The crux of the controversy surrounding the SoO arrangement is the alleged ability of these cadres to carry out operations, kill civilians with impunity, shoot at paddy field farmers, return to their designated camps, and receive shelter from security forces, opines Ngaranmi Shimray. By Ngaranmi Shimray Under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) arrangement, underground cadres […]
The post What Ails the SoO Arrangement: Is This State-Sponsored Terrorism? first appeared on The Frontier Manipur.
The crux of the controversy surrounding the SoO arrangement is the alleged ability of these cadres to carry out operations, kill civilians with impunity, shoot at paddy field farmers, return to their designated camps, and receive shelter from security forces, opines Ngaranmi Shimray.
By Ngaranmi Shimray
Under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) arrangement, underground cadres are provided with shelter, food, living provisions, stipend and transport, and are housed in designated camps under the supervision of security forces tasked with overseeing their upkeep. The SoO agreement is now alleged to be misused, prompting allegations of a “proxy war” amounting to “state-sponsored terrorism.” These allegations need careful examination.
The crux of the controversy surrounding the SoO arrangement is the alleged ability of these cadres to carry out operations, kill civilians with impunity, shoot at paddy field farmers, return to their designated camps, and receive shelter from security forces. This arrangement effectively prevents offensive retaliation or self-defence from the affected villages or tribes, as it would amount to attacking the camp of the security forces where the SoO cadres are given shelter.
When a state enters into an agreement requiring strict compliance from all parties, but one party exploits the arrangement by using designated camps as safe havens to launch attacks on civilians before retreating behind the protective shield of supervising security forces, would such misuse not amount to state-sponsored terrorism?
This question arises because SoO cadres are fed, sheltered, provisioned, paid a stipend and kept under the watch of security forces assigned to monitor their outfits. When these facilities are misused to strike terror among Naga villagers and the perpetrators immediately retreat to safety, while victims are unable to retaliate against the SoO cadres due to the presence of security forces proximate to the designated camp, the arrangement risks accusation of facilitating terrorist activities under state-backed protection.
These concerns are amplified by specific, grave allegations implicating SoO cadres in targeted violence since February 2026, including the burning of houses and ambushes in the Litan area, brutal killings of six Naga men and the ambush killing of four civilian travellers along the IT Road. Despite specific allegations naming SoO leaders, use of automatic weapons, and proximity of attacks to designated camps, the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Joint Monitoring Group (JMG), chaired by the Manipur State Home Secretary, have faced criticism for a lack of transparent and decisive responses as violence persists. The Government of Manipur itself appears to recognise the problem. Following the August 27 killings on the IT Road, a high-level security meeting reportedly decided that SoO cadres or members of groups engaged in peace talks would face action if found carrying weapons outside their designated camps.
Furthermore, the induction of a political leader having familial connections with a SoO outfit head has fuelled public perceptions of compromised state integrity, heightening fears that coordination channels for attacks against civilians are facilitated and remain unhindered. The inaction on the part of the top leadership in not severing such nefarious connections has given rise to and strengthened the accusation of proxy war and state-sponsored terrorism.
Because the primary objective of the SoO agreement is to halt hostilities between security forces and militant outfits while political dialogues take place, the ongoing violence is directed predominantly not at security forces, but at vulnerable Naga civilian populations. The apparent inability or failure of security forces to prevent targeted violence against the Naga tribes under the cover of the SoO framework is what leads critics to invoke the severe charge of “state-sponsored terrorism.”
Under the revised ground rules of the SoO Agreement, weapons are mandated to be deposited with the nearest Central Armed Police Forces (CRPF/BSF) camp. Evidence suggesting that cadres still manage to access automatic firearms implies that hidden weapons caches may be unsurrendered, violating core tenets of the pact, or that the deposit of firearms with the CRPF/BSF is not being strictly implemented. If the SoO Agreement is strictly implemented, such breaches should automatically trigger the termination of the agreement. The credibility of the State rests on precisely the principle that no armed group, regardless of its political status or participation in peace talks, can be above the law.
The persistent failure to normalise ground conditions or penalise violations points towards administrative complicity, fostering a public perception that the arrangement functions as a proxy war. If the JMG and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) enforce the revised ground rules rigorously, accountability measures such as formal reviews with SoO signatories, camp relocations, or agreement termination, any remedial actions taken would be in the public domain. The absence of such actions leaves ordinary citizens vulnerable and deeply distrustful.
It remains to be seen whether the MHA and the Government of India will formally address these serious allegations. Affected civil society organisations and human rights activists face a critical juncture in deciding whether to bring these documented concerns before national and international forums and human rights bodies.
No community opposes peaceful coexistence; however, when a mechanism designed to facilitate and foster peace talks is allegedly exploited as a staging ground for senseless terrorism right under the nose of security forces, public faith in state neutrality is severely diminished.
The government should never be accused of promoting “proxy war” or “state-sponsored terrorism.” Citizens across India must confront these realities in Manipur and demand transparency, accountability, and the strict enforcement of the rule of law. These concerns need answers.
(Ngaranmi Shimray is a columnist based in New Delhi. He can be contacted at shimray2011@gmail.com)
(THE VIEWS AND OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE ARE THE AUTHOR’S OWN)
The post What Ails the SoO Arrangement: Is This State-Sponsored Terrorism? first appeared on The Frontier Manipur.
Read more / Original news source: https://thefrontiermanipur.com/what-ails-the-soo-arrangement-is-this-state-sponsored-terrorism/
