Manipur Lok Sabha MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam has expressed disappointment over the delay in the Union Home Ministry’s response to questions he raised about the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement with Kuki armed groups.
Akoijam raised the matter in the Lok Sabha under Rule 377 on August 11. He said he had sought a response from the Union Home Ministry on several concerns linked to the agreement. However, more than a month later, he said the ministry had not responded to the issues he raised.
The MP raised the matter during a press conference at his residence in Manipur on September 18. He urged the Union Home Ministry to respond to his questions at the earliest.
His comments have again brought the SoO agreement into focus amid continuing security concerns in Manipur.
Read More: India a Centre of Stability Amid Global Conflicts: FM Sitharaman
MP Raises Questions Under Rule 377
Akoijam used Rule 377 of the Lok Sabha to raise concerns about the continuation and implementation of the SoO arrangement. Parliamentary records show that he raised the issue on August 11 under the title concerning the need to review the SoO agreement and ensure the free movement of goods and people in Manipur.
The MP has sought greater clarity about the terms of the agreement and how authorities monitor compliance with its ground rules.
He has also questioned whether authorities regularly assess the conduct of groups covered by the arrangement. According to Akoijam, such compliance reports are important for determining whether the agreement continues to serve its stated purpose.
The MP has said the Union Home Ministry should provide answers on these matters instead of allowing questions about the agreement to remain unanswered.
Concerns Over SoO Terms and Transparency
One of Akoijam’s key concerns involves transparency. He has questioned why the current terms and conditions of the SoO agreement have not been made available publicly.
The MP raised similar concerns in his August 11 submission to the Lok Sabha. He asked the Centre to place the agreement and its compliance status in the public domain.
Akoijam has argued that greater transparency could help people understand the responsibilities of all parties involved in the arrangement. It could also clarify the rules that signatory groups must follow.
The SoO framework involves security and political considerations in Manipur. Therefore, questions about its terms and implementation remain closely connected to the wider debate over peace and security in the state.
Allegations of Extortion Also Raised
Akoijam has also raised concerns about allegations of extortion along National Highways in Manipur. He has sought clarity on whether groups covered by the SoO framework have any connection with such incidents.
In his Lok Sabha submission, he called for measures to ensure that highways remain free from extortion, intimidation and obstruction. He also urged the Centre to examine allegations involving armed groups that operate under the SoO arrangement or participate in talks with the government.
The allegations remain matters of concern raised by the MP and others. They do not, by themselves, establish that every SoO signatory group has engaged in unlawful activity.
Akoijam has asked the Centre to examine individual allegations and take action where authorities establish violations.
MP Seeks Review of the Agreement
The Inner Manipur MP has also called for a review of the SoO arrangement. He said authorities should examine whether signatory groups continue to follow the conditions attached to the agreement.
According to his August 11 submission, Akoijam urged the Union government to consider ending the agreement in cases where authorities establish serious violations.
His position centres on compliance with the agreed rules. He has argued that an arrangement designed to support a peace process must include effective monitoring and accountability.
The issue has gained renewed attention as Manipur continues to deal with the effects of prolonged ethnic violence and security instability.
Questions Over Alleged Involvement in Violence
Akoijam also referred to allegations involving SoO groups and incidents of killings and other illegal activities. During his September 18 press conference, he said he had asked whether groups covered by the arrangement had any role in such incidents.
He said that if authorities establish such involvement, they should take appropriate action against the groups concerned. He also stated that the agreement should face serious review if its conditions are not being followed.
The MP’s comments come amid continuing political debate over the role of the SoO arrangement in Manipur’s peace and security situation.
Different political and community groups have expressed differing views about the agreement. The Union government has continued to engage with stakeholders as part of efforts connected with the wider conflict.
Delay Becomes a Point of Concern
For Akoijam, the main issue now is the absence of a response from the Union Home Ministry.
He said more than one month had passed since he raised his questions in Parliament. He described the delay as unfortunate and called on the ministry to respond.
A response from the ministry could provide clarity on several issues raised by the MP. These include the current status of the SoO agreement, monitoring of compliance, allegations involving signatory groups and the government’s approach to violations.
The timing also matters because the SoO framework remains part of the broader discussion around peace efforts in Manipur.
Wider Concerns About Manipur’s Security Situation
Akoijam’s comments on the SoO agreement came alongside broader concerns about the security situation in Manipur. During his press conference, he also criticised the continuing violence in the state.
The MP referred to recent incidents in which civilians were killed. He questioned why violence continues despite the presence of a large number of central security personnel in Manipur.
He also criticised the Centre’s handling of the Manipur crisis. According to Akoijam, the continuing violence requires greater attention from the central leadership.
His remarks reflect his wider criticism of the government’s approach to security and political issues in the state.
SoO Issue Remains Politically Sensitive
The Suspension of Operations agreement remains a sensitive issue in Manipur because it involves armed groups, security arrangements and efforts to address the conflict.
The agreement operates within a wider process involving the Union government, the Manipur government and groups covered by the arrangement. Questions about compliance therefore involve multiple stakeholders.
Akoijam’s demand for greater transparency focuses on making the terms and compliance status clearer. He has also asked authorities to investigate allegations against individual groups rather than allowing such allegations to remain unresolved.
A formal response from the Union Home Ministry could therefore help clarify the government’s position on these questions.
MP Awaits Centre’s Response
Bimol Akoijam has now urged the Union Home Ministry to respond to the issues he raised in Parliament. His questions cover the terms of the SoO agreement, compliance monitoring, alleged extortion and allegations of involvement in unlawful activities.
Parliamentary records confirm that Akoijam raised the SoO issue under Rule 377 on August 11.
The MP’s latest comments show that he continues to seek an official response more than a month after raising the matter.
As Manipur continues to face security and political challenges, the government’s response to questions surrounding the SoO framework could provide greater clarity about its current implementation. For now, Akoijam is calling for answers from the Union Home Ministry and greater transparency over an agreement that remains an important part of the state’s wider security and peace discussions.
Read More: Manipur CM Khemchand Chairs Security Meet, Directs Forces to Protect Projects