A Light Rebuttal to 'In Manipur, to SoO or Not'

In a Blog: ‘In Manipur, To SoO or Not,’ Debashis Achom, Editor, News, at NDTV (11 March 2024) wrote an article, fairly well-researched, concluded with a paragraph, ‘those who think the SoO agreement review and the demand for a “separate administration” will be a breezy affair with the Centre, minus the state, will face disappointment.’

The observation that the state is integral in the tripartite agreement with GoI and SoO groups is accurate. However, that it gives the ‘state government the first right to review any major decision linked to the SoO groups since the agreement directly affects the state most’, edges on pro-establishment sentiment. It also, perhaps intentionally, obviates the 24 January 2024 unconstitutional Meitei militant Arambai Tenggol diktat at Kangla that the Meitei Rajaya Sabha Member of Parliament and their 37 legislators acquiesced to fulfilling a six-points demand, including abrogation of SoO. Curiously, the CM, head-patron of the militant organisation was not present.

For all practical purposes, singularity of the state lies in its self-extrication from a tripartite agreement, solely based on allegations of SoO violation of ground rules.

Points to note re SoO violation, a result of the state government’s non-compliance to SoO ground rules:

Stipend:

1. Payment of stipend to cadres continued as per agreement in 2008, until in 2011 the state government unilaterally changed the rules to ‘based on camp inspection’.
2. Stipend, disbursed by the state is reimbursed by the Centre, which the former consistently delays from a period of 12 months to currently 24 months. However, cadres, who day-to-day need to feed their hungry stomachs and cannot wait for months and years on end are expected to abide by the rules and stay in camps.
3. Despite numerous requests from a largely compliant SoO signatories to repair the designated camps to be habitable, the state’s general disregard compliments the overall particular age-old neglect of the tribal people.

State government, the major, major violator

1. The state as the major violator of the SoO ground rules lies in its explicit complicity on 3 May 2023, permitting the Meitei state forces to spearhead along with the mob, and Meira Paibi the killing of Kuki Zo in the valley, aiding and abetting rape of the women, and looting their homes.
2. Furthermore, the state forces have led and engaged in offensives to burn vulnerable villages along the peripheries, i.e. foothills bordering the Kuki Zo hill districts and Meitei valley districts.

Pitch:

Pitch the level of violation committed by the state, a Constitutional entity and the SoO groups, the latter’s pale into thin air.

By his own admission on social media, it is abundantly clear that Biren Singh, CM Manipur planned the war on Kukis, starting in his previous term. Pre-meditated activities further endorse his admission: systematic removal of Assam Rifles from strategic locations in the hills, removal of AFSPA from the valley and enforcing it in the hills, where the peace dividends of SoO, since its inception in 2008, have been amply self-evident: the public move around freely, purchased motor vehicles and started to build houses. Materialising his non-hidden agenda to oust Kuki Zo, motivated by prejudicial execution of misconception re Kangleipak to constitute present-day political map of Manipur, a construct of the British colonialists; and hate- fuelled accusations, ranging from ‘forest encroachers’ contrary to the Indian Forest Act 1926, ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘narco-terrorists’, ‘transnational conspiracy’, and most recently, ‘monkeys’ have dominated his narrative against Kuki Zo.

Considering the circumstances, the state government, which is the ‘Imphal government’ has no locus standi in the Kuki Zo hills. As head of the state government, the CM is responsible for the calamitous outbreak on 3 May 2023, exacerbated by ensuing developments, till date. The last Assembly resolution to abrogate SoO, using allegation of violation by the groups that legislators acquiesced to diktat of his stooge, the Arambai Tenggol is final proof of not wanting Kuki Zo to be a part of the state. Therefore, there is no alternative to Separate Administration for our people, and the onus of responsibility lies with the Centre to ensure Constitutional safeguards to prevent further state sponsored terrorist activity against citizens of the India.

Today, the CM, who created the prevailing problems, blames SoO violations, expects to veil the pressure of AT diktat, hopes to stake a bargain re-extension of SoO, and deluded enough to expect matters to sway to his inordinate ways, and ultimately grab the credit.

Whether SoO is to or not, or SA actualisation is a ‘breeze’ or not depends on the Centre, not the state. The state can only try to obstruct; it has nothing to give or not give. Centre’s consultation of the state per se is procedure; final decision, as in other similar instances in the country, remains the Centre’s prerogative.