Volume 6, No. 2, February 2005

On November 4, 2000, a Manipuri student named Irom Sharmila started an epic "fast unto death’’ demanding the withdrawal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) 1958 from Manipur. On 11 July 2004, 17th Assam Rifles jawans of the Indian army entered the residence of Thangjam Manorama at night, raped her in her mother’s room, took her away at gun point, brutally tortured and then killed her. Bullets pierced her private parts, breasts and the lip—one of the most sadistic and ghastly murders committed by the Indian army and the paramilitary troops in recent times. On 15th July, a group of brave Manipuri women staged one of the most unusual forms of protest in front of the Assam Rifle headquarters at Kangla fort in Imphal. They appeared naked, holding banners such as "Indian Army Rape Us’’ thereby shaming the Indian state and its most hated instrument of repression. On 15th August—the day celebrated with much fanfare by the Indian ruling classes as the ‘day of independence’—Pebam Chittaranjan, the advisor of the Bishenpur unit of the Manipur Students’ Federation, immolated himself leaving behind a note which states : "It is better to self-immolate than die at the hands of security forces under this Act. With this conviction I am marching ahead of the people as a human torch’’. The cold-blooded brutal murder of Thangjam Manorama on the plea of her being a PLA activist showed the extent of state brutality. And the epic fast, nude protests by Manipuri mothers and the self-immolation by Chittaranjan clearly showed the depth of the anger and hatred generated within the minds of the people towards the Indian State.

Since the killing of Thangjam Manorama, Manipur—one of the seven sister-states in the north-east forcibly conquered by the British and the Indian governments—is aflame. For several months, Manipur has been the scene of a very powerful popular upsurge. In depth, breadth, intensity and popular nature of this awakening, it has, in recent years, no parallel anywhere else in our country. This movement appears to be spearheaded by an amalgam of 32 social and democratic organizations under the banner of "Apunba Lup", which demanded the withdrawal of the draconian AFSPA—1958 in operation in Manipur from 1980. Allied to this is a long-standing demand that the Assam Rifles should be totally withdrawn from Kangla fort, a site and a monument with profound spiritual and historical significance for the people of the Imphal Valley. They organized ceaseless demonstrations, processions, set up road blockades, all-Manipur strikes, handing over of and making a bonfire of textbooks by school students and other forms of protest. Apparently, this mass movement is directed against the Black Act; in reality, however, it is the people’s bold response to the policy of state terrorism perpetrated by the army, para-military and police forces—the three main instruments of class and national oppression.

What are the provisions of the AFSPA? This act was originally known as Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act of 1958. It was preceded by the Assam Disturbed Areas Act, 1955, passed by the Assam Assembly to counter the militant Naga movement aimed at attaining national self-determination. This act was followed after 3 years by the enactment of AF(A & M) SPA, 1958, which had much in common with the Assam Disturbed Areas Act of 1955. All these legislations, no matter how these were named, were meant to subjugate and maim the people and to crush any form of protest movement—armed or unarmed. The state machinery, thus protected by law, indulged in a policy of inflicting torture and humiliation on the people, molestation along with rape of women and the application of brute force, arrest without warrants, loot, plunder and destruction of people’s property and kill them at will. The Indian State has for long been pursuing such a policy towards the Nagas, Mizos, Manipuris, Assamese, Kashmiria and others, thereby making a mockery of the so-called ‘democratic’ system in this land of ‘the largest democracy’ in the world.

As the POTA of the central government, the MOCCA of the Maharastra government and the proposed POCO by the West Bengal government were the reproductions of the Rowlatt Act of 1919 enacted by the British imperialists to maim the Indian people, so the AFSPA of 1958 enacted by the Nehru-led central government was a virtual copy from the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance of 1942, enacted by the British to crush people’s resistance during the ‘Quit India’ movement. Imperialism was the mentor of the Indian ‘national’ leaders during the colonial rule; it continued to remain so even after the end of direct imperialist rule.

