The proscribed People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) has called upon the people of Kangleipak to refrain from observing Manipur Statehood Day on January 21, alleging that the state’s integration into the Indian Union was the result of forced annexation followed by continued political and cultural suppression.
In a statement issued by Laibaak Ngaakpa Luwang, Charge d’Affairs, Publicity and Propaganda of PREPAK, the outfit claimed that January 21, 1972—when Manipur attained statehood within the Indian Union—is portrayed as a moment of liberation despite what it described as Kangleipak’s continued status as an annexed territory. The group alleged that the annual observance of Statehood Day misrepresents historical facts and misleads the public.
Referring to historical events, PREPAK claimed that Kangleipak, though a British Protectorate for several years, did not voluntarily merge with India after August 14, 1947. According to the statement, on September 21, 1949, the then Maharaja of Kangleipak, Bodhachandra, was summoned to Shillong and compelled to sign the Merger Agreement under duress, after which the territory came under Indian administration. The outfit said Kangleipak was first designated a Part C State, later governed as a Union Territory under a Chief Commissioner, and eventually granted statehood on January 21, 1972.
PREPAK alleged that successive state governments since 1972 have used Statehood Day celebrations to create what it termed a false narrative, describing the observance as an insult to the history, dignity and identity of Kangleipak and its people. It appealed to the public to boycott the event.
The outfit further alleged that following the British withdrawal, India continued colonial-era practices by annexing smaller nations and suppressing their political aspirations. Describing Kangleipak as an Asiatic sovereign state, PREPAK claimed that its forced integration was followed by systematic efforts to erode its political identity and weaken traditional governance systems, clan structures and indigenous social institutions.
The statement also accused scholars aligned with the Indian state of distorting history to portray Kangleipak as an integral part of India since ancient times, thereby legitimising what it described as imperialist annexation. It alleged that Indianisation was imposed across religion, culture, language, arts, naming systems, dress, food habits, festivals and literature, leading to the marginalisation of indigenous belief systems and cultural practices.
PREPAK further claimed that political control was accompanied by economic exploitation, alleging that local resources were extracted while the population was pushed into poverty and dependency. It alleged that governance in Kangleipak remains directed from New Delhi, with key decisions taken by central authorities, leaving elected representatives and indigenous leadership without real autonomy.
The outfit also criticised the education system introduced after annexation, alleging that it alienated younger generations from their social environment, livelihoods and cultural values. It further accused India’s electoral system of reducing democracy to a five-year ritual that serves a select few while weakening social cohesion and dignity within Kanglei society.
Questioning post-annexation development projects, PREPAK alleged that such initiatives have failed to improve living conditions, with benefits siphoned off and new forms of exploitation emerging. It claimed that official narratives of progress do not reflect realities on the ground.
Describing the forthcoming 54th anniversary of Manipur’s statehood as an attempt to deceive the people, PREPAK reiterated its call for a boycott of Statehood Day and urged the public to remain conscious of what it termed historical injustice inflicted upon Kangleipak and its people.
