A meeting convened by Kuki-Zo armed groups under the Suspension of Operations agreement in Guwahati could prove decisive for the community’s movement seeking justice after the May 3, 2023 ethnic violence and its demand for a separate Union Territory.
BY PC Bureau
January 12, 2026: The meeting convened by Kuki-Zo armed groups operating under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement with the Centre, to deliberate on the role of Kuki-Zo MLAs in the event of the Manipur government being revived by revoking President’s Rule, could prove to be a decisive moment for the tribal community’s more than two-year-old movement. The discussion goes to the heart of the Kuki-Zo struggle for justice following the May 3, 2023 ethnic violence and their long-standing demand for a separate Union Territory.
All ten Kuki-Zo MLAs, along with the Kuki-Zo Council, have been invited to attend the meeting in Guwahati. The timing is critical. There is growing pressure within the community that its elected representatives should not participate in the formation or functioning of a new government in Imphal. Beginning with the Kuki-Zo Council, several influential civil society organisations — including COTU and ITLF — have publicly urged the MLAs to stay away from power, often coupling their appeals with clear warnings of political and social consequences.
At the core of the debate lies a fundamental question: what does “participation in government” actually mean in Manipur’s present context? For clarity, participation is not limited to becoming a minister. In a situation marked by ethnic violence, deep mistrust and serious security threats, participation can take many forms — accepting ministerial office, holding any office of profit under the state, chairing or serving on Assembly committees, heading statutory boards or corporations, or actively supporting the government on the floor of the House, particularly during confidence motions. For Kuki-Zo MLAs, even symbolic engagement may be seen by their constituents and civil society groups as legitimising a government they oppose both politically and morally.
READ: ₹17 Lakh Crore Wiped Out: Global Jitters Deepen Indian Market Sell-Off
If the MLAs choose a principled stand of non-participation, consistency becomes crucial. This would require rejecting ministerial posts, declining all offices of profit such as chairpersonships or advisory roles, and staying away from Assembly committees that influence or scrutinise government policy. Committees are an extension of governance, and participation in them would undermine claims of disengagement.
A particularly sensitive issue is the vote of confidence, should a new government be formed. Constitutionally, abstention is a valid parliamentary option; MLAs are not legally compelled to vote either for or against a confidence motion. In Manipur’s volatile conditions, MLAs can plausibly argue that voting could endanger their own lives as well as those of their families and communities. This is not a theoretical fear but a lived reality in a state where normal political functioning has broken down.
Abstention, therefore, offers a moral and political middle path. It neither actively supports the government nor brings it down, while signalling distance and dissent without paralysing the legislative process.
The most complex challenge arises if a party whip is issued. Under the Tenth Schedule, defying a whip during a confidence motion can invite disqualification. However, MLAs who abstain could argue that their action was compelled by extraordinary circumstances, that the right to life under Article 21 outweighs party discipline, and that Manipur’s conditions prevent the free exercise of legislative choice. Such a defence, while not guaranteed to succeed, is legally arguable and politically defensible, especially if framed as a response to constitutional breakdown rather than routine political defiance.
Ultimately, this approach allows Kuki-Zo MLAs to maintain solidarity with their constituents, avoid accusations of opportunism, and reduce the risk of further escalation on the ground. The bottom line is clear: if the MLAs declare they will not “join the government,” they must avoid all forms of executive, legislative and symbolic participation. Abstaining from a confidence vote, citing real and present threats to life, remains constitutionally permissible, politically coherent and legally contestable — even in the face of a party whip.
