Manipur Assembly never ratified merger agreement: PREPAK
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, October 08 2024: On the occasion of its 47th foundation anniversary which falls on October 9 (Wednesday), the proscribed People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) extended its heartfelt revolutionary salute to all the brave 'comrades' who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the national liberation struggle to reclaim the sovereignty of Kangleipak, unlawfully annexed by imperialist India on October 15, 1949, in direct violation of international laws.

The party also extended revolutionary solidarity with the oppressed indigenous peoples of Kangleipak, leaders and comrades of fraternal organisations, revolutionary movements in the WESEA region, and all the oppressed and colonised people around the world.

Apart from offering its heartfelt condolences to victims of the recent aggression by Kuki narco-terrorists in Manipur, the party also mourned for those killed in captivity, leaving no trace of their remains.

It also extended deepest grief and solidarity to all the Khun Ngakpas (Village Volunteers) and to those who have suffered due to the IOF's (Indian Occupation Forces) use of tear gas, pellet guns, and mob bombs, including those enduring distress and hardship.

On the occasion, PREPAK's interim chairman Aheiba Angom also greeted the people, stating that the Kanglei people have reached the optimum limit of oppression crippled with unwarranted violence and crises.

In the annals of the millennia-old history of Kangleipak (Manipur), two national tragedies have profoundly impacted the region, with a third tragedy currently unfolding due to Indian colonial politics.

The first tragedy arose from the great betrayal by Kangleipak's trusted ally, the mighty British Empire, following the Anglo-Manipuri War in the 19th century, which marked the decline of Kangleipak's sovereignty.

The second tragedy occurred after Manipur gained independence from the British rule on August 14, 1947.Under the guise of freedom, the Indian dominion dismantled Manipur's sovereignty, forcibly annexing Manipur in 1949 through deceit and coercion.

Today, the third tragedy is the ongoing struggle of the Kanglei people to reclaim their lost sovereignty, all the while facing oppressive policies imposed by India.

Utilising overwhelming force, the Indian Army has incited a proxy war through the Chin-Kuki-Zo narco-terrorists, whose aim is to suppress the Kanglei resistance movement.

In the name of law and order, they have escalated attacks on the Meeteis, exploiting the situation to orchestrate land grabs and further entrenching Kangleipak in a state of deeper crisis.

Despite the differences in time and the varying nature of Manipur's occupation, the underlying dynamics of these events remain deeply interconnected, Aheiba Angom said in his goodwill message.

According to the interim chairman, the first event, driven by the British imperialist ambition to expand and dominate foreign lands, witnessed the people of Manipur rising in defence of their country.

They sacrificed their lives on the battlefield and at the gallows, enduring immense suffering in their pursuit of freedom.

Secondly, through India's covert agenda, Manipur was annexed without the political consent of its people, subjugating them under the dominion of a new imperialist force - India.

Democracy was reduced to a mere facade, pushing the Kanglei people into a struggle for survival amid false promises of freedom.

Thirdly, under the ploy of a proxy war, Indian oppressive forces continue to exploit Manipur by fostering division and self-destruction among its diverse communities, all with the aim of prolonging India's occupation and colonial control over Kangleipak, he said in the message.

Aheiba Angom expressed that the story of Manipur's forced merger with India remains a deeply painful chapter in the history of its people.

It is widely acknowledged that during a people's convention in 1993, it was made clear that the 1949 Merger Agreement with India was a blatant violation of international law.

The democratic election held in 1948 was ignored, the legitimate king of the land was forcefully detained, political representatives were sidelined, and through deceit and coercion, the annexation of Manipur was carried out.

Even though India claimed that the merger was voluntary, the Manipur Assembly never ratified the agreement.

According to Resolution No 3314 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on December 14, 1974, the use of armed force by one sovereign state against the political independence or territorial integrity of another sovereign state, or any action that undermines the political independence or territorial integrity of a state in violation of the UN Charter, is considered an act of aggression.

Therefore, the coercion exerted by the Indian Army over the King of Kangleipak on September 21, 1949, at Redlands in Shillong, forcing him to sign the so-called 'Merger Agreement', constitutes an act of aggression by India against Kangleipak.

Section 9 (b) of the Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA) states that the Maharaja of Kangleipak shall be the Constitutional Head under the name of the Kanglei nation.

According to Section 8(a), while the powers vested in the Maharaja do not allow for intervention in matters affecting the legitimate interests of Kangleipak, he is still required to act within the established conditions and cannot act arbitrarily.

