Debates on Article 3 on status of Indian States, focusing on historical context of Manipur
Historical context of Manipur and the Indian Constitution

Birendra Laishram *

Manipur established it Constitution before joining India, making it the second region in South East Asia to do so after Sri Lanka (1931). Upon joining the Indian Union in 1949, Manipur was designated as a Part-C State, contrary to 8 Part-B States with elected Rajmukh leaders. This decision was influenced by concerns over its size and self-governance capabilities without considering the pre merger status of being an independent sovereign kingdom.

The Central Govt appointed a Chief Commissioner to directly manage Manipur, reflecting strategic considerations and integration challenges. The term Maharaja and Rajmukh illustrate different historical roles, with Maharajas having governed autonomously before losing power through accession to India.

I argue for a re-evaluation of Mani-pur’s status to acknowledge its unique history and ensure the protection of its territorial integrity and ethnic rights. This historical perspective emphasizes the need to recognize and address the specific dynamic that shaped Manipur’s governance and political status within India.

The Indian Constitution was drafted and completed prior to the annexation of Manipur on 15 October, 1949, which held its own Constituent Assembly. The Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949, without any discussions or amendments during the intervening period, (15/10/1949 to 26/11/1949) suggesting that Manipur’s specific situation was overlooked during the Consti- tution’s creation as the framing of Constitution was completed before Manipur was a part of India.

Debates on Article 3 were held during November 17 to November 18, 1948. Article 3 mandates consultation with State legislatures for any Bill affecting a State’s area, boundaries, or name, initiated by the President’s recommendation.

KT Shah proposed that these Bills should originate in the State legislature, while Dr BR Ambedkar, the architect of Indian Constitution argued that Parliament should address these issues, requiring consent from ‘sovereign States’ alongside provincial input.

HN Kunzru insisted that both sovereign States and provinces be consulted before such Bills were introduced. Ultimately, Ambed- kar’s more comprehensive approach was preferred, cla-rifying the distinction be- tween provinces and States.

Sovereign States vs. Provinces

Princely States operated semi-autonomously under British suzerainty, while British provinces were directly governed with less autonomy (eg, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh). Dr Ambedkar highlighted that princely States had a degree of sovereignty, making their consent essential for boundary changes, while the boundaries of provinces, directly controlled by the British, could be altered without their consent. This distinction influenced the post-independence reorganization of States and Union Territories.

Application of Article 3

For sovereign and princely States, Article 3 requires consultation with the State Assembly. In contrast, for provincial States, the Centre can invoke Article 3 without needing to consult the State Government. Further debate on Article 3 was held on 13th day of October, 1949 but did not significantly amend Article 3.

The focus remained on ensuring changes to State boundaries, names, or areas necessitated consultation with the affected States, yet Manipur’s unique context was not addressed of being its sove- reignty before annexation to the Indian Union.

Specific Case of Manipur

As a sovereign princely State, Manipur’s consent is essential for any changes under Article 3(a) that affect its boundaries or status, unlike areas of Pondicherry, a French colonial settlement until 1954, and Kashmir, which chose to join India in October 1947 for protection against invading tribesmen from Pakistan and were treated differently.

Conclusion

The limitations of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution highlight its varying applications to States with distinct historical and political contexts. The essential distinction between sovereign princely States and British provincial States shaped the post-independence reorganization of States.

Manipur, as a sovereign princely State, should have had its consent sought for any alterations under Article 3, underscoring the necessity for a nuanced application of Constitutional provisions.

Implications of Non-Consultation

The abrupt recognition of Manipur’s incorporation into the Indian Union led to long-standing grievances among its populace. The lack of consultation not only undermined the historical sovereignty of Manipur but also set a precedent where the unique needs and aspirations of princely States were inadequately represented in the broader framework of Indian federalism.

Political Mobilization and Demand for Autonomy

In the decades following its annexation, the people of Manipur mobilized politically to voice their discon- tent regarding the erosion of their distinct identity and autonomy. Various movements emerged, advocating for greater political representation and administrative autonomy.

These movements highlighted the sentiment that any alterations to State status or boundaries should respect the historical context and rights of the indigenous people. The tension resulting from perceived neglect by the Central Government has fueled demands for greater autonomy and self-governance, reflecting a broader Nationwide struggle for State rights.

The Role of Article 3 in Ongoing Debates

Criticisms regarding the application of Article 3 emphasize the concern that the Constitutional framework often overlooks the complexities of individual identities and rights within the Union. In the case of Manipur, there are calls to revise Article 3 to ensure genuine consultation about its status and to prevent occurrences similar to the unauthorized transfer of the Kabaw Valley to Myanmar, as well as to address the tendency to disregard the local population. /

Recommendations for Redress

To address the historical oversight regarding Mani-pur, legal scholars and local leaders advocate for amendments that explicitly recognize the necessity of local consent for any future changes impacting State boundaries or governance structures. Such amendments would not only honor the intentions of the original drafters of the Cons- titution but also align with contemporary understanding of democracy, where local voices and agreements are paramount to fostering a cooperative federal structure.

Conclusion on Historical Context and Future Implications

The historical context of Manipur’s integration into the Indian Union highlights the intricacies of implementing Constitutional pro- visions such as Article 3, which was established prior to the annexation of Manipur—a sovereign princely State with its own Constitution before India’s independence.

Recognizing the importance of unique historical and cultural narratives can facilitate the evolution of the Indian Cons- titution to more accurately represent the varied ambitions of its States. This involves special provisions safeguarding Manipur’s integrity against the implications of Article 3, fostering a more balanced and representative federal structure.