Para 4 of the AFSPA reads as follows : Special Powers of the Armed Forces : Any commissioned officer, warrant officer, non-commissioned officer or any other person of equivalent rank in the armed forces may, in the disturbed area—(a) if he is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for the maintenance of public order, after giving such due warning as he may consider necessary, fire upon or otherwise use force, even to the causing of death, against any person who is acting in contravention of any law and order...in force in the disturbed area prohibiting the assembly of five or more persons or the carrying of weapons or of things capable of being used as weapons or of fire-arms, ammunition or explosive substances; (b) if he is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do destroy any arms dump, prepared or fortified position or shelter from which armed attacks are made or likely to be made or are attempted to be made, or any structure used as a training camp for armed volunteers or utilized as a hide—out by armed gangs or absconder waiting for any offence; (c) arrest, without warrant, any person who has committed a cognizable offence or against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed or is about to commit a cognisable offence and may use such force as may be necessary to effect the arrest; (d) enter and search without warrant any premises to make any such arrest as aforesaid or to recover any person believed to be wrongfully restrained or confined or any property reasonably suspected to be stolen property or any arms, ammunition or explosive substances believed to be unlawfully kept in such premises and may for that purpose use such force as may be necessary.

Para 6 : Protection to Persons acting under Act : No persecution, suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act.

Empowered with such legal protection, the state machinery stationed in Manipur has been perpetrating acts of brutality against the people one after the other by trampling underfoot all democratic norms. This Black Act itself betrays the fact that the Indian State has in fact been waging an undeclared war against the minority nationalities of India.

In fact, this fascist policy pursued by the Indian ruling classes is a continuation of the policy pursued by their colonial masters. The British rulers in their aggressive quest for more and more territories played off one tribe against another and conquered the whole of the north-east. Like the heroic Naga people, the people of Manipur also fought against the British colonialists’ aggressive designs on their land. In 1891, the fiercely independent Senapati Tikendrajit Singh was tried along with others by the British on the charge of waging war against the empress of India. The accusers made a mockery of the trial and the death sentence was passed on Tikendrajit and Thangal General. There was a custom in the Manipuri society that anyone sentenced to death was occasionally reprieved if a large number of women appeared to intercede for him. It showed that women were held in high esteem in Manipuri society. On 13th August 1891—the day the order was announced—gallows were erected on the polo ground and thousands of women dressed in white assembled there hoping that the age-old custom would still prevail. However, the hope was misplaced. When they were hanged in broad daylight, thousands of hearts cried and wailed. The British occupation of Manipur and the execution of Tikendrajit and Thangal Major created a great sensation in Bengal. The stand taken by Tikendrajit and his martyrdom continued to be a source of inspiration to the revolutionaries of Bengal for a long time. The establishment of colonial authority in Manipur since then signaled the beginning of the long struggle of the Manipuri people for dignity and independence.

In 1904, thousands of women demonstrated in Imphal to protest and disobey the orders of the British superintendent of Manipur that people should supply bamboo, cane etc. to reconstruct the house of the asst. superintendent which was burnt at night. This even came to be known as First Nupilal or the ‘war of women’. The Second Nupilal occurred during the Second World War. Taking advantage of the war situation the rice traders hoarded huge quantities of rice in Imphal and sold them at a very high price in areas outside Manipur, leading to tremendous scarcity of food inside the Manipur state. This time women again took the lead in organizing a mass protest movement. They came out on the streets of Imphal, gheraoed the members of the raj durbar and despite being struck with bayonets by Assam Rifles jawans, boldly stuck to their demand and raised the slogan—‘we want rice, army get out’. This historic mass movement was successful and the government was ultimately forced to issue a notice against the smuggling of rice out to other states. Meanwhile, other developments had been taking place during the 1930s. Hizam Irabat started to organise the Manipuri peasants along class lines against feudal oppression perpetrated by the nobles and the landlords. The formation of the Nikhil Manipuri Mahasabha (NMM) sowed the seeds of political struggle in Manipur. Imprisoned and lodged in the Sylhet jail in present day Bangladesh for political reasons during 1940-43, Irabat came into contact with communist prisoners languishing there and himself became a communist. Later after being released from jail, he made a secret plan to organise an armed uprising in Manipur while the Indian National Army led by Subhas Chandra Bose was passing by. In 1946, Irabat united different social and mass organisations under one political umbrella, known as the Praja Sangha. The anti-feudal slogan, ‘Land to the tiller’ spread throughout the length and breadth of the countryside. The Sangha declared that an independent Manipur be formed which would strive to attain socialism.

