Doctrine of division : PREPAK explains-I
Source: The Sangai Express

Imphal, October 08 2026: The proscribed PREPAK has elaborated on how the 'doctrine of division' took roots in the soil of Kangleipak and how it gave rise to the demand for a separate homeland.

A statement issued by PREPAK Interim Council Chairman Aheiba Angom on the occasion of the outfit's 49th foundation day (October 9) asserted that the people of Kangleipak are diverse, comprising many different communities but they lived in relative peace and harmony.

The diverse communities of Kangleipak participated together in a millennia-old process of civilisation-building, shaping a society that evolved into a sovereign and independent Nation with a distinctive socio-economic, historical and political identity, it said.

After the Anglo-Manipuri War of 1891, Kangleipak came under British paramountcy as a princely State under British protection.

A new administrative system and a set of policies were introduced.

The British Political Agent acquired considerable authority, particularly in matters concerning the hill areas.

The Maharaja and the Durbar retained certain responsibilities but were largely excluded from the direct administration of the hills, Aheiba Angom said.

Over time, separate administrative policies and practices were developed for the hill and valley areas, creating an administrative division within the territory.

This separation contributed to the emergence of different political perceptions and identities among sections of the population, read the PREPAK leader's statement.

With the departure of the British on August 14, 1947, Kangleipak began establishing its own system of administration by drafting the Manipur Constitution and holding elections to the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

When serious efforts were made to rebuild the ecosystem that had been destroyed by the colonial rule, India annexed Kangleipak to its dominion on October 15, 1949, and applied the same divisive practices just as the British did, it alleged.

Instead of abolishing the existing divisive administrative system, new laws and institutions were enacted and enforced differently in different areas.

"To mention briefly, the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956, the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils Act, 1971 and the Hill Areas Committee constituted under Article 371-C of Indian Constitution are the laws that deepen the rift among our people", it said.

Even though power had shifted from the British paramountcy to independent Indian Union, the same divisive administration continued.

The most regrettable development of the 21st century has been the emergence of a separatist mindset and conflict among people who had long lived together, like ants in a pot.

What started as a whisper for a separate administration has expanded into full-scale claims on territory, community, and society.

This mindset has created the impression that physical separation equals total social rupture.

Naturally, such a rift becomes the key political market for those aiming to divide the State, read the statement.

But while the Indian rule manipulates the stage, those trapped within-like ants fighting in a pot-blame each other.

The ensuing clashes force the communities to separate, entrenching a psychological divide.

This divide, in turn, creates the perfect opening to demand political separation, it said.

"Once violence takes over, pointing fingers over who fired the first shot becomes irrelevant.

What matters above all is uncovering how these ethnic clashes were sparked, how the doctrine of division took root, and why we began to see one another as enemies", Aheiba Angom said.

Setting aside for the moment, the question of how the clashes erupted and who was responsible for causing them, what is more important is to examine who is benefiting the most from the violence, he added.

"This ought to be one of the primary steps in finding out who instigated the clashes, from where, and how we failed to ponder over why an outside hand violently shook the pot, causing the ants that had been living peacefully inside to suddenly turn against one another", read the statement.

This does not mean that all agitations, issues and movements in Kangleipak are prompted from outside.

Nor does it mean that all grievances and concerns expressed by different communities are fabricated, it said.

The PREPAK Interim Council Chairman asserted that there are genuine issues of discontentment, insecurity and apprehension that cannot simply be dismissed.

The real questions concerning land, political representation, migration, identity, development, customary rights, security, historical injustice, and the future of the indigenous people are all there.

These issues are too real and consequential to be brushed aside as fictitious or simply rejected, he remarked.

At the same time, these factual issues could be exploited to foment trouble and turn people against one another, creating hostility and mistrust, as there have been instances of this in the past.

This is where the situation becomes dangerous, an outside hand could take advantage of these divisions and deliberately shake the pot, making an already fragile situation even more volatile.

Kanglei people need to develop a deeper understanding of these issues and make sincere efforts to resolve them fairly, said the PREPAK leader.

Comment