In a statement issued on the occasion of the 15th Progressive Day of the proscribed group People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (Progressive), or PREPAK (Progressive), the outfit’s chairman Longjam Paliba M extended his tribute to those who had lost their lives defending what he described as the motherland. He also expressed solidarity with families affected by the ongoing conflict and instability in the region.
The chairman alleged that India had never genuinely shared political and economic powers with Manipur, despite presenting the state as a cultural and sports powerhouse. He claimed this strategy was part of a broader attempt to absorb and integrate Manipuris into the Indian framework by co-opting educated youths and artists, thereby diluting indigenous identity through a process of “Indianization”.
According to the chairman, the constitutional framework in India had been manipulated to the disadvantage of the people of Manipur. He claimed that refugee communities had been granted Scheduled Tribe status along with unique protective rights that allowed them to settle freely in hilly regions of the state. These settlements, he argued, were used strategically to marginalize the indigenous population and carry out a campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Drawing an analogy with European immigrants’ arrival in America, he alleged that the Chin-Kuki communities—referred to as late-arriving refugees—lacked respect for sacred Meitei heritage sites like the Thangjing and Koubru hills. He accused these groups of attempting to reframe the region as a biblical promised land, thereby “kidnapping” the historical identity of the Meitei people.
The statement also questioned how the armed groups, referred to as “refugees,” were able to demarcate vast territories—claimed to constitute nearly 90 percent of the land—and demand a separate administration using sophisticated weaponry. The PREPAK (Progressive) chairman drew comparisons with the concept of “No-Go Zones” and “Quangos” in Western countries, arguing that the Indian state had enabled similar autonomous and exclusionary zones in Manipur. He noted that while Manipur itself is a hill state, the hill areas were reserved for Scheduled Tribes, effectively marginalizing the majority Meitei community.
He accused the Indian state of arming Zo-Kuki groups to suppress insurgent movements in the region, even though, according to him, these communities were already being influenced by Western powers. He further stated that lasting peace in the region would remain elusive unless these perceived divisive constitutional provisions were removed. He urged public leaders to recognize and confront what he described as existential threats facing the state.
The statement went on to reflect on what the group called the historical “dual ideas” of India and Bharat. The chairman claimed that two intellectual factions had emerged among Manipuris following the state’s integration into India—one aligned with India’s constitutional values like democracy and justice, and another deeply connected with Bharat’s spiritual and cultural traditions. However, both, he claimed, were misled into believing that aligning with India would turn Manipur into a golden land.
He lamented the repeated imposition of President’s Rule in the state, and the continued denial of majority MLAs from forming a government. He also pointed out restricted movement of Meiteis in various parts of the state, citing locations like Sekmai, Palel, Sugunu, Yaingangpokpi, and Kumbi. In light of these realities, he questioned whether the idea of a “Swadhin Manipur,” once envisioned by the forefathers, still held any significance—especially when Meiteis themselves were being denied the right to use the name of their state.
The group expressed concern that the age-old political status and distinct identity of Manipur had been erased under the idea of India-Bharat, which the chairman likened to a black hole consuming the cultural and political uniqueness of Manipur. He stated that this idea had disrupted the traditional unity, governance, and community-based ownership that historically defined Manipuri society.
Commenting on calls for unity among Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), the chairman cautioned that such appeals, though strong in tone, often fell short of genuine action. He accused some leaders of spreading confusion among the public and distracting attention from critical issues, thus giving space for what he termed “useful idiots” who inadvertently supported divisive agendas.
Acknowledging the deteriorating societal conditions marked by drug abuse, indiscipline, and economic dependence, the group reiterated its armed struggle as a movement to protect territorial integrity. The chairman stated that PREPAK (Progressive) had adopted a framework that balanced short-term practical programs with long-term revolutionary objectives. He added that the organization was engaging in economic activities aimed at building a sustainable financial base, including promoting local products.
The outfit appealed for indirect support from various segments of society, including the upper-middle class, farmers, workers, and even members of the police. Concluding the statement, the chairman warned that loyalty to Indian political authority would only lead Manipur toward decline and called upon people to remain steadfast in safeguarding what he termed as the true spirit of the land.
The statement reflects the outfit’s continued opposition to India’s constitutional framework as applied in Manipur and highlights deep-seated grievances regarding territorial integrity, identity, and governance.