Meanwhile in March 1947, the maharaja and the ruling council of Manipur drafted a constitution for independent Manipur. Turning a deaf ear to the hopes and aspirations of the Manipuri people, Vallabhbhai Patel, the then home minister of India, compelled king Bodhachandra Singh to sign a document for the merger of Manipur with the Indian state. The maharaja sought to get some time to discuss the matter with his council, but was disallowed by Patel. The merger agreement was signed on 21st September, 1949 and it became effective on and from 15th October that year. A freedom-loving people were thereby forced to sign under coercion a document which crushed the aspirations of a small minority nationality by the despotic Indian state. The subjugation of the Manipuris by the British imperialists was replaced by their subjugation by the ‘largest democracy in the world’.

This autocratic policy of the newly-formed Indian State was the manifestation of a particular attitude. The essence of that attitude is that in the modern-day world, small nationalities or nation-states cannot have an existence as an independent political unit. The Indian big bourgeoisie, which prospered primarily because of its role as intermediaries to imperialist capital, wanted an India with a strong centre by their control over different national regions, by curbing the forces of genuine nationalism and suppressing various nations and nationalities of India. Before transferring power, the British imperialists also wanted to keep the unity of India intact. They seriously wanted to have a ‘United India’ to serve their global strategy—political, economic and military. Moreover, the Indian big bourgeoisie aspired to become a zonal power in the Indian Ocean region as junior partners of the Anglo-American powers. The closing period of the second world war enabled them to see rosy visions of its future. The Indian big bourgeoisie minted gold out of the sweat and tears of the people of India during the war. The defeat of Japan in Asia, the decline in the power and prestige of the old imperialist powers like France and the Netherlands etc. whetted the appetite of the big bourgeoisie. They dreamt of domination not only of South Asia but the entire Indian Ocean region.

It was Jawaharlal Nehru who gave voice to their aspirations. Nehru was the man who was totally opposed to the right of nations to self-determination. While in jail, he declared; "...Whether India is properly to be described as a nation, or two, or more really does not matter, for the modern idea of nationality has been almost divorced from statehood. The nation state is too small a unit today and small states can have no independent existence’’ (J. Nehru, The Discovery of India, 1956, p.545.). He held: "...the small national state is doomed. It may survive as a cultural, autonomous area but not as an independent political unit" (Ibid, p. 550). In fact, Nehru’s ambitions knew no limit. He asserted that it was India’s ‘manifest destiny’ to become the centre of "a super-national state" stretching from the Middle East to South-East Asia and exercise "an important influence" in the Pacific region. He affirmed; "India is likely to dominate politically and economically the Indian Ocean region". In August 1945, he stated: "I stand for a south Asia federation of India, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan and Burma...In the world of today there are two big powers. Russia and America. In the world of tomorrow, there will be two more, India and China—there will be no fifth" (Nehru, CW, vol.XIV, pp. 440, 441-2). Like Nehru, Patel too was afflicted with this ‘great power’ syndrome. He said : "Let India be strong and be able to assume the leadership of Asia, which is its right" (P.D. Saggi, Life and Works of Vallabhbhai Patel, n.d., p.89). Gandhi also desired that Hindusthani should "become the language of the whole of Asia" (CW Gandhi, vol. LXXXVII, p.216). Nehru, Patel, Gandhi and others were the political representatives of the Indian big bourgeoisie and they reflected the aspirations of that class in no uncertain terms.

