DIMAPUR, FEBRUARY 9 (MExN): The United Naga Council (UNC) has issued a statement responding to the Manipur State Cabinet’s reaction to Nagaland Chief Minister Neiphiu Rio’s statement about his Manipur counterpart I Ibobi. It had been previously reported that Rio had referred to Ibobi as the greatest enemy of the Nagas. The UNC in a press statement laid down certain “facts about Ibobi and his Government to set the record straight.”
The UNC statement said that Ibobi’s government had denied the right to proportional representation of the tribal people by rejecting the census figures of 2011. It highlighted the imposition of the “farcical Manipur (Hills Areas) Autonomous District Council Act 2008 and the Manipur (Village Area) in Hill Areas Act 1956.”
The UNC alleged “land alienation” of tribal people under the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act 1960. It also alleged a rise in violence against the Nagas in Manipur. It highlighted the suppression of Naga movements in the state and the imposition of the Meitei script upon the tribal people in educational institutions. The statement read that the Government of Manipur indulged in “Imphal-Centric governance” leaving the Naga and tribal occupied areas of the state underdeveloped.
It also alleged the deprivation of service quota and the violation of promotion rules in Government services in order to disadvantage the tribal people in the region. The council also stated that large amounts of violence have taken place under the present “communal Government” in Manipur.
The UNC referred to the “response of the Manipur Government to the peace rally against police brutality at Mao Gate on May 6 2010, where two students were shot dead and hundreds were injured from indiscriminate firings, properties looted and destroyed, mass scale atrocities committed and warlike situation created in Naga areas.”
It was also stated that Ibobi’s Government has “openly threatened bloodshed and civil war”. The UNC stated that it is for the people to judge as to whether Rio’s statement held true. The statement concluded by saying “It will be clear from the above as to who should be booked under the IPC.”
