Territorial Integrity of Manipur

Dr Irengbam Mohendra Singh *

As a regular contributor of The Sangai Express I read a lot of debate on the net why the Meiteis should not claim integrity of Manipur as a 'composite of hills and plain'. Unfortunately, much of it is of very low quality. The aim of this document is to explain the basics of local reasoning, and hopefully improve the overall quality of debate.

Under international law 'territorial integrity' is the principle that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote changes in other nation-states. However, in recent years there has been tension between this principle and the concept of 'humanitarian intervention' under Article 73.b of the United Nations Charter "to develop self-government to take account of the political aspirations of the peoples." Territorial integrity and humanitarian intervention collided head-on in the Kosovo War in 1998-99 between ethnic Albanians and Serbs causing the death of 150-250,000 people.

The history of the Concept of Territory and its evolution is a vast subject with varying degrees of agreement and disagreement and newer concepts such as 'The new concept of land consolidation activities in Bosnia & Herzegovinda' and 'The Palestinian concept of 'Suffering for Territory, race, place and power' are ever forthcoming.

The territorial concept is a spatial concept. Space has long been studied in relationship with geography, economy, and management. Though some effort has been made to define space there is still lack of definition in a world where spatial actions are more and more global. The shift complicates the environment of Manipur where relationship with space for a composite Manipur (Hills and valley) is no longer a simple question of preserving space but a legitimate proposal to keep the right conditions which emerge from proximities (Gael Le Boulch).

My article is related to the state of Manipur and how its Territory covers Hills and plain. Briefly, there are basic concepts of Territory, which concerns itself with water, food, shelter, clothing and economics for survival. There are variable concepts of Territory. With these I intend to build up a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion through inference that the integrity of Manipur should exist in status quo.

The Kingdom concept of Territory from the Bible: it assumes that the earth is God's kingdom—his Territory. A Territory must have a king, governed by the king's will with certain rules of governance. It is an established Territory regardless of diversity in race and lack of obeisance from some people to this king. Being a kingdom there must be a constitution and law, which are the king's will, purpose and intent for his citizens.

The Islamic concept of Territory : In legal terms the world is divided into two parts, the dar al-Islam governed by the Islamic Sharia and the dar al-harb, which is beyond the border of dar al-Islam. Before the appearance of nationalism in the later part of the 19th century the major political manifestation was Islam, whose actual political manifestation was the Ottoman state a Territory, It is assumed that as a consequence no other form of collective identity could exist at that time.

The biochemical disease concept of Territory : That is, doctors have certain capabilities and thus others do not belong to their territory. It is based on the position of power which they had attained. This Territorial concept of the physicians has been disputed by Szaz who states rather madly, that "Mental illness is a myth." It is a large part of human behaviour that has been psychiatrised and 'in so doing' a large part of human behaviour is subtly transferred from ethics to psychiatry, from the free market place of ideas to the closed wards of the mental hospital.

The animal concept of a territory : A particular species of animals consistently defend its Territory against its own species and occasionally against animals of other species. It is not always by combat. It is most often by a noticeable display of scent marks such as by urination or defecation. My cat like myself always defends its territory by fighting. This is called territoriality.

A similar behaviour pattern exists in humanity consisting of the tendency to defend a particular domain or a sphere of influence. The Territory is a spatial concept and a system. It endorses a set of properties attached to a complex system (Monk 2000), referring to structure and dynamics, putting forward the question of time irreversibility and its necessity to be taken into account.

The Territorial concept may simply refer to one's native home, place of birth (like Somdal village in Ukhrul for Th Muivah) —an embryonic territorial awareness, though reference to social awareness rather than to political one. This is the primary concept the Meiteis have about the Territory of Manipur, which has been accepted and defended from time immemorial and it is irreversible.

In the mid 20th century, following the general argument put forward by Paul Krugman, who defined the concept of competitiveness of territories there emerged as a central issue of a defined territory such as the demand for certain tribal areas of Manipur in order to secure envisaged employment stability, to increase local wellbeing and wealth and other benefits from external integration to Nagaland.

However, in the history of redefining Territory with political integrity by many political units claiming a definite territory by intrusion into another territory was regarded as an act of war. This is similar to the current territorial redefining of the Nagas of Nagaland with an intrusion in Manipur's territory as well as in others. In Nagaland itself there are several layers of authority, with units waging war on each other while both recognising some higher authority, the Government of India.

The question of Manipur's Territorial integrity claim must be viewed from the perspective of Indian constitution, and age-old boundary of Manipur vis-à-vis the border changes contemplated by Nagland and some tribal peoples living in Manipur, who have lately adopted the "Naga" identity (unaccepted and unwanted by the Nagas of Nagaland). These 'claims as a right' are legally and morally regarded as acts of aggression by the Meiteis, Kukis, Pangals and the smaller tribes who have been living peacefully in Manipur for a few thousand years.

There has been a kind of undertone amongst some tribal folks of Manipur that the Meitei kings did not dominate over all the tribes of Manipur and as such the Meiteis have no territorial claim over their lands (hills) as part of Manipur. This shows a profound ignorance of historical matter. It is not solely due to the progression of generations but to the political orders observing rituals of collectivism. The history of Manipur records that 'the Meitei kings were the monarchs of all they surveyed, their rights there was none to dispute.

Dominance can be either absolute or predictably reversible at different locations at different times. Dominance can also be incidental. For instance, the dominance of India over Nagaland is an example. The Tuensang division of Arunachal Pradesh and Dimapur of Dimsas of North Cachar Hills of Assam are now parts of Nagaland but the Nagas never ruled over them. They were integrated to Nagaland for survival economics. In evolutionary terms dominance essentially equals priority of access to resources in short supply.

Usually, the subordinates would probably lose in combat anyway. Relationship between dominance and subordinates as in Manipur was a relationship between the tribes of Manipur for the benefits and costs of giving in or not giving in are compared. Although the aggressive aspects of Meitei dominance are emphasised, the less conspicuous aspect of the subordinate hill tribes are actually more important in maintaining a stable relationship between the Meiteis and the hill tribes. The Meiteis claimed the territorial integrity of Manipur because of their genetic fitness and increased access to resources in time, energy and injury costs of territorial behaviour.

The British demarcated Manipur's boundary as in the present map and that remained acceptable and inviolable for the Meiteis, kukis, Pangals and other smaller tribes living in Manipur. It is simply because of economics and management.

In conclusion : Nobody owns land. We only borrowed it from nature. From time immemorial, the Meiteis borrowed land in the hills of Manipur from nature. Then in no so remote a time, the Tangkhuls and Kabuis before they adopted the name of "Nagas" borrowed the hills from the Meiteis. We are all together in this land of Sanaleibak. It therefore stands to reason that the Meiteis swear an inviolable oath that they will keep the integrity of Manipur intact.