SoO and the growing clamour for abrogation

Conflict studies, conflict management and ultimately conflict resolution are what the state of Manipur needs urgently vis-a-vis the violent crisis which erupted on May 3, 2023. Almost all sections of people from scholars and intellectuals to civil society organisations to laymen have been studying the conflict from different perspectives and they have come up with their own versions of the nature, origin and how the conflict is being perpetuated. No doubt, the conflict has been studied repeatedly over the past two years with some visibly satisfied with superficial analysis while some others took the extra mile of going to the core of the conflict. Any serious study of the conflict will inevitably find that the Suspension of Operation or SoO agreement and the Kuki militant groups which are signatories of the agreement are central to the violent conflict. Now coming to conflict management, New Delhi has achieved some level of success as evident in the cessation of armed confrontation and holding talks with civil society organisations of the two communities in conflict albeit separately.  Indeed, comprehensive conflict management is a big step forward toward conflict resolution. At the same time, both conflict management and conflict resolution demand effective dealing with all the parties involved in the conflict. Disarming the warring  parties, irrespective of whether they are militants or ‘volunteers’ is essential for conflict management, and the President’s Rule has succeeded fairly in disarming the people in the valley  and to a lesser degree in the hills as of now. In the midst of the government’s efforts to disarm people, the clamour for abrogation of SoO agrerment has also been growing more persistent and louder. The call for abrogation of SoO agreement does not come out of vacuum, it stemmed from the abject failure of the so called Joint Monitoring Group to monitor the activities of the militants under SoO agreement. The allegation that militants under SoO agreement were directly or indirectly involved in the sustained aggression against the Meitei people must be examined thoroughly without any prejudice.
Any serious study of the present Manipur conflict must answer this question—how deeply are the militants under SoO agreement involved in starting and perpetuating the conflict. Toeing the line of the SoO militant groups, their frontal organizations and CSOs, either with consent or under coercion, are vociferously articulating and peddling all kinds of false and fabricated narratives in pursuit of a separate homeland or state. As we talk about SoO agreement, this agreement is both interesting and intriguing. As the term suggests, suspension of operation must be between two hostile entities. But there was no hostility between the Indian armed forces and the Kuki-Zo militant groups. When two entities which do not have any hostility sign a suspension of operation agreement, it is quite safe to assume that the two entities either have a common interest or the agreement is beneficial to both.  What is this common interest, if there is any? How do the Indian armed forces (Government of India) and Kuki-Zo militants benefit from suspension of operation agreement? How Kuki-Zo militants have been expanding their bases and building military strength over the years by exploiting the SoO agreement is known to all. What benefits do the Indian armed forces or the Government of India get from the SoO agreement? This is a million dollar question which is crucial in understanding the conflict and possibly resolve it. All and sundry knows that SoO did not bring peace in Manipur. On the contrary, it has proven to be an instrument of ethnic polarisation, a tool for fomenting communal hatred and violence. In short, SoO has proven to be a very serious challenge to the integrity of Manipur with its signatories and their frontal organisations openly demanding dismemberment of Manipur which predates the Union of India by dozens of centuries. Do the benefits extracted from SoO agreement outweigh the historical sanctity of the political and territorial integrity of Manipur? Is the suspension of imaginary hostility at the cost of alienating the largest community of Manipur a sensible choice? These questions must be given due consideration before simply dismissing the growing clamour for abrogation of SoO agreement.