Banned outfits mock surrender, dub it 'stage managed'; Concocted surrender, says PREPAK
Source: The Sangai Express
Imphal, May 02 2012:
The proscribed PREPAK has dismissed as baseless and misleading the contention of the State Government and security force authorities that 14 PREPAK cadres were among the UG cadres who surrendered during the 'home coming ceremony' held at the Mantripukhri complex of IGAR (S) on April 30 .
With reference to the Government and security authorities listing Kh Suresh alias Ibomcha alias Kengba s/o Kh Manikhomdon of Lamding Elang Leikai, Ningthoujam Nanao alias Romiyo Singh s/o N Bijen Singh of Tokpaching Bamon Leikai, Loitongbam Premkumar alias Bihari Singh s/o L Tomba Meitei of Khongjom, Koijam Vorot alias Khunjao (33) s/o K Iboyaima Singh of Patsoi Part-IV, Pvt Thokchom Boyai alias Mahadeva (31) s/o Th Jugeshwor Singh of Patsoi Part-V, Sarangthem Nanao Singh (21) s/o S Shantikumar Singh of Kakching Khunou, Haorokham Lokhon alias Leikha (30) s/o H Ibohanbi Singh of Kwakeithel, Waikhom Amocha alias Rakesh alias Biken (20) s/o (L) W Manihar Singh of Sekmaijin Thongam, Ningthoujam Herojit alias Shyamkumar (28) s/o N Chaoba Singh of Lilong Chajing Bazar, Abujam Hemchandra alias Naoba (20) s/o A Sudam Singh of Heirok Part-III, Pingong (22) s/o Nganba of Moirang Khunou, Sarangthem Anand Meitei (22) s/o S Shyam Meitei of Kakching Khunou, W Imo Singh (24) s/o W Shyamkumar of Hiyanglam and Hasir Haokip of Kangpokpi as PREPAK cadres, a statement issued by the outfit's department of Publicity and Propaganda publicity officer Sanju Oinam said the 14 individuals have no relationship with the PREPAK organisation or its armed wing the Red Army.
With the Indian security forces unable to throttle the revolutionary movement despite a number of killing or capture of UG activists, staging surrender drama by luring certain individuals with money has become the norm for security forces to not only attempt to demoralise the insurgent groups but to build up their
own reputation.
Taking note of the surrendered individuals wearing mask, the publicity officer construed that such a measure is a self contradiction to the claim by the security officers with the general public fully aware that the surrender ceremony is yet another drama enacted by the security forces.
PREPAK also claimed to have information that some months before the surrender drama, AR representatives scouted individuals with promise to provide them jobs and that some among the surrendered individuals were held captive by AR troops while these individuals went to remote areas for earning livelihood.
With regard to news paper reports about disappearance of young boys, the outfit contended that possibility of AR troops detaining these boys to include them in surrender drama cannot be ruled out.
Reacting to comments that the insurgency movement was due to frustration caused by severe economic disparity in the society, the publicity officer also reminded all concerned that the movement is to restore the lost sovereignty of Manipur.