Chairman of Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL), N. Oken, has extended greetings to the people of Kangleipak and WESEA on the occasion of the organisation’s 32nd Raising Day to be observed on April 25.
In a statement issued today, the Chairman conveyed wishes for peace, progress and prosperity, expressing hope for collective well-being and harmony in the coming year. The organisation also paid tribute to individuals and groups associated with its movement, acknowledging their contributions and sacrifices. It honoured those who lost their lives in the course of the struggle and expressed solidarity with their families and associates.
The statement called upon the people to remain resilient amid recent challenges and urged reflection on the prevailing political situation in the region. It noted that the relationship between Kangleipak, WESEA and India has long been debated, adding that recent developments have once again brought these issues to the forefront.
The organisation presented its perspective on the concept of “frontier,” stating that historically, regions perceived as culturally or ethnically distinct were treated as peripheral zones by dominant powers. It cited academic discussions on frontier policy, particularly in the context of empire-building, where strategies such as assimilation, containment and demographic restructuring were adopted.
According to the statement, such approaches were often shaped by perceptions that categorised populations into “core” and “peripheral” groups. It alleged that similar frameworks continue to influence policy in certain regions, including WESEA, leading to what it described as the continued “frontierisation” of these areas.
Referring to the present situation in Manipur, the statement expressed concern over what it termed selective responses to incidents of violence and alleged that certain narratives portray communities in the region in a negative light. It also raised apprehensions about policies that, it claimed, may contribute to social divisions and demographic changes.
The statement further alleged that governance in the region reflects a broader framework of control, drawing parallels with historical colonial practices. It cited examples from different parts of the world where administrative strategies involved favouring specific groups, leading to long-term social and political consequences.
On economic issues, the organisation maintained that Manipur’s transition after 1949 did not witness expected industrial or infrastructural development. It stated that dependence on government employment increased over time, while private sector growth and entrepreneurship remained limited due to structural constraints.
The statement also raised concerns regarding governance, alleging issues of central influence, administrative control and economic dependency. It argued that such patterns have contributed to challenges in institutional autonomy and local participation.
Highlighting sociological perspectives, the statement referred to historical observations that once described Manipuris as industrious, while questioning changes in socio-economic behaviour over time. It attributed such shifts to broader political and economic conditions rather than inherent characteristics.
The organisation further discussed the concept of resistance, distinguishing between active and passive forms. While noting that active resistance involves direct confrontation, it described passive resistance as non-violent actions such as protests, strikes and collective civic engagement. It stressed the importance of public participation and ethical conduct in addressing challenges.
Emphasising non-violent approaches, the statement highlighted the relevance of moral conviction and community strength in shaping collective responses. It called for greater awareness, critical thinking and adherence to ethical values among the people.
The statement urged society to address both external and internal challenges through coordinated efforts, focusing on social cohesion, accountability and long-term development.