Introduction
Indigenous communities in Manipur have increasingly voiced demands for the dismantling of the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreements and for a renewed focus on justice for victims of ethnic violence. Their concerns reflect a deeper struggle over political representation, territorial integrity, and the long-term consequences of ceasefire-based conflict management. While the SoO framework—first formalized in 2008—was intended to reduce armed confrontation between the state and insurgent groups, its evolution over the years has exposed structural weaknesses in India’s approach to insurgency resolution. The recent calls by tribal groups to scrap the SoO and submit a memorandum to Prime Minister Narendra Modi signal a critical turning point in the region’s political landscape, one shaped by decades of mistrust, contested identities, and shifting security priorities.
Main Analysis
The SoO agreements emerged from a turbulent history of ethnic conflict in Manipur. The late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed severe clashes between Kuki and Naga groups, resulting in more than 1,000 deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands . These events created long-term insecurity and fueled the rise of armed movements seeking protection, autonomy, or recognition. By the 2000s, insurgency-related violence had destabilized districts such as Churachandpur, Kangpokpi, and Chandel, prompting the Government of India to pursue a political-security arrangement rather than a purely military solution.
The first tripartite SoO agreement in 2008 brought approximately 2,200 cadres of Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and United People’s Front (UPF) into designated camps, where they received stipends and agreed to suspend operations against state forces . For years, the pact was renewed annually, becoming a central pillar of conflict management in Manipur. However, allegations of violations—including extortion, ambushes, and unauthorized recruitment—persisted, raising questions about the effectiveness of monitoring mechanisms .
The revised SoO agreement of 2025 attempted to address these concerns by introducing stricter ground rules. These included relocating camps away from highways and border areas, verifying cadres through Aadhaar-linked documentation, and transferring weapons to CRPF or BSF custody . The agreement also reaffirmed Manipur’s territorial integrity and prohibited insurgent groups from maintaining links with other armed organizations. Yet, despite these measures, violence continued into 2026, with reports of killings, kidnappings, and village burnings involving groups under the SoO framework .
Indigenous groups argue that the SoO has inadvertently entrenched armed actors, enabling them to exert influence over civilian populations and political processes. Their demand for scrapping the agreement is rooted in the belief that ceasefires without accountability perpetuate cycles of violence. This perspective is reinforced by broader regional trends: while prolonged ceasefires have succeeded in states like Assam and Tripura, they have produced deadlocks in Nagaland and contributed to instability in Manipur, where ethnic tensions between Meitei, Kuki-Zo, and Naga communities have escalated since 2023 .
The humanitarian impact of these conflicts is severe. More than 250 people have been killed and over 60,000 displaced since the outbreak of Meitei–Kuki-Zo violence in 2023 . National Highway-2, a crucial supply route, has faced repeated blockades, deepening economic distress and limiting access to essential goods. Although the Kuki-Zo Council agreed to reopen the highway in 2025, the underlying tensions remain unresolved .
Examples and Regional Implications
One of the most contentious issues is the presence of foreign nationals—particularly from Myanmar’s Chin-Kuki communities—within insurgent cadres. The revised SoO mandates their identification and deportation, reflecting India’s growing concern over cross-border ethnic linkages and refugee flows following the 2021 Myanmar coup . This intersects with the government’s decision to suspend the Free Movement Regime (FMR) and fence the 1,643 km India–Myanmar border, a move opposed by tribal groups who historically relied on cross-border mobility for cultural and economic activities .
The implications extend beyond security. Indigenous communities fear that border fencing and restrictive mobility policies will erode traditional livelihoods, weaken cultural ties, and exacerbate feelings of marginalization. Meanwhile, state authorities argue that tighter borders are necessary to curb arms trafficking, insurgent movement, and refugee inflows. This tension highlights the broader challenge of balancing national security with indigenous rights—a recurring theme in India’s northeastern policy.
Another example lies in the political dialogue process. While the SoO framework envisions negotiations leading to long-term settlements, indigenous groups contend that these dialogues have been slow, opaque, and disconnected from grassroots concerns. The experience of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), which spent more than a decade in negotiations before signing an agreement that rejected most of its demands, illustrates how prolonged ceasefires can diminish bargaining power without resolving core issues .
In Manipur, this dynamic has contributed to frustration among communities who feel that insurgent groups under SoO wield disproportionate influence while victims of violence receive inadequate justice. The memorandum submitted to Prime Minister Modi reflects a desire for a new framework—one that prioritizes accountability, victim compensation, and community-led peacebuilding over indefinite ceasefire extensions.
Conclusion
The demand to scrap the SoO agreements marks a significant moment in Manipur’s political trajectory. It underscores the limitations of ceasefire-based conflict management and highlights the urgent need for justice-centered approaches that address the root causes of ethnic violence. As indigenous groups call for accountability and protection, policymakers must confront the complex interplay of insurgency, identity, and regional geopolitics. Sustainable peace in Manipur will require more than renegotiated ground rules—it will demand inclusive dialogue, transparent governance, and a commitment to safeguarding the rights and dignity of all communities affected by decades of conflict.