We are not Indians, alleges PREPAK-1
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, May 30 2018:
The proscribed PREPAK while stating that the people of Kangleipak (Manipur) are not Indians, has pledged that the freedom of Kangleipak taken away by India forcibly would be restored with force.
A lengthy statement issued by PREPAK Acting Chairman Kh Sathy asserted that Kangleipak used to be an independent and sovereign kingdom.
Despite frequent wars with the neighbouring countries during the past hundreds of years, the kingdom never came under domination of any invading force except in 1819-1826 known as the Seven Years Devastation.
The borders of Kangleipak then recognized by the foreign countries used to be double the present area of Kangleipak.
The kingdom had its own international borders that an independent and sovereign country ought to have and the land used to be ruled by patriotic and brave people.
The King; with a Council of Ministers comprising 64 noblemen of hills and valley ruled the sovereign kingdom without having to succumb to any kind of influence from outside or inside the country, said the outfit.
The kingdom had its own written Constitution in the 11th century.
However since India, which came into existence on the 15th August of 1947, forcibly annexed Kangleipak, its independence and sovereignty had been snatched away, it alleged.
Thus it is natural for a people who do not want to be colonized and dependent to launch a struggle for liberation to restore their independence and sovereignty, Sathy asserted.
How the PREPAK sees is that the present struggle for liberation of Kangleipak is not a struggle to separate from the big Indian Union which had been patched up by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, whom the people of India worship as a kind of deity, by using all sorts of wrong means.
"It is just that we shall somehow get back our independence and sovereignty that they had forcibly taken away from us.
It's just that the secret war waged by them is being met with by a war of people.
In another word it is a war against war", claimed the Acting Chairman.
It is pertinent to discuss the alleged unpardonable crimes/ acts committed by India that sealed the era of independent and sovereign history of Kangleipak.
- First, King Bodhachandra had not sought consent of the State Council of the erstwhile independent Kangleipak before signing the Instrument of Accession on August 11, 1947, which is being hotly debated as the main hindrance in the liberation of Kangleipak.
All powers of the King were already vested with the State Council.
Second, the then Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten did not give his signature to the Instrument of Accession on which King Bodhachandra had signed.
In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, King Hari Singh signed the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947 and Lord Mountbatten signed it on October 27, 1947.Third, the Constituent Assembly had not ratified the Instrument of Accession which was signed by King Bodhachandra.
Thus the so called agreement is not valid and practicable.
In.
the case of Jammu and Kashmir, their Assembly had ratified the agreement on February 15, 1954.Fourth, according to the Government of India Act, 1935, the Instrument of Accession signed by the Kings should have been introduced on the floor of the British Parliament and after the Parliament gave consent to the agreements, the Court should have given judicial notices.
As for Kangleipak, there is no record or any evidence of the agreement having been tabled in the British Parliament and thereby given consent and that there is no record of Indian Courts having issued notice or any such paper that may throw light on the matter.
Fifth, assuming that the Instrument of Accession prior to the signing of the Merger Agreement on September 21 of 1949 had been signed, only Defence, External Affairs and Communication would come under the control of India and the rest would remain under the powers of Kangleipak making it still an independent country.
In words only, it was a Merger Agreement but in fact, it was a forcible signing which was far beyond the international law, it alleged.
Sixth, the 3rd and 4th sessions of the State Assembly held at Johnstone School at 2.30 pm of September 28, 1949 had rejected the so called Merger Agreement which was supposedly signed on September 21,1949 stating that the agreement couldn't be enforced, it continued.