With many kUKI-zO MLAs having relied on armed-group backing to win elections, defying a SoO call could carry serious consequences ahead of the 2027 Assembly polls.
By PC Bureau
January 12, 2026: The Guwahati meeting involving Kuki-Zo MLAs, the Kuki-Zo Council, and key civil society organisations (CSOs) on January 13 , convened under the umbrella of armed groups operating under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement, is emerging as a decisive test of leadership, authority, and political clarity within the Kuki-Zo movement. Far more than a consultative exercise, the meeting will reveal whether the SoO groups are prepared to decisively chart the political destiny of their people at a moment of profound uncertainty.
At the heart of the deliberations lies a critical and unavoidable question: will the SoO leadership issue an explicit directive to Kuki-Zo MLAs to stay away from the Manipur government formation exercise—or will it settle for ambiguity and half-measures that risk being read as compromise?
The political context leaves little room for equivocation. All major Kuki-Zo CSOs have unequivocally called upon the MLAs to heed the sentiments of the people and shun participation in a Meitei-led government in Imphal. This unified stance reflects the depth of public anger and alienation following months of ethnic violence, mass displacement, and the near-total collapse of faith in the Manipur state administration.
Read: SC to Examine Lifetime Immunity for Election Commissioners
READ; From Code to Call Centres: AI’s Quiet Takeover of Indian Jobs
Importantly, the relationship between the MLAs and the SoO groups cannot be divorced from electoral realities. A majority of the ten Kuki-Zo MLAs won their Assembly seats with the backing—direct or indirect—of these armed groups. That political history raises a pointed question: if the SoO leadership clearly instructs MLAs to keep out of government formation, can they realistically afford to defy that call and still hope to face the electorate with confidence in the 2027 Assembly polls?
Analysis: All Eyes on Kuki-Zo MLAs Ahead of Guwahati Meet https://t.co/JY3rb3o9Gc #ManipurCrisis #KukiZo #SoOAgreement#PresidentRule #EthnicViolence #PoliticalUncertainty
— POWER CORRIDORS (@power_corridors) January 12, 2026
Defiance would not merely invite political backlash; it could amount to political isolation. In a tightly knit community where public sentiment is sharply defined, going against both civil society and the armed leadership would carry serious consequences. The Guwahati meet will therefore test not only the authority of the SoO groups, but also the willingness of elected representatives to align personal political calculations with collective community sentiment.
The stakes for the SoO groups themselves are even higher. They are not merely influential actors on the ground; they are the recognised representatives of the Kuki-Zo community in ongoing negotiations with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) over the community’s core political demand for a Union Territory. This role confers on them a far greater responsibility to reflect the will, unity, and long-term interests of the people they claim to represent.
Any perception of wavering or compromise at this juncture could weaken their negotiating position with the Centre. If the SoO leadership appears unable to enforce political discipline within its own ranks or among elected representatives, questions may arise about its capacity to speak authoritatively for the community as a whole.
Failure to bring the MLAs into line could also have destabilising consequences on the ground. A breakdown in alignment between civil society, armed groups, and elected leaders risks plunging the Kuki-Zo community into political confusion and leadership vacuum. History suggests such vacuums are dangerous—often creating space for more radical, unaccountable elements to emerge outside existing ceasefire frameworks.
The Suspension of Operations (SoO) groups have so far handled negotiations with the Ministry of Home Affairs with notable wisdom, patience, and political maturity, navigating an extraordinarily volatile Manipur landscape with restraint and dexterity. Their calibrated approach has helped keep dialogue alive even amid deep mistrust and violence, lending them credibility as responsible representatives of the Kuki-Zo people. Yet this moment may prove to be their defining test. If Kuki-Zo MLAs choose to defy a clear directive from the SoO leadership and participate in Manipur’s government formation exercise, the authority and moral aura the armed groups currently command will be irreparably weakened. Leadership that cannot enforce political discipline risks losing not just relevance but legitimacy, creating a vacuum that could fracture the community at a critical juncture.
The Guwahati meeting, therefore, is not merely about the immediate issue of government formation in Manipur. It is about legitimacy, coherence, and the future direction of the Kuki-Zo political movement. An explicit, unambiguous decision is required—one that reflects the clearly articulated will of the people and preserves unity at a critical moment.
Anything less will be seen as abdication of responsibility. The coming hours will determine whether the SoO groups rise to that challenge—or whether hesitation now sows deeper instability later.