The forcible merging of Manipur with the Indian State ushered in a new form of people’s struggle—the struggle for self-determination with the aim of making Manipur truly independent. This struggle—both armed and unarmed—entailed much bloodshed and sufferings by the people. The first reaction of the people against the merger took place on 21st September, 1949 when thousands took to the streets, encountered the police force sent to quell them and killed two policemen. All the democratic and social organisations were henceforth banned. Irabat went underground, went to Burma and in association with Burmese Communist Party, formed the People’s Comrade Party. Since both the people had much in common to come under a joint platform, a broad united front—Liberation Government of Burma—was set up to fight against their common enemy, i.e., the despotic Indian State. On 24 November, 1964 the United National Liberation Front (UNLF) was set up. This was followed in 1971 by the formation of the Revolutionary People’s Front and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). These revolutionary forces got military and political training in the People’s Republic of China and sought to apply Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-Tung thought to the concrete conditions of Manipur. The Manipuri Meitis were organized into armed squads and raised the standard of armed rebellion against the Indian State. The reactionary Indian army was despatched and it committed barbarous crimes against the people. ‘Where there is oppression, there is resistance’—the universal truth inherent in this statement of Mao was reflected in the resistance movements of the people. Throughout 1980, the people started dharnas, protest processions, demonstrations in Imphal and other areas demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Armed Forces (Assam & Manipur) Special Powers Act. Various youth organisations, All Manipur Students’ Union (AMSU) and the Manipur Nupi Kanglup—Manipuri women’s organization—led deputations to the chief minister. In the processions, thousands of men and women held banners up demanding "No Army-No Operation! Do not harass innocent people! Save Women’s prestige!" In retaliation, the central government declared the whole of Manipur a ‘disturbed area’. In order to frighten the people and break their resistance, the Indian army entered the villages, burnt down one village after another, molested and raped women, inflicted all sorts of repression, humiliation and brutality. Their aim is to isolate the guerrilla army in this way. Armed encounters had been taking place between two opposing forces with casualties on both sides. In 1990, the Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF), People’s Revolutionary Party of Kanglaipak (PREPAK) and Kanglaipak Communist Party (KCP) met and formed a joint front to carry forward the struggle. As the national interests of Manipur were interwined with interests of Nagas, Mizos, Assamese and other minority nationalities whose national sentiments were likewise curbed by the ‘super-national’ Indian State, all of them sought to come to an understanding to unite broadly in order to fight against their common enemy.

The People’s Revolutionary Party of Kanglaipak (PREPAK) was formed in Oct.1977 with the declared aim of the establishment of an independent state of Manipur free from Indian control. It support base consists of four valley districts — Imphal West, Imphal East, Thoubai and Bishenpur. In the early 1990s, PREPAK, along with the other Meitei and militant organisations launched a social reform campaign to eradicate social crimes such as rape, drug-peddling and use, etc. In 2003, there was formed the MPLF which was a conglomeration of three militant groups — the UNLF, RPF & PREPAK which pledged to fight against the threat to the integrity of Manipur. Kanglaipak is the ancient name of Manipur.

In 1980 a small group split from PREPAK to form the KCP (Kanglaipak Communist Party). On April 15 it observed its 24th raising day celebrations all over the state with functions. The main highlights of the day were the deliberations on how to win back the lost sovereignty of the land as well as presenting gifts to elderly people. On that occasion, the leadership issued guidelines to the Red Army to begin striking at the Indian security forces as well as the agents of the Indian government. They also warned people against persons who are propagating the divide and rule policy of the Indian state. They declared: Our forefathers never sold away their freedom and gave all they had to preserve the sovereignty of the people and the land. If the forefathers had compromised with the freedom of the land and the people then there would be no people called Meiteis today. The only way before the people is to fight for their right to self-determination and then only can the people live as a free nation, the statement added. (Sangai Express, 16.4.04)

