Freedom will not be given; instead, it should be snatched -PREPAK

The proscribed People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak PREPAK has asserted that “freedom will not be given, it should be snatched,” reiterating that its armed struggle is aimed at restoring what it describes as the lost sovereignty of Kangleipak. The outfit made this remark in a detailed statement issued by Leibaak Ngakpa Luwang, Charge-de-Affairs, Publicity & Propaganda.
PREPAK argued in the statement that revolutionary cadres fighting for “restoration of independence” should not be labelled terrorists, insisting that they are “patriots.” It accused India of branding freedom fighters as terrorists while allegedly “colonizing independent nations” in the region.
PREPAK maintained that the unified Indian concept emerged for the first time after British rule. The outfit claimed that before the Britishers consolidated the various kingdoms and territories “for administrative convenience,” India as a nation did not exist. It further argued that historical references to “partitioned India” in 1947 raise fundamental questions about the origins of the modern Indian state.
The statement cited speeches of former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in Parliament relating to political integration of princely states, claiming these reflected “racial and territorial greed.” PREPAK also invoked the example of Bhagat Singh, stating that though the British labelled him as a terrorist, today he is regarded as a martyr in India. The outfit reasoned that similar labels applied by India to present-day insurgents of Kangleipak were, therefore, unwarranted.
PREPAK reiterated that its struggle aims to “restore the independence of Kangleipak,” adding that such independence “will not be granted by India but must be reclaimed through a united revolutionary effort.”
On international issues, the outfit accused India of trying to project Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism while allegedly ignoring the Indian Army’s actions in Kashmir and the WESEA region, including Kangleipak. Referring to the UN Security Council designating Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, PREPAK said that India is trying to divert global attention from its own human rights violations. The group warned that if India’s alleged actions were put under the scanner globally, then India might be criticized as a “terrorist state.”
The statement, citing global human rights standards, referred to the call of the Vienna Declaration for international cooperation to combat terrorism. PREPAK accused India of trying to conceal its “acts of torture, killing, and atrocities” with propaganda, yet believed that the world community was aware that struggles of oppressed people could not be labeled as terrorism.
The outfit accused the Indian media of “racist and distorted reporting,” saying it wrongly portrays legitimate political struggles of the WESEA region as terrorism. It highlighted India’s position as a signatory to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol II (1977), Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Article 7 of the ICCPR, alleging that India continues to violate anti-torture provisions despite signing these agreements.
PREPAK referred to an Amnesty International report that recorded 415 deaths in police and security force custody in India in 1992, stating this demonstrated what it called systematic torture.
The outfit said that for the people of Kangleipak, ongoing sufferings, killings and suppression are linked with the political right to self determination. PREPAK claimed the right to self determination guaranteed under the UN system legitimizes their political struggle. It said India’s attempt to portray the Kanglei struggle as terrorism “has failed” in the eyes of the international community.
The statement reiterates the longstanding PREPAK stand that the 1949 Merger Agreement was signed “under duress” by Maharaja Bodhachandra after the Manipur Constitution Act, 1947 had already laid down a democratic framework. PREPAK said this “coerced agreement” formed the basis of what it describes as India’s annexation of Kangleipak.
Touching on ethnic relations, the outfit maintained that the hill and valley communities always coexisted peacefully and enjoyed strong cultural and social ties. It accused the divisions to have risen only after intervention of India in governance, administration, and security, which led to mistrust among the communities that coexisted together and became embroiled in unending conflict.
PREPAK further accused India of resorting to utilizing certain Kuki-Zo groups in waging what it called a “proxy war” in Kangleipak. It accused such groups, whom it said migrated in the recent decades, were provided logistic support with the purpose of confronting the indigenous communities. The outfit claims that this proxy conflict first escalated in 1992 with alleged assistance by the Assam Rifles, and similar patterns allegedly re-emerged in 2005 and 2008.
The statement further claimed that India has armed and supported Kuki-Zo militant groups to interfere with the activities of revolutionary organizations of the WESEA region. The outfit contended that the involvement of external support disproves the narratives that the region’s conflict is purely internal.
PREPAK accused the Centre of projecting the violence as an ethnic conflict to hide what it calls India’s strategic operations under the framework of internal security. It described the alleged strategy as “Yong Tal Yenni,” which it interpreted as empowering one community to suppress another.
The organisation further objected to the invocation of Article 355 of the Indian Constitution, which makes it binding on the Centre to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbances. PREPAK asserted that instead of safeguarding the people, Article 355 was invoked to send in forces and help Kuki-Zo militant groups in the killing of civilians. The group further accused security personnel of arresting innocent villagers and letting off those who perpetrated violence.
It concluded saying, “The policies adopted by India have brought about displacement, suffering, and long-term social division in Kangleipak.” The statement then reiterated the united struggle, saying that the “restoration of independence” depends on collective resistance.