Why India cannot dismember Manipur's historical status ?

Dr. Laishram Malem Mangal *

This essay attempts to put forth an analysis of certain historical and political events towards a better appreciation of Manipur’s status in relation to the Union of India. The Asiatic State of Manipur which existed as an independent sovereign entity before the arrival of colonial British became part of the Indian Union in 1949 through the contested Manipur Merger Agreement. A politico-legal analysis is carried out based on the historical and political facts surrounding the peculiar status of Manipur.

To drive home the point, an Instrument of Accession (IOA) was signed by Manipur’s ruler on 11th August, 1947 which is purportedly said to have been accepted three days later by Mountbatten the then Governor-General of the Indian Dominion. Agreements such as the IOA was also signed by other Princely States formerly under the British suzerainty.

The Ministry of States of the Dominion Government of India led by Sardar Patel and VP Menon was entrusted to complete accession to the Indian Dominion by the States before 15th August, 1947, the date on which British paramountcy was appointed to lapse.

IOA was designed to be executed by those Princely States which had full power and jurisdiction over its subjects and territory. By Article 3 of the IOA, the rulers ceded to the Dominion Government of India three subjects namely defence, external affairs and communication. Excepting these three subjects, the States had full sovereignty over its people and territory under its jurisdiction.

Article 7 provides that accession to the Dominion of India shall not have the effect of committing the Ruler to acceptance of any future constitution of India or fettering his discretion to enter into arrangements with the GOI under any such future constitution.

Article 8 stipulated that the accession shall not affect the continuance of the sovereignty of the Ruler with respect to his State or the exercise of his powers, authority and rights including the validity of any law in force in his State.

Under Article 5 of the IOA, the GOI could not amend or modify Article 3 subject-matter jurisdiction unless such amendment is accepted by the Ruler through an Instrument supplementary to the IOA.

The policy objectives of IOA was strongly founded upon the Memorandum submitted by the Cabinet Mission to the Chamber of Princes on 12th May, 1946. The freedom to enter into either federal relationship or particular relationship with the Government of India by the States was envisaged in Paragraph 5 of the Memorandum. Read with Section 7 (1) (b) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, it re-affirmed the restoration of sovereign independence of the States.

As regards, the legal consequences of acceding to the Dominion Government of India by way of the IOA by the then Manipur’s ruler, provisions of the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 (MSCA) which came into force on 26th July, 1947 are pertinent to take note. Section 9 (b) of the MSCA placed Manipur’s ruler as the nominal constitutional head of the State (read independent country).

He did not have executive authority as it was vested upon his Council of Ministers by virtue of Section 10 (a). Being a nominal head, he could not alone accede to such an instrument where the legitimate interest of Manipur’s administration was involved. The Maharaja’s prerogative was limited in this context by Section 8 (a) of the MSCA.

Section 18 of Manipur Constitution required 75 percent votes of the total members present and voting of the Manipur National Assembly on any such matters involving the Government and well-being of the people. These legal analyses equally apply to that of the Merger Agreement as well. No historical evidences exist which suggests that Manipur’s National Assembly had ratified the IOA of 1947 or Merger Agreement of 1949.

Matters which concerns the political future of a people are not by conventions and State practice decided by mere putting of signatures of the rulers. United Nations General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970 recognises the ‘free’ association or integration principle with an independent State as one of the modes of implementing the right of a people to self-determination.

The requirement to hold a plebiscite is grounded upon this philosophy. This principle has been universally accepted and become an established norm of exercising by a people of their right of self-determination.

Therefore, in such a context ratification or non-ratification of IOA or Merger if any becomes a non-issue here. The Dominion Government of India acknowledged the significance of this right when it allowed to hold referendums in Junagadh and Pondicherry in 1948 and 1954 respectively. The GOI did not consider important to allow peoples of Manipur, Tripura, Hyderabad, Travancore, Jammu & Kashmir, etc. to freely determine their own political future.

As evidenced from the coercive nature of obtaining the signature of Manipur’s King on 21st September, 1949 at Redlands Shillong and consequential dissolution of the popularly established Government of Manipur and her National Assembly on 15th October, 1949 unilaterally by the Government of India, the Indian Dominion violated Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter.

Before the coming into force of its own Constitution, India violated UN Charter obligations and which commitment it incorporated under Article 51 (c) of its own Constitution of 1950. The political destiny of a people is not something which can be traded by signing an instrument or even through ratification by a legislature without the consent of the people concerned.

Manipur National Assembly denounced on 28th September, 1949 the nullity and unconstitutionality of the Merger Agreement. Nor did the people of Manipur hold a referendum to integrate with India. Recently, the people of Manipur in 1993 reaffirmed its denunciation of the illegal and unconstitutional character of the Merger Agreement.

