Oppressors are the rulers of India: PREPAK-II
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, May 30 2019:
When the people use their right to self determination, they can appropriately use the power of international laws.
However the power used by terrorism is against the law, it is a crime.
According to a report of the International Amnesty, police and army had tortured 415 people including women and children to death in 1992, continued the PREPAK acting Chairman.
Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons is flagrant violation of human rights.
The incidents of enforced or involuntary disappearance used to occur almost daily in Kangleipak a few years ago.
In 1979, following a resolution-33/173 adopted by the United Nations' General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights took up steps to prevent such incidents, reads the outfit's statement.
The Commission on Human Rights decided to establish a Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances of persons in 1980.The enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons not only violates the covenant of human rights but also infringes upon the provisions laid by the "Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials and Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners" endorsed by the ECOSOC in 1957 .
When the State sentences someone to capital punishment without a proper trial, it is a crime, an act of terrorism.
Yet when an oppressed, colonized people try to regain their lost sovereignty and freedom by escaping from the colonial yoke, they have all the moral grounds to resort to any means in their capacity, and the world sees and respects it as a freedom movement, it claimed.
When India extends unflinching support to all other freedom movements in the world, it blatantly brands the freedom movements of the WESEA region as terrorism.
This is a deliberate ploy to distort the history of mankind.
Till 1994, the Government of India arrested 90,000 of its own citizens as terrorists under TADA-1985.Such huge number of people was not arrested even during the Quit India Movement of 1942.Given this fact, it is highly questionable whether a country with one lakh terrorists be still called a democratic country or would it be considered as a political crime, it said.
The way the people of Kangleipak are pressing ahead with the freedom movement under the international norms is a political expression of their Right to Self Determination.
The history of world will not just endorse what India calls the freedom movement of Kangleipak as terrorism, nor will the people stop it, and none can ever say that there is no freedom movement in Kangleipak, Sathy asserted.
The conflict between India and Kangleipak arose after India, flouting all international laws, forcibly annexed sovereign and independent Kangleipak to the Indian dominion by threatening the erstwhile king, Bodhachandra, using military power to sign an already prepared paper what they later called the Merger Agreement against the provisions of Manipur Constitution Act, 1947 on September 21, 1949, it alleged.
By then, the King had no power to sign any agreement or treaty.
The King had no real power to sign any agreement or treaty with representatives of other country.
As per Section 3 and Section 10(a) of the Manipur Constitution Act, 1947, only the Council of Ministers comprising the Chief Minister (to be read as Prime Minister) had the State Executive power to do so.
If the Manipur Assembly, which was the then National Assembly, had given approval to the so-called Merger Agreement signed by King Bodhachandra in 1949, it might have been valid.
But it wasn't so.
The Manipur Assembly in its sitting held on October 28, 1949 adopted a resolution rejecting the so-called agreement as per the provisions of the Manipur Constitution Act, PREPAK asserted.
Article 8 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), 1969 clearly states that a person without power cannot represent a State to sign an agreement or treaty and if the State does not ratify it, the treaty or agreement has no validity.
Article 51 of the Convention states that if a representative of a State is intimidated to sign an agreement or treaty, the agreement or treaty has no validity.
Taking into account the Manipur Constitution Act, 1947 and the Vienna Convention, the Shillong agreement of 1949 has no legal validity at all which proves that the independence of Kangleipak still remains intact, it claimed.
Kanglei people are not belligerent community, and are not thirsty of Indians' blood.
Shedding blood of any innocent Kanglei inhabitant or a single Indian on the soil of Kangleipak is least desired.
"The revolutionary movement being carried on by the Kanglei people is only to restore our freedom that had been forcibly taken away by India and also to protect the territorial boundary", Sathy continued.
The one and only means to solve the conflict that prevails in the WESEA region is complete withdrawal of Indian occupation forces from the soil of Kangleipak.
Except this, there is no other alternative, he concluded.
Comment
