GoI prolonging Kuki-Meetei conflict: Oken
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, April 24 2025:

(Continued from previous edition)

Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL) also stressed the nqed to understand and change the paradigm shift between India and Kangleipak (Manipur), cautioning that failure to do so would make it difficult for Manipur to grasp root cause of the Kuki-Meetei conflict, the true relationship between India and Manipur, the reality of politics and the overall future of Kangleipak.

According chairman Oken, prior to 1949, Kangleipak did not have to depend on any other country for its survival, whereas after the forcefully annexation to India, the poverty level has gone up.

Kangleipak, with its glorious history of 3000-4000 years, has now been reduced to a dire state.

The society has degraded for the worse and corruption is rampant.

The once hardworking, sincere people have been rendered self-centred and unambitious, and do not think twice before stabbing fellowmen in the back.

The leaders have turned politics into a business and are ready to become tamed dogs for the coloniser (India), just to get a few scraps of money and seat of power.

Some of the revolutionaries, who initially started with a sincere heart, are now drunk in corruption.

All of these root causes and solutions cannot be determined with the paradigm encouraged by the Indian regime.

When it is no longer possible to come up with the solution and the confusion becomes too much, each of us would have no choice than to become part of this dirty society.

While the social workers may be working hard, it is only temporary and not a long-term solution.

The need is to change the paradigm and launched a social movement on the basis of the same, elaborated the chairman.

The statement continued that the real relationship between India and present day Manipur is that 'we are under colonial rule of India'.

Meetei, Naga, Kuki, Pangal, etc., are all citizens of an Indian colony.

The entire WESEA region is under Indian colonial rule, with the Hindi heartland having colonised its surrounding periphery.

Presently, Indian MPs across the country are objecting to the delimitation attempt by the NDA government.

The rise in number of North Indian MPs compared to South Indian MPs led to the flow of political power into North India, which prompted a Kerala MP to.

call for "South First".

The MP's statements in this regard highlight the true identity and future of the Indian Empire.

There is no guarantee that India will never disintegrate, considering the history of the world.

As such, until and unless we change the paradigm of Manipur being a colony of India, we cannot see the reality of India's hand in the Kuki conflict.

The act of having two communities turn against each other is a crude example of the government of India's view of the two communities as inhabitants of its colony.

The prolonged violence is part of India's "imperial project".

The act of instigating the two communities to kill each other and then telling them both to talk and reconcile is an age-old colonial technique, meant to fool the people and the world.

Thus, if we replace the earlier paradigm of "We are Indian citizens" to viewing it as "We are a colony of India", we can ascertain the true nature of India and the real intentions behind all of its moves.

When India annexed Manipur in 1949, we did not become a colony immediately but became so after a long process spanning over 76 years of colonial rule.

The 'divide and rule' policy, which was the British colonial policy, was implemented in full effect in Manipur.

It was amplified ten-fold and upgraded to 'divide and eliminate' policy in Manipur.

Just as the then USA government manipulated the indigenous tribes in North America to seize the overall control of all the land and resources, the Indian government had invited Myanmar-based Kukis to attack the indigenous Meeteis.

It is the way of a colonial government to cause genocide by proxy.

To instigate the two communities to kill each other, it is inevitable to incite hatred and animosity.

In Manipur, both the Kuki and Meetei had similar language and customs.

GA Grierson (1851-1941) included Meeteirol under Kuki-Chin linguistic group, having the same roots.

At present, the claim is that Kukis were already in Manipur from the time of Nongda Lairen Pakhangba (33 AD) and not under the king's rule, but save Meetei and had the same status as the Meetei, as has been theorised by a 'retired officer' of India.

It is not wrong to assume that this is a design created by a coloniser.

At present, the momentum being built is that if all Kuki Zo people across the globe come to gether, the numbers would be far greater than the total population of Meeteis.

Thousands of Kuki-Zo are being brought from Myanmar and allowed to settle in Manipur.

These same people are trying to make the Meeteis a community lesser than them, while at the same time take over the land and make Manipur their own.

They have gone on to rename historical indigenous places to their own just as the Jews of Israel have done.

At this juncture, all communities are bound to break up and look out for themselves.

This song of this entire matter was first sung through the retired officers of India.

The current scenario is that the Kukis and Meeteis are now out for each other's blood.

Johan Vincent Galtung (1930-2024) categorised three types of violence - direct violence, structural violence and cultural violence.

In present context, direct violence is the Kukis and Meeteis indiscriminately attacking each other on sight.

Structural violence is manifested by economic and health disparities, and unequal access to resources and opportunities in the hills and valleys, as alleged.

Cultural violence, on the other hand, refers to wrongdoings committed in the name of religion, customs, traditions and symbolism.

An example of this is the erection of a cross, the symbol of Christianity, at Thangjing Ching, which is a sacred religious site of Meeteis.

While direct violence may not exist in all communities, structural violence and cultural violence is a sure existence.

The role of elected representatives is to formulate good policies to quell the two forms of violence and prevent them from becoming direct violence.

A bad government makes bad policies, which then escalates both structural violence and cultural violence into direct violence.

This is what has been done to Manipur by coloniser India.

Instead of reducing the structural violence and cultural violence in Manipuri society, India has escalated it into direct violence as part of its colonial policy.

(To be contd) .

Comment