations of extortion, recruitment, and direct involvement in clashes during the May 2023 conflict. Yet, the Centre has not initiated full-scale disarmament or moved to scrap the agreement, citing ongoing negotiations and the need to maintain fragile peace.
In March 2023, the Manipur government had unilaterally withdrawn from the SoO pact with two major Kuki groups—Kuki National Army (KNA) and Zomi Revolutionary Army (ZRA)—accusing them of fueling ethnic violence and secessionist movements. However, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has yet to act on this state-level withdrawal, leading to confusion and resentment.
“This selective approach to law enforcement is dangerous,” said Khuraijam Athouba, spokesperson of the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI). “It gives the impression that the Indian government is shielding certain groups while vilifying others.”
Meanwhile, Kuki-Zo civil society organizations argue that the SoO is vital for protecting tribal interests in a state where they often feel marginalized. “The demand for a separate administration arises from decades of neglect and discrimination,” said a Kuki Students’ Organisation leader. “The SoO provides breathing space for our communities amid growing insecurity.”
However, critics claim the Kuki militants have used this “breathing space” not for peacebuilding but for consolidating territorial control and political influence. Many Kuki civilians, especially in remote hill districts, reportedly live under the shadow of these armed groups and are pressured to support the political agenda of the insurgents.
Adding complexity to the issue is the porous Indo-Myanmar border. The recent influx of refugees and alleged cross-border movement of arms and fighters have prompted concerns over international dimensions of the conflict, further complicating disarmament efforts.
“The longer the SoO remains in place without enforcement of disarmament, the more we risk legitimizing militancy as a political tool,” said a former intelligence officer familiar with counter-insurgency operations in the Northeast. “It’s a ticking time bomb.”
Despite these warnings, New Delhi appears reluctant to act decisively. Observers note that the Centre’s hands-off approach may be influenced by upcoming electoral calculations or broader geopolitical concerns related to the situation in Myanmar.
Meanwhile, trust in the peace process continues to erode. The failure to address asymmetry in handling different armed groups has led to increasing polarization and a widening trust deficit between valley and hill communities.
As Manipur stands at a crossroads, many are questioning whether the Suspension of Operation has served its purpose—or whether it has become an instrument of prolonging conflict under the guise of negotiation.
“Peace cannot be built on unequal terms,” said a local rights activist. “The government must either enforce the law uniformly or admit it has lost control over the hills.”