KNO’s Dr. Seilen Haokip insists the agreement promises “political settlement under the Constitution in a time-bound manner,” not vague peace talks. UPF’s Aaron Kipgen condemns PIB’s “distortion,” stressing their demand is for a Union Territory and not just a generic solution for peace.
BY Navin Upadhyay
The Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and the United People’s Front (UPF)—the two Kuki-Zo groups that signed a tripartite Suspension of Operation (SoO) ceasefire agreement with the Centre on September 4—have asked the Centre to remove the discrepancies between the contents of the signed agreement and the version presented in the Press Information Bureau (PIB) release.
A cursory glance would show that the Government statement put out on the PIB website on the Ministry of Home Affairs talks with representatives of the KNO, UPF as well as Kuki Zo Council did not reflect the contents of the actual tripartite agreement signed by the three parties. The discrepancies are visible on two key counts.
First, the PIB statement highlighted the “opening of National Highway-02” and the need for a “negotiated solution to bring lasting peace in Manipur” as the key components of the agreement. However, the fine print of the signed agreement paints a different picture.
The agreement explicitly states:
“In view of the serious law & order and security situation in Manipur since May 3, 2023, it was mutually agreed to review the implementation of the Agreed Ground Rules and revise the same in order to make it more effective and transparent. KNO and UPF as well as their constituents shall completely abjure the path of violence and abide by the Constitution of India, laws of the land, and territorial integrity of Manipur. Suspension of Operation (SoO) Agreement shall be followed by tripartite dialogue with KNO and UPF to pave the way for a negotiated political settlement under the Constitution of India in a time-bound manner.”
READ: Can PM Modi Speak of Peace in Manipur Without Action Against This One Man?
In contrast, the PIB release substitutes the phrase “negotiated political settlement under the Constitution of India in a time-bound manner” with “the need for a negotiated solution to bring lasting peace in Manipur.” This change is significant. The original language left space for Kuki-Zo demands, including their call for a Union Territory carved out of Manipur—a demand they had already submitted in a charter to the MHA in September 2023. By rephrasing it as a generic “solution for lasting peace,” the PIB version dilutes the specific political dimension that Kuki-Zo groups say was acknowledged in the agreement.
“As far as we are concerned, we will stick to our stand that ‘Suspension of Operation (SoO) Agreement shall be followed by tripartite dialogue with KNO and UPF to pave the way for a negotiated political settlement under the Constitution of India in a time-bound manner,’” said KNO spokesperson Dr. Seilen Haokip, one of the signatories to the agreement.
“Let us also make one thing very clear: by ‘political settlement,’ we mean settlement for Union Territory status for Kuki-Zo people. We have consistently clarified this during negotiations and have also submitted it in writing,” he added.
➤ A tripartite meeting among representatives of MHA, Govt. of Manipur, and Kuki National Organisation/KNO and United People’s Front/UPF also held at New Delhi
➤ The meeting concluded with the signing of a tripartite Suspension of Operations (SoO) Agreement on re-negotiated…
— PIB India (@PIB_India) September 4, 2025
Similarly, Aaron Kipgen, spokesperson of the United People’s Front (UPF) and general secretary of the Kuki National Front (KNF)—a key constituent of the UPF—expressed strong displeasure with the PIB for what he described as a distortion of the agreement’s content.
“I condemn the PIB for misrepresenting facts on such a sensitive issue. We have never said that we will hold discussions for a political solution to bring lasting peace in Manipur. The agreement clearly states that we will pursue a negotiated political settlement under the Constitution of India in a time-bound manner,” Kipgen asserted.
The UPF spokesperson demanded that the PIB should take steps to clear the air on this issue. “I hope that the PIB would present the facts accurately and issue a clarification to clear the confusion,” he added.
The organisations pointed out two major concerns. First, the signed agreement clearly stated that the SoO “shall be followed by tripartite dialogue with KNO and UPF to pave the way for a negotiated political settlement under the Constitution of India in a time-bound manner.” However, the PIB release substituted this with a more generic line about “the need for a negotiated solution to bring lasting peace in Manipur.”