In the light of such historical and political circumstances as evidenced from various State records, treaties and agreements including the White Paper on Indian States of the Ministry of States, Government of India, New Delhi, 1950, the taking over of Manipur’s administration by the Government of India stipulated in Article 1 of the Merger Agreement constitutes occupation of the former by the latter from the standards of international law, jurisprudence established by the UN and State practice.

Article 1 of the Merger Agreement confirms India as an administering State (read power), having responsibility towards Manipur’s well-being and administration. Thus, according to International humanitarian law particularly Article 43 of the Four Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907 India’s position with respect to Manipur is that of an occupying power.

This accidental integration of Manipur into the Indian polity and the consequences it entailed attracts India’s state responsibility more seriously towards the protection of the historical and political status of Manipur and its people today. India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur is couched in the language of the Manipur Administration Order (MAO) dated 15th October issued by the then Chief Commissioner who was appointed by the Dominion Government of India.

More than Entry number 19 of the First Schedule of the Indian Constitution which had sought to define Manipur as its 19th state, this order established the legal and political fact of the status of Manipur. MAO testifies how the GOI established its authority over Manipur and her people.

Politicians, bureaucrats and academics alike should be able to put forth this naked truth and remind the GOI of its historical and political responsibility which it owes towards Manipur and her people since 1949. Such a premise can courageously guide any attempt to negotiate with the GOI towards protection of Manipur’s identity in all respects including historical, political, cultural and mutual co-existence of her people.

India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur is continuing in character. The people of Manipur do not recognise Section 3 of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 in so far as it sought to establish Manipur as a ‘new’ state under the Union of India. New Delhi’s theory of the establishment or creation of the state of Manipur anew in 1971 amounts to annexation of the state in so far as it sought to officially incorporate Manipur as 19th state of the Indian Union.

It is not recognisable as it seeks to de-recognise Manipur’s existence as a historical and political entity pre-1949. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, Principle 1, paragraph 10 of the UN GA resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970 and jurisprudence of the international tribunals rendered in such cases as the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 136, 2004, etc. qualifies acquisition of territories through the use of force as illegal in international law.

Manipur’s statehood in 1972 is no more than a mere legal fiction of India’s statecraft. Manipur did not come into being by virtue of Articles 2 and 3 of India’s constitution nor by the 1971 (Reorganisation) Act.

The White Paper on Indian States, 1950 in its Appendix XLIII titled ‘Statement showing the area and population of States which have merged with provinces of India’ which shows the total area of Manipur as 8, 620 (eight thousand six hundred twenty) square miles at the time of the contested merger is another pointer towards this.

Manipur’s existence as a historical and political entity before the establishment of the Indian republic is not a legal fiction created by India’s constitution. Manipur Administration Order, 1949 testifies this facticity. This order read together with the resolutions adopted by the Manipur National Assembly on 28th September, 1949 and the National Convention on Manipur Merger Issue on 28-29, 1993 also nullifies the applicability to Manipur as a State which participated of her own free will into the making of the idea of India as a “Union of States” as defined in Article 1 of its constitution.

Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention, 1907 limits the authority of the Indian State to apply or impose Article 3 of its constitution to Manipur. The jurisprudence of uti possidetis juris stands to reinforce India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur’s inviolable political status.

Uti possidetis juris protects the original state of national integrity, not only in terms of territoriality but also the organic character of Manipur’s polity, society and culture at the time of independence from British rule. Any change be it in demography, settlement patterns, division or bifurcation of the territory which affects its composite identity, etc. violates the objective of this international norm.

India cannot disturb or alter Manipur’s original state of ethnic composition, settlement patterns and composite character of its demography, society and culture which existed in 1947. The international norm of uti possidetis juris rise to protect Manipur’s historical and political personality and integrity both territorial and non-territorial as it stood on August 15, 1947.

India is also a state party to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and it had enacted the Geneva Conventions Act, 1960 to give effect to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. Articles 47, 50 and 54 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949 prohibits the GOI to change or alter the historical and political status of Manipur.

India’s constitutional relationship with respect to Manipur is circumscribed by the above-mentioned legal provisions of treaties and principles of international law. Article 3 of India’s constitution does not have jurisdiction over Manipur. To those blinded by sectarian ethnic homeland philosophy or rather propaganda let these historical records, data and legal principles guide your vision to come out of your blood thirsty agenda.

Distortions of history through oral narratives may appear to be worth listening, but written historical data would make your prophecy fail. Policy makers at New Delhi should not consider crossing the Lakshman-Rekha again by trying to dismember on ethnic lines the historical Asiatic entity called Manipur which pre-dated the idea of India.


*** The views expressed herein are author’s own.