On September 4, 2025, Kuki insurgent groups under the banner of the Kuki National Organisations (KNO) and the United Peoples’ Front (UPF) signed the long-awaited tripartite Suspension of Operations (SoO) Agreement with the Government of India and the state of Manipur.
The SoO Agreement, which had been on hold since February 2024 due to ongoing ethnic conflict in Manipur, sparked widespread outrage on social media platforms among the Kuki community.
Terming it a lost cause for their political demands and aspirations, this article attempts to unravel some of the complexities surrounding the agreement.
It is important to note that there are two versions of the SoO Agreement circulating on social media. The first is the signed agreement between the KNO and UPF, with representatives from the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Government of Manipur. The second is a press release from the Press Information Bureau (PIB), which interprets the agreement in the government’s interest.
SoO Agreement and the Political Demand of the Kukis
One of the most significant sections in the signed agreement states:
“The KNO and UPF as well as their constituents shall completely abjure the path of violence and abide by the Constitution of India, laws of the land, and territorial integrity of Manipur. Suspension of Operation (SoO) Agreement shall be followed by tripartite dialogue with KNO and UPF to pave the way for a negotiated political settlement under the Constitution of India in a time-bound manner.”
In light of the Kukis’ demand for Separate Administration in the form of a Union Territory with a Legislature, the four contentious words—“territorial integrity of Manipur”—in the signed agreement enraged public sentiment. For the Kuki community, Separate Administration represents their last hope for survival and dignity, but to abide by Manipur’s territorial integrity is perceived as an end to this aspiration.
Consequently, many began to view the insurgent groups as detached from the realities and sufferings of the people. Terms such as the “elite class” among the insurgent groups surfaced in public discourse to describe the few authoritative leaders of these organizations.
The signed agreement also contributed to perceptions that the insurgent leadership lacks the will to represent the voice of the people, fostering a resentful relationship between the public and the elite class of the KNO and UPF.
Amidst the anger, chaos, and confusion, Dr. Seilen Haokip, spokesperson of the KNO, and Aron Kipgen of the UPF attempted to clarify the situation. They argued that the agreement had been misinterpreted and should be celebrated.
According to them, the second sentence in the signed agreement provides a window for negotiating the Kukis’ political demand under the Constitution of India. Any contrary interpretation, they asserted, is either a deliberate attempt to mislead the public or undermines the political aspirations of the Kuki people.
Nevertheless, doubt persists among the public, with many questioning whether the government is using the PIB press release to delay meaningful dialogue on Separate Administration. The PIB statement emphasized:
“Among other provisions, the revised ground rules reiterated:
i. The territorial integrity of Manipur.
ii. Need for a negotiated solution to bring lasting peace and stability to the State of Manipur.”
The government’s prioritization of “territorial integrity” appears to overshadow any concessions toward the Kuki demand for Separate Administration.
Top leaders of the state and central governments have repeatedly assured the Meitei community that the territorial integrity of Manipur will remain intact, leaving little room for negotiation on Kuki demands. In response, the KNO and UPF issued a press release on September 7, 2025, asserting that the PIB “has put a spin on the signed agreement” that “does not figure anywhere in the SoO Agreement.”
The government, however, did not respond, further eroding public trust in both the insurgent groups and the authorities.
The Letter and the Spirit of the SoO Agreement
Discussions on WhatsApp groups and YouTube channels reveal one clear point: the KNO and UPF spokespersons are advocating based on the written text of the signed agreement. However, the true intent of the Government of India appears to be reflected in the PIB press release, which diverges sharply from the signed document. To support the SoO Agreement under these circumstances requires a degree of credulity that few in the public possess.
It is often said that the letter reflects the spirit. In this case, the spirit of the SoO Agreement seems aligned with government interests rather than the aspirations of the Kukis. The upcoming tripartite dialogue appears likely to be tuned to the government’s agenda, making the pursuit of Separate Administration a lost cause.
Social media sentiment reflects this growing mistrust. The KNO and UPF elite leadership has failed to communicate with the common people, provoking questions about whether the public has any role in shaping its own future.
The question arises: why was the public not consulted before the signing of the agreement? For the Kukis, the hope of a light at the end of the tunnel now appears bleak, producing a bitter divide between the insurgent leadership and the community it claims to represent. Mistrust runs deeper than ever.
Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of EastMojo on this or any other matter. The author is PhD Research Scholar, Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi.
Also Read: The cries of the jungle: Tripura’s wild elephants are facing a severe crisis