The proscribed People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK ) has rejected claims attributed to the Government of India that revolutionary groups in the Northeast would be eliminated by 2029, describing the assertion as unrealistic and based on what it termed a flawed understanding of the movement in the region.
In a statement issued by its Publicity and Propaganda in-charge Leibaak-Ngaakpa Luwang, PREPAK said equating the movement in Manipur and parts of Southeast Asia with Left-Wing Extremism is “misleading” and reflects inadequate analysis. The outfit maintained that while Maoist insurgency is treated as an internal issue within India, the movement in Kangleipak (Manipur) is rooted in what it described as a “national question” centred on sovereignty.
The group questioned the feasibility of eliminating insurgent movements within a fixed timeline, stating that such claims overlook ground realities and internal complexities. It further alleged that India itself faces multiple internal and external challenges, arguing that projecting a definitive end to armed movements by 2029 lacks substantiation.
PREPAK also criticised the Centre’s “Scheme for Surrender-cum-Rehabilitation of Militants in the North East,” introduced by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1998 and revised in 2018. It alleged that the policy is aimed at portraying revolutionary groups as impediments to peace and development while encouraging cadres to join the Indian mainstream through incentives. According to the outfit, the scheme obscures what it described as the political nature of the movement.
At the same time, official records indicate that the rehabilitation scheme has been used over the years to facilitate the surrender and reintegration of militants from various groups, including those not formally party to agreements with the government, with enhanced incentives introduced during its revision.
The statement further alleged that narratives presented by authorities lack factual clarity and are intended to influence public perception against ongoing movements in the region. It contended that such approaches are inconsistent with India’s image as a democratic country, particularly given its engagements in international platforms such as the United Nations and its aspirations for a permanent seat in the Security Council.
Reiterating its long-held position on historical developments, PREPAK described the 1949 Merger Agreement between Manipur and India as an “annexation.” It argued that the agreement did not conform to provisions of the Indian Independence Act, the Manipur Constitution Act, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The outfit claimed that elected representatives of the time, along with sections of the population, had opposed the agreement.
The statement also cited United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514, stating that it guarantees the right to self-determination for all peoples. It argued that the people of Manipur retain this right and that military measures cannot be justified against such aspirations, while also asserting that the territorial integrity of Manipur as it existed in 1947 cannot be altered.
PREPAK maintained that the ongoing movement is not driven by economic underdevelopment but by what it termed “forcible annexation.” It argued that if underdevelopment alone were the cause, similar movements would have emerged uniformly across other parts of India.
Drawing a distinction with Maoist-affected regions, the outfit claimed that the response of the Government of India differs in approach, particularly in terms of deployment of armed forces and the application of laws such as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. It alleged that such differences reflect a distinct treatment of the region.
The group further alleged that administrative divisions introduced after 1949 between hill and valley communities weakened unity, while claiming that political, economic, and social structures in the region have been adversely affected over time.
It also accused authorities of supporting smaller armed or ethnic groups to counter larger movements, while relying on military and paramilitary forces for counter-insurgency operations, describing this as a strategy to weaken resistance without direct political engagement.
Rejecting surrender or rehabilitation, PREPAK said accepting such measures in exchange for benefits is incompatible with its objectives. It urged those who have joined such schemes to reconsider their position.
The outfit reaffirmed that it would continue to oppose what it termed efforts to suppress the movement through force, adding that it would seek support from external actors that recognise movements for self-determination.