Does the Government intend to disarm every armed village volunteer group irrespective of community in Manipur, or only to Naga village guards?
Manipur continues to grapple with prolonged ethnic tensions and recurring violence. During the Meitei-Kuki conflict, a large number of weapons were looted from police armouries. Although many of these weapons have since been recovered, a significant number remain unaccounted for and are believed to be in the hands of various armed groups.
Following the installation of the State Government under Chief Minister Y. Khemchand Singh in February 2026, with two Deputy Chief Ministers representing the Naga and Kuki communities, hopes for peace were renewed. However, violence has once again resurfaced, this time between the Naga and Kuki tribes.
The Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement, whose implementation came under intense criticism during the Meitei-Kuki conflict, was renewed in September 2025 under a Revised Ground Rules (RGR) framework. Yet questions remain regarding its effectiveness. If the weapons of SoO cadres are meant to remain under the custody of the security forces, how are cadres allegedly participating in armed incidents using sophisticated firearms? Either the custody provisions are not being effectively implemented, or other sources of weapons remain unexplained. These are legitimate questions that deserve clear answers.
The objective of the SoO agreement has always been to reduce violence, restore normalcy, and facilitate political dialogue leading to a negotiated settlement. Nearly two decades after its inception in 2008, no political settlement has been reached.
Among communities affected by the recent violence, there is a growing perception that the confidence displayed by some armed Kuki groups stems from the protection afforded by the SoO arrangement with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). This perception is reinforced whenever attacks involving automatic weapons are reported and SoO cadres are alleged to be involved. By contrast, village volunteers in many areas are generally known to possess only licensed 12-bore guns and not automatic weapons.
Recent operations by the COBRA units of the CRPF in Noney district have further intensified these concerns. Reports indicate that Naga Village Guards are being disarmed, leading many residents to perceive the exercise as selective. This comes at a time when Naga villages are still recovering from the killing of six members of their community in an incident that also gave rise to allegations of cannibalism. Instead of first dealing with those responsible for such alleged atrocities, many villagers question why the immediate focus has been on disarming Naga village defence groups.
This naturally raises an important policy question. Does the Government intend to disarm every armed village volunteer group irrespective of community, or is the present exercise confined only to Naga Village Guards?
In the present security environment, many Naga villagers say they feel vulnerable because armed groups operating under the SoO framework continue to be perceived as capable of carrying weapons and carrying out attacks. At the same time, there is little information in the public domain regarding action taken by the Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) against alleged violations of the Ground Rules or the Revised Ground Rules.
This lack of transparency has contributed to growing public suspicion. If action is taken against one category of village volunteers while allegations against SoO cadres are not seen to be addressed with equal firmness, perceptions of unequal treatment are likely to deepen. Whether or not those perceptions are justified, they undermine public confidence in the neutrality of the security apparatus.
The Ministry of Home Affairs should therefore clearly define its policy on armed village volunteer groups. If the goal is complete disarmament, the policy must be applied consistently across all communities. Equally important, the provisions of the Revised Ground Rules regarding the custody of weapons held by SoO cadres should be enforced transparently and uniformly. Public confidence can only be regained if all armed groups are held to the same standards and accountability.
A transparent, impartial and uniformly applied policy is essential for restoring trust among all communities. Without such an approach, every security operation risks being viewed through the lens of ethnic bias rather than the rule of law. Lasting peace in Manipur will depend not only on security measures but also on the confidence that every citizen is dealt with equally before the law.
Ngaranmi Shimray
New Delhi