“This change is misleading,” said KNO spokesperson Dr. Seilen Haokip, one of the signatories. “By ‘political settlement,’ we mean settlement for Union Territory status for the Kuki-Zo people, which we have repeatedly clarified during negotiations and submitted in writing.”
Similarly, UPF spokesperson Aaron Kipgen, who is also the general secretary of the Kuki National Front (KNF), strongly criticised the PIB note. “I condemn the PIB for misrepresenting facts on such a sensitive issue. The agreement clearly states ‘negotiated political settlement under the Constitution in a time-bound manner.’ It does not speak of a vague ‘solution for lasting peace,’” he said, urging the MHA to issue a clarification.
Later, in a joint statement, the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and United People’s Front (UPF) said the PIB’s misrepresentation had caused immense confusion among the Kuki-Zo people, who had been waiting for the renewal of the SoO agreement. The process, they noted, was delayed since February 29, 2024, after the Meitei militant organisation Arambai Tenggol issued a diktat to the then Manipur government to unilaterally abrogate the pact.
“PIB’s aberration has seriously upset Kuki-Zo sentiments to the point of affecting the mood over the much-awaited Prime Minister’s visit to Lamka (Churachandpur District) on September 13, 2025,” the statement said.
The groups further alleged that prior to what they termed as the “state-sponsored” ethnic cleansing of Kuki-Zo people that began on May 3, 2023, in Imphal, their demand under the SoO framework was limited to local autonomy through a Territorial Council within Manipur. However, the violence, they said, forced a shift in their political stance. “The ethnic cleansing led to a departure from the demand for TC to the demand for Union Territory with Legislature, which was submitted at the SoO meeting on September 1, 2023, in New Delhi,” the statement added.
They underlined that with the renewal of the SoO agreement, all future talks with the Government of India would now centre on this demand for Union Territory status with legislature.
The second point of contention concerns National Highway-02. The PIB release claimed the Kuki-Zo Council agreed to “open NH-02 for free movement of goods and commercial vehicles.” The groups, however, clarified that NH-02 was never closed in the first place. Their appeal, they stressed, was limited to the Kangpokpi stretch, asking local residents to cooperate with central security forces to ensure safe movement between Imphal and Dimapur.
“The question of ‘reopening’ does not arise,” the Kuki-Zo Council said, adding that the sanctity of buffer zones separating Meitei and Kuki-Zo areas must not be compromised.
The discrepancies have triggered outrage within the Kuki-Zo community, with leaders warning that misrepresentation of agreements risks undermining trust in the ongoing peace process. They have called upon the MHA to “set the record straight” to avoid further confusion and suspicion.
Second, on the issue of National Highway-02, the PIB statement claimed the Kuki-Zo Council had agreed to “open NH-02 for free movement of goods and commercial vehicles.” In reality, the agreement only referred to appeals made to residents of Kangpokpi to assist security forces in ensuring safe movement of vehicles between Imphal and Dimapur.
READ: From “Insult” to “Apology”: How Congress Targets PM Modi’s Manipur Trip
The Kuki-Zo Council swiftly rebutted the PIB claim, stressing that NH-02 was never closed or blocked in the first place. The highway, they noted, had remained open for commuters and essential goods. “The question of ‘reopening’ does not arise,” the council emphasized. Their appeal, they explained, was limited to the Kangpokpi stretch of NH-02, where residents were urged to cooperate with central security forces deployed for road safety. They further underscored that this should not be misinterpreted as consent for unrestricted movement across buffer zones dividing Meitei and Kuki-Zo areas. “The sanctity of the buffer zones will continue to be strictly respected and maintained,” the council said.
As expected, the differences between the signed agreement and the PIB release have stirred confusion and outrage within the Kuki-Zo community. While the KNO has sought to clear the air, it is equally incumbent upon the MHA to dispel the cloud of confusion.
