SoO in Name, Violations in Practice?

The repeated reported breaches of the Suspension of Operation (SoO) ground rules by Kuki armed groups have rendered the arrangement increasingly hollow. Conceived as a confidence-building mechanism between the Government and around 25 Kuki militant groups, the SoO was meant to ensure cessation of hostilities, confinement to designated camps, and adherence to laid-down protocols. What is unfolding on the ground, however, tells a very different story.

The SoO agreement, first signed on August 22, 2008 by the Centre and the Manipur government with Kuki militant groups, was intended to initiate political dialogue and stabilise the situation in Manipur’s hill areas. A Joint Monitoring Group (JMG), comprising officials from the state Home department, intelligence agencies, the Army, paramilitary forces, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, was set up to oversee compliance with the ground rules.

More recently, the tripartite SoO agreement renewed on September 4, 2025 reiterated key provisions as per Ministry of Home Affairs:

1. The territorial integrity of Manipur.
2. Need for a negotiated solution to bring lasting peace and stability to the State of Manipur.

KNO and UPF also agreed to:

1. Relocate seven designated camps away from areas vulnerable to conflict.
2. Reduce the number of designated camps.
3. Relocate the weapons with nearest CRPF/BSF camps.
4. Stringent physical verification of cadres by Security Forces to de-list foreign nationals, if any. 

Joint Monitoring Group will henceforth closely monitor enforcement of ground rules, and violations will be dealt with firmly in future, including review of the SoO Agreement. 

Also read From Denial to Dialogue: The Kuki-Zo Council Contradiction

Yet, incidents reported from vulnerable hill and foothill areas point to a disturbing pattern, armed movement beyond designated camps, intimidation of civilians, and, in some cases, outright attacks. These are no longer minor infractions; they strike at the very credibility of the SoO framework.

Equally troubling is the conspicuous silence of the Government and the apparent inertia of the monitoring mechanism. Is this a failure of oversight, or a reluctance to acknowledge that the SoO is fraying on the ground? When violations continue without visible consequences, it risks being seen not merely as administrative lapse, but as tacit allowance.

Such a perception risks deepening mistrust among the Meitei and Naga communities—the two largest groups in Manipur as per the 2011 Census. It fuels distrust, emboldens armed actors, and leaves civilians feeling increasingly exposed. In conflict-sensitive districts in the State, this has quickly sharpened tensions and widened existing fault lines.

If the SoO is to retain any meaning, enforcement must be firm, transparent and impartial. Ground rules cannot be selectively applied, nor can violations be met with silence.

Without accountability, the SoO risks becoming a cover for continued armed activity rather than a pathway to peace. In that context, the Government’s silence ceases to be neutral, it becomes part of the problem.