IT News
Imphal, March 26:
The military wing of the proscribed People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) extended greetings to the people of Western South East Asia (WeSEA) on the occasion of its 45th Red Army Uprising Day, commemorating the armed struggle led by the Red Army which falls on March 26. Marking the event, PREPAK’s Interim Council Chairman, Aheiba Angom, issued a statement addressing the people of Kangleipak and revolutionary groups in WeSEA, highlighting the region’s ongoing struggle and its geopolitical significance.
The statement alleged that colonial policies imposed by the Indian government had subjugated Kangleipak rather than fostering its progress. It asserted that India’s annexation of Kangleipak (Manipur) in 1949 was intended for control rather than development. Recent events were said to have exposed the full extent of suppression, urging a critical reassessment of the situation.
Regarding the crisis in Manipur that began on May 3, 2023, the statement described it as a proxy war instigated by India. It claimed that the Indian government had used armed forces to create internal strife, suppress revolutionary movements, and weaken communal unity. The conflict was allegedly misrepresented as an ethnic issue between the Meetei and Kuki communities, while it was suggested to be a deeper political struggle. The statement accused India of prolonging the unrest by arming certain groups and fostering divisions among local youth.
The Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) was cited as a tool of oppression, with India allegedly deploying state-backed forces and foreign mercenaries under the Suspension of Operations (SoO) agreement. The statement claimed these forces had destabilized Manipur for over a decade, affecting historically coexisting communities. It further alleged that externally backed groups were operating alongside Indian security forces, such as Assam Rifles, as part of a broader strategy to exert control over the region.
It also referenced Indian Home Minister Amit Shah’s past statements acknowledging illegal immigration as a factor in the crisis, but later portraying it as an ethnic conflict. The shift in narrative was described as an attempt to obscure India’s alleged role in orchestrating unrest. Additionally, it was claimed that India was using armed groups from Myanmar as proxies, supporting certain factions while disregarding the concerns of local communities.
The statement criticized India’s environmental and economic policies in the region, alleging deforestation linked to poppy cultivation and cultural degradation as part of a strategy to undermine local heritage. It argued that India would treat Kangleipak as expendable in the event of escalating conflict in Myanmar, prioritizing broader geopolitical interests over local well-being.
Drawing historical parallels, the statement recalled former Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s remarks during the 1962 Indo-China war, lamenting the region’s vulnerability. It suggested that current Indian policymakers viewed Kangleipak similarly, prioritizing strategic interests over local aspirations. The statement cited analyses from Indian think tanks indicating that instability along the India-Myanmar border could threaten India’s connectivity to the Northeast, particularly through the Siliguri Corridor.
Concluding, the statement called on the people of Kangleipak to recognize their unique history and take steps to protect their land. It stressed the importance of armed resistance and community defense, asserting that reliance on external forces for protection was misguided. The role of PREPAK and its Red Army was described as central to this struggle, framed as an ongoing mission to reclaim sovereignty.
The statement reaffirmed the Red Army’s commitment despite challenges, presenting the movement as a beacon for future generations. It extended solidarity to revolutionaries who had suffered in the struggle, including those imprisoned or fallen in battle. The event concluded with a symbolic call for unity, urging the people of Kangleipak to stand firm in their pursuit of self-determination and resist external influence.