The Press Information Bureau, Delhi issued a press release on 04 September 2025 regarding a tripartite meeting and the signing of the Suspension of Operations (SoO) Agreement on re-negotiated terms and conditions (revised ground rules)
Share
The Press Information Bureau, Delhi issued a press release on 04 September 2025 regarding a tripartite meeting and the signing of the Suspension of Operations (SoO) Agreement on re-negotiated terms and conditions (revised ground rules), effective from the date of signing for a period of one year. The Kuki-Zo Council was a party to the meeting, along with representatives of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of Manipur, and the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and United People’s Front (UPF).
Among other provisions, the revised ground rules reiterated:
• The territorial integrity of Manipur; and
• The need for a negotiated solution to bring lasting peace and stability to the State.
KNO and UPF also agreed to:
• Relocate seven designated camps away from areas vulnerable to conflict;
• Reduce the number of designated camps;
• Deposit weapons at the nearest CRPF/BSF camps; and
• Allow stringent physical verification of cadres by security forces to identify and de-list foreign nationals, if any.
The Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) will henceforth closely monitor enforcement of the ground rules, and violations will be dealt with firmly, including review of the SoO Agreement.
As of late 2025, there are approximately 14 designated SoO camps in Manipur, housing around 2,200 cadres from KNO and UPF. These camps are located in various hill districts, though recent directives require the relocation or closure of some. Due to ongoing peace negotiations and security concerns, stricter controls over weapons and troop movement have been introduced in 2025. These camps originate from the 2008 agreement with the Central and State governments.
It has been six months since the signing of the agreement in September 2025 and the one-year term will expire after another six months. However, it appears that the revised ground rules have not been effectively implemented, as SoO cadres continue to possess weapons. There is currently ongoing firing in Sinakeithei Tangkhul village between village guards and SoO Kuki cadres, reportedly due to the location of a SoO camp near the village under the supervision of armed security forces.
As agreed in the revised ground rules, the JMG, under the chairmanship of the MHA, should immediately ensure implementation by relocating SoO camps away from vulnerable areas, reducing their number, and depositing weapons at the nearest CRPF/BSF camps.
The JMG is mandated to monitor enforcement and deal firmly with violations, including reviewing the SoO Agreement if necessary. However, the current situation presents a challenge to the JMG, whether it is appropriate, amid heightened tensions, to disarm SoO cadres and relocate their camps. There is a perception that KNO and UPF actions, in respect of recent clashes with the Tangkhul community, may be aimed at delaying disarmament and camp relocation despite agreed provisions. This begs an answer to the usefulness of an agreement which has crossed six months of its one-year term, yet remains unimplemented.
At present, there appears to be an erosion of the rule of law in hill areas, with allegations that SoO cadres are operating with weapons in violation of the agreement. This has led to a public perception that security forces are providing them protection since the SoO cadre are under their supervision. Intimidation, harassment, and abduction of Naga civilians by armed SoO cadres are taking place in the presence of security forces, and this represents serious violations of the agreement.
If such violations are not addressed, questions arise as to how authorities would respond if other ceasefire groups, such as NSCN cadres, were to similarly move about armed. If the SoO Agreement and revised ground rules cannot be enforced, the JMG must review the agreement, as mandated. It is its duty to uphold the rule of law or recommend abrogation of the agreement to prevent further deterioration of Naga–Kuki relations.
The Manipur crisis under the Chief Ministership of N. Biren Singh was widely described as a period of lawlessness, with armed groups operating freely in the valley and the state government unable to effectively respond. There were even instances of police personnel protesting and laying down arms when their senior police officer was manhandled by radicalised youth, and the state government failed to respond firmly. The situation deteriorated to the point where authority appeared reversed.
A similar pattern now seems to be emerging in the hill areas, where SoO cadres are reportedly operating in total disregard of the revised ground rules, but instead have taken advantage of the presence of security forces to protect them. This raises concerns about parallels between the pre–President’s Rule situation in the valley when radicalised youths were patronised by political leaders and the current developments in the hills where SoO cadre are protected by security forces.
The earlier situation deteriorated to such an extent that the Chief Minister lost the support of his own party MLAs. The present situation risks moving in a similar direction, with tensions currently high in Ukhrul district that could spread across hill districts amid allegations of provocation and harassment by armed SoO cadres operating under the cover of security forces.
The Joint Monitoring Group (JMG), a tripartite mechanism under the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the SoO revised ground rules. It includes representatives of the central government, the state government, and the armed groups. The immediate problem faced is with the SoO camps in the eastern flank of Kangpokpi district bordering Ukhrul district, and a way out could be phase-wise implementation of the revised ground rules. The stakes are high, and the JMG needs to deal with the matter firmly.
If the revised ground rules cannot be implemented during a period of tension, when they are most needed, the very purpose of any agreement is undermined. Non-implementation risks creating a situation where SoO cadres operate with impunity, eroding public trust and weakening the authority of the state. If the freedom given to the SoO cadre is not regulated and controlled now, the JMG faces the risk of the current tensed situation spiralling out of control.
Ngaranmi Shimray
New Delhi