In November 1991, the UNLF (United National Liberation Front) on its 27th birthday resolved to set up an independent Manipur through the people’s democratic revolution and called upon the people to start political and armed struggle with that end in view. This was followed by the formation of the MPA (Manipur People’s Army). It also urged revolutionary organisations fighting in the other states of the north-east to forge a unity among them. As Manipur was at no time a part of India, so the question of its cessation from India does not arise at all. Its declared goal was to free Manipur from the clutches of Indian occupation. Besides Meitis, all other tribes and nationalities could be its members.

In recent months, when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went to Imphal to apply a healing balm on the minds of the Manipuri people, the Revolutionary People’s Front called for the boycott of Singh’s visit calling him "a symbol of brute force". It said: "In the 55 years of rule by the Indian government, Manipur has received atrocities and terrorist acts from the security forces. The number of deaths and incidents of outraging the modesty of women have also increased and even democratic protest against such acts and black laws have been put down with brute force as in case of Thangjam Manorama". (The Statesman, 20.11.2004). The UNLF says in a statement that even if the AFSPA is repealed, another black act with certain cosmetic touches will take its place. "We have taken up arms as the last resort to protect our nation and regain our independence". "Right of self-determination is our birth right! Withdraw AFSPA immediately!’’—slogans such as these reverberated throughout the length and breadth of Manipur. Giving a call for a united struggle, the UNLF pledges to set up a "national revolutionary government’’ to help Manipur gain independence from India (The Statesman, 28.11.2004).

First, the struggle waged by the people of Manipur has taken the shape of a very powerful mass movement. Theirs is a just struggle. Although this struggle appears to be directed solely against the AFSPA, it is, in reality, the people’s resistance to State repression and deprivation suffered by the people. By declaring Manipur a ‘disturbed area’ and imposing a military law on it, the Indian State has already been conducting an undeclared war against the people of that land. The Act was declared to be totally detrimental to the United Nation Human Rights Charter by the UN in 1991. That is why the Manipuris have no option other than to intensify the mass movement and armed struggle.

Second, this struggle will not at all be an easy affair. It would be protracted. The government would want to buy time and try to shift people’s attention in other directions, like calling the leaders to come over to the capital for talks, setting up committees to deliberate over it, sanction economic packages, etc., thereby trying to blunt the edge of the struggle. The struggle is a difficult one. The State which wants to become a big power in Asia and does not recognize the existence of independent political units of small nations, will always regard such demands as dangerous disobedience. The Indian State had to be forced to accept such demands.

Third, it is virtually impossible for the Manipuri people to win this battle all alone. All other people, particularly those of the other six states of the north-east, should be united against this black act. So this struggle should be made to spread to other states also.

Fourth, the spokesperson of the Apunba Lup said: "We do not have a long list of demands. We are just for the withdraw of the Act...’’ (Forntline, September 10, 2004, pp. 12, 16). No doubt, this is a just and democratic demand. But do the people of Manipur really feel that to have this act repealed would be enough for them? The Indian State would never repeal this act without at the same time introducing another act of a repressive nature. This State is a despotic State. And no despotic State can exist without subjugating the people. This step could be the first step. Would not the Manipuri people extend their struggle further, fight for the right of self-determination with arms in hand and by forging unity with the nationality and revolutionary struggles going on in other parts of the country and transform Manipur into an independent country? The root of the problem lies in this man-eating system itself. Unless this system—sustained and backed by the comprador big bourgeoisie, feudal lords and their imperialist masters—is uprooted through revolutionary means, there cannot be any salvation either for the small nationalities or for the people of India as a whole.

1. Jyotirmoy Roy, History of Manipur, 1958.

8. Manthan, September-October 2004.

<Top>