Section 10(a) stipulates that the executive powers of the Kanglei nation shall rest with the Council of Ministers.

Additionally, Section 18 of this Act specifies that during times when important matters concerning the interests of Kangleipak and its people are discussed, the Kangleipak legislature shall convene, and after thorough deliberation, the legislature will provide advice to the Council of Ministers.

On November 1947 under the leadership of Hijam Irawat, at the MDU Hall of Imphal, the Tangkhul Long, Kuki National Assembly, Kabui Association, Khul Union, Mizo Union, Manipur Praja Sabha, Manipur Krishak Sabha, Meitei Marup, and Nongpok Apunba Marup convened to form the United Front of Kangleipak.

The United Front was established with the aim of creating a responsible government for Kangleipak and demanding the preservation of its territorial integrity.

In 1948, after no political party secured an absolute majority in the general election, a coalition government known as the Praja Shanti Sabha was established, comprising several MLAs from both the hills and the valley.

The Praja Shanti Sabha strongly opposed the merger of Kangleipak with India, arguing that such an action would inevitably undermine Kangleipak's sovereignty.

In the editorial of the Bhag-yabati Patrika dated September 21, 1949, it states, 'The people of Kangleipak never want to be the subservient servants of another nation.

The people of our nation could not tolerate subjugation under a foreign power.

We seek self-rule.' This sentiment captures the ongoing struggle for Kangleipak's identity.

Following this, TC Tiankham, the speaker of the Manipur Assembly, expressed his concerns in a letter to the Maharaja of Kangleipak through his private secretary.

He urged that consultations with the Kangleipak Assembly take place before any agreements were finalised with the Governor of Assam.

As the merger with India drew near, A Daiho sent a telegram to the Governor General of India, proclaiming Manipur's independence.

The anti-merger agitation intensified as the people of Kangleipak protested with Mao leading the movement and blockaded the Imphal-Dimapur road.

In response, police confronted the protestors forcefully, resulting in one casualty in police firing.

Subsequently, A Daiho was imprisoned for his prominent role in the movement.

In the aftermath, Yangmasho Shaiza, a Tangkhul leader from Ukhrul and a member of the Manipur Nationalist Party, was also arrested for demanding the revocation of the merger agreement and the restoration of Kangleipak's sovereignty.

According to Aheiba Angom, the rich history of Karigleipak spans a long period as a unified region of hills and valleys, resiliently resisting all adversaries and maintaining its status as an independent sovereign kingdom until 1891, when the British colonised all princely states in India.

This event marked the onset of 56 years of British colonial rule, during which Kangleipak's identity faced significant challenges and threats.

The struggle to reclaim and solidify Kangleipak's identity continues, reflecting the aspirations of its people.

The legacy of colonialism remains a painful chapter in Kangleipak's history, and the demand for recognition and self-determination resonates strongly among its population as they pursue their cultural and political rights.

After the annexation of Kangleipak (Manipur) by India in 1949, the region experienced the height of colonial oppression, resulting in the degradation of its culture, economy, and other facets of life.

This fostered mistrust and discord among the communities of Kangleipak, gradually weakening their unity.

Exploiting this instability, a deliberate strategy was implemented to further divide the people and prevent peaceful coexistence.

As part of this plan, the Chin-Kuki-Zo communities were strategically supported, receiving logistical backing to wage a proxy war against our people's resistance movement, as India could not openly confront the Manipur revolutionary forces.

This campaign began in 1992 with operations led by the Assam Rifles, causing widespread unrest.

The conflict escalated sharply in 2005 and again in 2008.India has been actively supporting the Kuki-Zo militants to confront the revolutionary forces in the WESEA (Western South East Asia) region.

By bolstering the Kuki-Zo insurgents, India aims to weaken the revolutionary groups in WESEA, ultimately benefiting its military efforts.

While the Meitei and Naga communities oppose India, the Kuki-Zo enjoys India's patronage.

To neutralize both sides, India has provided the Kuki-Zo militants with unconditional support, including increasing their numbers and supplying arms and ammunition.

Fearing international criticism for human rights violations and breaches of international law in a direct confrontation, India has discreetly engaged in a proxy war using the Kuki-Zo mercenaries.

By framing this conflict as an ethnic struggle and racial discrimination, India diverts attention from its internal security operations and obscures the true nature of the proxy war.

This situation mirrors the tale of the monkey and the two fighting cats, where the mediator reaps all the benefits while the rivals exhaust themselves.

(To be Contd) .

Comment