On the eve of the 48th Foundation Day of the proscribed People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), which falls tomorrow, the Chairman of its Interim Council, Aheiba Angom, conveyed a message paying revolutionary tribute to the martyrs who had laid down their lives in the course of the “national liberation movement” aimed at restoring what the group described as Kangleipak’s erstwhile independence.
In his message, Aheiba Angom reportedly stated that PREPAK has been waging a “revolutionary struggle” to regain the freedom, equality, and development that it alleged were taken away from the people of Kangleipak by “colonialist India.” He extended what he termed “revolutionary greetings” to indigenous communities of the region, other revolutionary organisations of the WESEA region, and media personnel who continue to serve the people by keeping them informed.
According to the statement, the PREPAK Chairman highlighted several issues that, he said, merited public reflection. He asserted that Kangleipak had existed as an independent and sovereign nation for centuries, except for short periods under foreign influence—first under Ava’s invasion and later under British colonial rule. The message claimed that Manipur had regained its independence from the British on August 14, 1947, and subsequently adopted the Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA) of 1947, which enabled democratic elections in 1948 and the establishment of a constitutional monarchy.
The message further alleged that the merger of Manipur with India in 1949 was achieved through coercion, violating provisions of international and domestic laws, including the Indian Independence Act of 1947 and the Manipur State Constitution Act. It claimed that the annexation deprived the people of liberty and equality and placed the state under a “grant-in-aid” economy that limited its autonomy.
The statement recounted the subsequent political transitions—from Part ‘C’ State status to Union Territory and finally to full statehood in 1972—and described these as stages of continued subordination. The inclusion of Article 371-C in the Constitution was described as a legal mechanism that curtailed the powers of the Manipur Legislative Assembly and restricted political self-determination.
On contemporary issues, the PREPAK Chairman was reported to have questioned the government’s peace restoration approach, particularly the creation of buffer zones, which he alleged reflected an attempt to divide the population along ethnic lines. He drew parallels between the present administrative arrangement and the British-era system, wherein the valley and the hills were governed separately.
The message also touched upon concerns over unchecked immigration across the border, asserting that it had led to demographic imbalances and social tensions. Referring to the differing demands among communities—some advocating for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and border fencing, and others opposing them—the group viewed these developments as threats to the state’s peaceful coexistence and territorial integrity.
Discussing the broader geopolitical situation, the statement linked regional tensions to global developments such as China’s Belt and Road Initiative and the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC), suggesting that these international projects have intensified strategic competition in the region.
Continuing his message on the eve of the 48th Foundation Day, the Chairman of the proscribed People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), Aheiba Angom, alleged that the ongoing unrest in Kangleipak (Manipur) is linked to the broader geopolitical rivalry between India, China, and the United States.
According to the statement, the Chairman asserted that the proximity of key strategic locations—such as Chesu in Myanmar, which lies about 1,000 km from India’s Eastern Command headquarters in Kolkata and 672 km from the Eastern Naval Theatre Command in Port Blair—poses a serious concern for India, as these could be targeted within minutes during wartime. He claimed that this strategic vulnerability prompted India to pressure Myanmar into developing a port at Sittwe in Rakhine State, located around 120 km from Chesu, under the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project. The project, he alleged, was not merely an economic venture but a calculated move in what he described as “strategic warfare” aimed at countering China’s influence in the region.
He further claimed that to achieve this objective, India has been fostering ties with ethnic minority groups in Myanmar’s Chin and Rakhine States, while deliberately overlooking issues such as the influx of Chin refugees—referred to as Kuki or Zo in Kangleipak—since the 1960s, as well as their alleged involvement in poppy cultivation and cross-border narcotics trade. The statement alleged that India’s strategic silence stems from its desire to allow these groups operational freedom, so as not to hinder their activities against Chinese interests.
The PREPAK Chairman also alleged that India’s reluctance to curb the Kuki-Chin-Zo militants’ demand for a separate homeland is tied to its growing conflict with China, and questioned whether Meeteis would continue to face restrictions on movement along the national highways as a result. He claimed that the regional situation had grown more complex due to the involvement of the United States, which, according to him, has been attempting to expand its influence in the Bay of Bengal and western Myanmar as part of its efforts to counter China.
The statement alleged that the United States has been improving relations with Myanmar’s ethnic armed organisations and the National Unity Government (NUG), providing them with humanitarian, logistical, and material support to confront both the country’s military junta and Chinese forces. It also claimed that the US has shown interest in controlling Saint Martin’s Island of Bangladesh and has held meetings with Chin and Arakan rebel leaders, allegedly to bolster anti-China forces in the region.
According to PREPAK’s Chairman, both India and the United States are trying to exploit Myanmar’s natural resources, particularly minerals and oil, while maintaining close contact with the NUG and ethnic armed groups. The statement further claimed that in November 2024, India had hosted representatives of these groups in New Delhi, and that it was working with the Chief Minister of Mizoram to revive the Kaladan project in coordination with Chin and Arakan rebel groups.
Turning to recent developments in Manipur, the PREPAK Chairman alleged that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Kangleipak on September 13, 2025, failed to deliver any substantive measures to restore normalcy. He claimed that no clear roadmap was presented for reopening the national highways, rehabilitating internally displaced persons (IDPs), or resolving the long-standing Suspension of Operations (SoO) issue. The statement described the Prime Minister’s address as “crafty and insincere,” asserting that it failed to acknowledge the root causes of the crisis or offer genuine reconciliation between the hill and valley communities.
He alleged that the government’s focus on housing projects for IDPs, rather than facilitating their safe return, reflected an ongoing policy aimed at undermining the cultural and historical identity of Kangleipak. The message accused the Indian government of deepening divisions among communities and perpetuating a “colonial mindset” that had, over time, eroded the unity once shared among the people.
According to the statement, the crisis in Kangleipak is now compounded by rising communal tensions, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and the influx of immigrants from Myanmar. It further alleged that India’s divisive policies, weakening diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries, and the influence of drug money—estimated at 40 billion US dollars annually from Myanmar—have severely destabilised the region.
Cautioning against the dangers of ethnic nationalism, the PREPAK Chairman drew parallels between the current movements for “Greater” homelands and Adolf Hitler’s Lebensraum theory, warning that such expansionist ideologies would only bring destruction and division. He urged intellectuals and leaders in Kangleipak to reject “Pan movements” and instead focus on unity and coexistence.
The statement concluded with an appeal for solidarity among all indigenous communities of the hills and valley, affirming that the idea of Kangleipak encompasses both geography and shared history. The Party extended what it called a “revolutionary salute” to comrades in prisons and retired members who had contributed to its long struggle for what it described as the freedom of Kangleipak.