Imphal, August 07: The Manipur University Students' Union and Manipur Forward Youth Front have, in separate press releases strongly charged the Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh for attempting to create divisions among the people on the ongoing agitation and unreasonable delay in addressing the burning problem engulfing the State.

Deploring inordinate delay of the SPF Government to take a definite decision on demands raised by the people MUSU cautioned that whole of Manipur could be engulfed in a serious imbroglio as tolerance level of the masses have certain limit.

Whether the present SPF Government exists or President�s Rule is imposed in the State the aggrieved people are unlikely to cow down to pressure tactics applied by the Government as they have had faced enough atrocities at the hands of the security force personnel, said a press release of the student organization.

It further cautioned that attempts should not be made to paint the ongoing agitation as uprising by a particular community as past records have explicitly proved that common citizens are at the mercy of the security personnel.

The current movement is for a better Manipur society and also covers the interests of the Ministers and their families who would certainly be a part of the society no matter how strongly the legislators try to defy and subdue the movement through use of force and delaying tactics, MUSU observed.

In case the SPF Ministers fail to act positively at the current juncture time will come when the infuriated people single out and target them to express their resentment, further added the statement.

MUSU expressing confidence in the new Governor taking up proper and positive measures to address the deeply rooted agony of the people of Manipur also predicted that more concerted and destructive agitation could not be ruled out in the future as inferno engulfing the people might assume devastating proportion.

Taking serious note of Chief Minister O Ibobi Singh reportedly describing the agitators as anti- social and anti-national elements the Manipur Forward Youth Front condemned the Chief Minister for his irresponsible comments.

The current movement of the people demanding withdrawal of AFSpA from Manipur in the backdrop of Th Manorama Devi�s killing is reasonable and should be immediately addressed as both the State and central Governments are responsible for imposition of the repressive Act with several number of innocent people having had to face the wrath of the security force personnel under the immunity granted by AFSPA the tolerance level of the general people have been stretched to the maximum limit and faced with no other alternative agitations had to be staged to express their grievances, maintained MAFYF.

Under such depressing circumstances people merely expressed its genuine desire for peace and a secured life and terming the movement as anti national vividly reflects the immature approach of Okram Ibobi to the sentiment of the people whose interest should be the most important priority of the Government, contended the Front in a press statement.

As the Act has been imposed by the State and Central Government the citizens have to obviously express resentment upon the authorities, said the statement.

It further asserted that lack of knowledge of the people�s deep rooted agony due to prolonged trampling of human rights by the Chief Minister and instead resorting to brute police force to foil democratic form of agitations is enough proof to label O Ibobi and his Ministerial colleagues as anti-socials.

If the SPF Government has any future aspiration to serve the people of Manipur time has come to lead with example rather than rush and seek Central leaders� blessing to scuffle the outcry of the abused people of Manipur, MAFYF continued.

Referring to over 500 people suffering injuries during the nearly month-long agitation, MAFYF stated that there is no reason why the security personnel operating in Manipur under its high command should also be described as anti-social elements as they have deviated from its duty to protect public life and property.

Comment