Q1. With reference to the Suspension of Operations (SoO) arrangement in Manipur, consider the following statements:
- The SoO arrangement is a negotiated security and peace framework involving the Union Government, the Manipur Government and designated Kuki insurgent groups.
- The signing of an SoO agreement by an insurgent group necessarily results in the group's legal recognition as a constitutional or statutory body.
- Suspension of armed operations under such an arrangement can be accompanied by agreed ground rules and designated camps for participating groups.
- Keeping an SoO agreement in abeyance is conceptually distinct from its formal abrogation.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) Only three
(d) All four
Answer: (c)
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is Correct: The Manipur SoO framework is a tripartite arrangement involving the Centre, State government and participating Kuki organisations. The original 2008 arrangement with the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) included agreed ground rules.
- Statement 2 is Incorrect: An SoO agreement does not transform an insurgent organisation into a constitutional or statutory body. It is a negotiated arrangement concerning armed operations and dialogue.
- Statement 3 is Correct: The framework involves suspension of operations and ground rules, with designated arrangements for participating cadres.
- Statement 4 is Correct: Abeyance/non-extension and abrogation are not synonymous; the former does not automatically constitute a formal legal termination of the arrangement.
