Recently, Manipur has witnessed renewed spurts of violence following the formation of Y. Khemchand Singh’s government on 4 February 2026. This escalation appears to coincide with the induction of a Deputy Chief Minister from the Kuki community whose spouse is reportedly the chief of an insurgent outfit.
The outfit, along with others, has extended the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement with the Ministry of Home Affairs from September 2025. However, this does not imply permanence. The SoO agreement can be terminated at any time by either party in the event of violations of revised ground rules. Typically renewed annually, its continuation depends strictly on adherence to these rules and cannot be assumed to be a long-term arrangement.
This raises critical questions: Is it ethically acceptable and administratively prudent for the spouse of an insurgent leader, even one currently under a ceasefire or SoO agreement, to serve in the council of ministers? Such insurgent groups have historically engaged in anti-state activities and may resume them if political negotiations fail or the centre decides not to renew the agreement. Should an individual in such a position be entrusted with state secrets and involved in sensitive security policymaking?
Does the presence of a minister with such a personal connection risk compromising state and national security? Can cabinet members, senior police officials, and senior security officers freely and impartially express their views in such circumstances? These concerns merit clear clarification from the Chief Minister to address public doubt and perceptions regarding the ethical, legal, and constitutional dimensions of this arrangement.
The phrase “sleeping with the enemy” refers to close association or collaboration with an adversary, often implying a risk of betrayal. In this context, it underscores concerns about vulnerability, particularly when trust is extended to someone whose close associate may have interests opposed to the state. If the SoO agreement were to lapse or be terminated, there is a perceived risk that sensitive information could be misused.
On 19 April 2026, Manipur’s Home Minister, Govindas Konthoujam, announced that all unauthorized camps of militant outfits under the SoO agreement across both hill and valley areas would be closed within a month. This decision, taken in consultation with SoO groups and the peace monitoring committee, aims to restore stability. He emphasized that all cadres must remain within designated camps and that violations of revised ground rules would not be tolerated.
However, these statements suggest the existence of unauthorized camps and lapses in enforcement. They also imply that directives from the Joint Monitoring Group, chaired by the Ministry of Home Affairs, are being implemented more rigorously.
Despite these assurances, public concerns persist, especially in light of the recent escalation in violence. Questions arise about how the government ensures that sensitive security information is not leaked. How would cabinet discussions on enforcement actions against SoO violations be conducted? How secure are cabinet meetings held with the Dy. CM through video conferences to ensure that no unauthorised persons are present in the room or are listening to the cabinet conversations? Who would be held accountable in the event of such breaches?
If the Deputy Chief Minister is excluded from such discussions, it may signal the nature of deliberations. If included, concerns about conflict of interest remain unresolved. This creates a complex governance dilemma.
The ambush by Kuki militants of civilian vehicles at TM Kasom village on the Imphal–Ukhrul Road, causing the deaths of two Tangkhul civilians after the armed escort service halted at Litan, raises doubts about the integrity of sensitive security-related incidents. Similarly, the tragic deaths of two children in a bomb attack in Tronglaobi village, Bishnupur district, have intensified public anxiety and security concerns.
Will the state government investigate these aspects proactively, or wait for more severe incidents before taking corrective action? Is it prudent to risk potential vulnerabilities within the state’s security framework? These are serious concerns that demand careful consideration.
The ruling establishment must address these issues urgently, as sections of the population, particularly among Naga and Meitei communities, are feeling increasingly insecure with the current arrangement.
Ngaranmi Shimray
New Delhi
(The views and opinions in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of Rural Post)
