Q. “The extension of the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement in Manipur raises questions about democratic legitimacy and federal principles.” Critically examine.

 

Q. “The extension of the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement in Manipur raises questions about democratic legitimacy and federal principles.” Critically examine.

---

Introduction

The Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement in Manipur, signed between the Union government, the state government, and various Kuki-Zo insurgent groups, seeks to curb violence and promote dialogue. Recently, the Centre extended the pact despite opposition from the Manipur state government and civil society groups like the Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI). This has sparked debate about its democratic legitimacy and its implications for federal principles.

---

Issues of Democratic Legitimacy

1. Lack of Consensus: The decision was taken by the Centre without adequate consultation with all stakeholders, especially the elected state government.

2. Civil Society Opposition: Groups like COCOMI argue that the pact undermines popular sentiments of the majority community (Meiteis), creating a democratic deficit.

3. Trust Deficit: Continued insurgent activities despite the SoO raise questions on whether democratic processes are being bypassed in favour of temporary peace deals.

4. Representation Gap: Critics highlight that dialogue with armed groups prioritises non-democratic actors over elected representatives.

---

Federal Concerns

1. Erosion of State Autonomy: Law and order is a State subject, but the Union’s unilateral extension of the SoO diminishes the role of the Manipur government.

2. Asymmetrical Federalism: The Centre’s approach reflects central dominance, challenging the spirit of cooperative federalism.

3. Security vs. Autonomy Tension: While the Union cites national security concerns, it creates friction between central authority and state priorities.

---

Arguments in Favour of SoO

1. Peace-building Mechanism: Provides space for dialogue, preventing escalation of armed conflict.

2. National Security Imperative: Insurgency in border states has external linkages (Myanmar), requiring central intervention.

3. Inclusive Federalism: The Centre argues it represents all citizens, not only state governments, in maintaining peace and order.

---

Critical Analysis

• The SoO reflects the dilemma of governance in conflict zones: peacebuilding often requires strong central intervention, but such moves may weaken federal balance and democratic accountability.

• While immediate stability is achieved, long-term legitimacy depends on integrating all communities through dialogue and ensuring the elected state government’s meaningful role.

• The absence of transparent communication risks alienating sections of society and fuelling further mistrust.

---

Conclusion

The extension of the SoO in Manipur highlights the tension between peace and process. While the pact may be necessary for short-term stability, its democratic legitimacy is questionable due to inadequate consultation with state institutions and civil society. For sustainable peace, the Centre must ensure a federal, transparent, and participatory approach that balances national security with local aspirations.