Raid on SoO Camp Triggers Fury: Kuki groups allege excessive force during the Gampum operation and demand an independent probe into the detention of eight cadres and seizure of weapons.
BY PC Bureau
September 8, 2026: Kuki civil society organisations have condemned a joint security operation at Gampum village under Saikul police station, alleging that the raid violated the Suspension of Operations (SoO) arrangement. They have demanded the immediate release of eight detained cadres and the return of seven weapons they claim were registered and monitored under the ceasefire framework.
The operation was conducted in the early hours of September 7 by a joint team of Manipur Police, CRPF CoBRA, the Rapid Action Force (RAF) and Mahila personnel. Official reports said eight suspected cadres of the Kuki Liberation Army (KLA) were detained and seven automatic weapons recovered from what security sources described as an unauthorised camp. The site was subsequently locked and sealed.
Kuki organisations, however, have disputed the security forces’ description of the site.
The Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM) said the detained men were cadres of the Kuki Liberation Organisation/Kuki Liberation Army (KLO/KLA), which it described as a recognised signatory to the tripartite SoO agreement. It said the seven firearms seized during the operation were “registered and state-monitored”.
KIM termed the raid a serious breach of the understanding between security forces and SoO groups and said any action involving signatories should be carried out in accordance with the agreement’s established protocols and legal framework.
The organisation demanded an independent and impartial inquiry, immediate release of the eight detainees and restoration of the seized weapons within the SoO framework. It also insisted that the men remain in the custody of Kangpokpi district authorities, arguing that transferring them outside the jurisdiction without due process could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
READ: Fake PMO ID, Gun: Two Detained at PM Modi Event Venue
READ: Manipur CM’s Clean Chit to Arambai Tenggol Raises Questions
KIM further alleged that disproportionate force was used against civilians during the operation, claiming that crowd-control munitions and live ammunition were used and that some people sustained injuries requiring emergency treatment. The statement was issued by David D. Haokip, Assistant Information Secretary of Kuki Inpi Manipur.
Local organisations in Saikul also challenged the official account. In a statement issued on September 8, the Kuki Inpi Saikul Gamkai and other civil society organisations claimed that the Gampum camp had been a designated SoO site since the 2008 agreement and had operated without government objection.
They accused the security forces of treating the camp as an unlawful armed-group hideout and alleged “excessive brutalities”. The organisations questioned whether any alleged violation of the SoO ground rules had first been taken up before the Joint Monitoring Group, which oversees implementation of the arrangement.
They also questioned whether the operation was influenced by demands from sections of the population for termination of the SoO agreement, and accused the government of failing to apply the law equally.
The SoO agreement, signed in 2008 by the Centre, the Manipur government and Kuki-Zomi armed groups under the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and United People’s Front (UPF), requires cadres to remain in designated camps, with their weapons subject to monitoring and agreed ground rules.
The arrangement has repeatedly come under strain during Manipur’s prolonged ethnic conflict, with allegations of violations and competing demands over its continuation.
Authorities have yet to issue a detailed public response to the Kuki organisations’ claim that Gampum was an officially designated SoO camp. No independent inquiry sought by the organisations has been announced so far.
The conflicting accounts leave key questions unresolved, including the official status of the Gampum camp, the circumstances in which the weapons were allegedly found and whether any SoO ground rules were violated before the security operation was launched.
