DIMAPUR, MAY 19 (MExN): The Kuki Liberation Army-Letkholun (KLA-L) has issued a clarification and rebuttal rejecting what it termed as “gross misinterpretations” of its May 13 security advisory and denied allegations that it promoted communal hatred.
In a statement issued by its Department of Information & Publicity, the organisation said a complaint submitted to the Director General of Police (DGP) seeking registration of an FIR under Sections 196 and 197 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) had “falsely” accused the office of “promoting communal hatred.”
The KLA-L stated that its advisory was “rooted entirely in public safety, accident prevention, and the preservation of a fragile peace.”
Addressing specific portions of the complaint, the organisation said the phrase “enemy figurehead” was “directed strictly at the partisan political leadership of the state government” and “does not refer to the Meitei community as a whole.”
It further maintained that “criticizing a political figure or a constitutional authority is a protected right under democratic dissent and does not constitute communal hate speech.”
On the advisory that certain individuals were “prohibited from entering Kuki areas,” the KLA-L stated that it “was not an act of ethnic discrimination, but a realistic, precautionary safety warning.”
“Given that thousands of individuals remain displaced and a volatile security environment persists, uncoordinated entries into sensitive areas pose an immediate threat of fresh violence,” it stated, adding that “the restriction was stated to prevent conflict, not to incite it.”
The organisation also clarified its reference to “absolute separation,” stating that it “merely acknowledged the de facto geographical reality on the ground that has existed for three years.”
“Recognizing a physical divide maintained by security forces is a statement of current fact, not an instigation to subvert national integration,” the statement said.
On the issue of “buffer zones,” the KLA-L claimed there existed a contradiction between the official political position and the operational security situation in Manipur.
Referring to statements made by the Governor of Manipur and Chief Minister Y Khemchand Singh, it said the government maintained that “no legally designated ‘buffer zones’ exist under the state’s constitutional or administrative jurisdiction.”
However, it alleged that Central Security Forces, including the Army, CRPF and BSF, “actively enforce physical buffer zones and layered checkpoints separating the hill and valley districts.”
“On critical arteries like National Highway-2 (NH-02) and the Bishnupur-Churachandpur road, security forces rigidly check identity cards, log travel details, and prevent civilians from crossing into opposite territories to safeguard human lives,” it stated.
The KLA-L further argued that “our advisory simply mirrored the operational reality enforced daily by India’s security apparatus,” and called it “highly contradictory to label a community’s safety warning as ‘criminal’ when central forces are actively enforcing the exact same physical restrictions to prevent bloodshed.”
The statement also contended that an FIR under Sections 196 and 197 of the BNS would be “legally unsustainable.”
Regarding Section 196 BNS, it stated that the provision “requires malicious intent (mens rea) to create conflict,” while asserting that its release “explicitly sought to maintain the status quo of peace.”
On Section 197 BNS, the organisation argued that “a safety advisory regarding sensitive, militarized internal zones does not threaten the sovereignty or territorial integrity of the Union of India.”
The KLA-L also “strongly reject[ed] the malicious and baseless labeling” of the organisation as an “outfit” or “terrorist.”
The KLA-L also asserted that “any attempt to conflate KLA-L with proscribed violent entities constitutes a deliberate misrepresentation of fact, intended to delegitimise and criminalise an organisation indigenous to this land and committed to the welfare of its people.”
The organisation further argued that “a separate administration for the Kuki people does not rest upon the domain of political discretion or negotiable concession,” but is “a compulsory and non-derogable requirement.”
.jpg)
