Was Irabot in favour of complete independence ?

Sanatomba Kangujam *

117th Birth Anniversary of Lamyanba Hijam Irabot on Sep 30 2013 :: Pix - Deepak Oinam

A Brief Introduction

The valley of Manipur experienced the first spell of insurgency during 1948 to 1951 under the leadership of Hijam Irabot. It was a communist revolutionary movement which aimed at establishing a society free from exploitation and oppression. Irabot's struggle was primarily directed against oppressive system prevalent at that point of time in Manipur.

Even prior to the inauguration of his communist revolution, Irabot had initiated massive political mobilisation at the grassroot levels. He founded many political organisations ( sic), The Nikhil Manipuri Mahasabha, the Praja Sanmelan, the Praja Mandal, the Praja Sangha, the Krishak Sabha and of course the Manipur Communist Party (MCP). Irabot relentlessly fought against religious bigotry and evil practices associated with Hinduism. He was a poet and had even written a book of poetry which was prescribed as standard text in schools at that time. He was also a pioneer in journalism who started Meetei Chanu in 1925, the first vernacular daily in Manipur.

In the face of impending British withdrawal from the Sub-continent, Irabot launched a strong movement for the establishment of a responsible government in Manipur. He strongly opposed the Purvanchal Scheme and stood for preserving the separate political identity of Manipur. Wandering from place to place, he mobilized the peasant class of rural areas effectively by spreading political awareness. For the first time the Marxist ideology was seeded in the political landscape of Manipur under the stewardship of Irabot. In fact, it was Irabot himself who had introduced armed struggle in Manipur much before the emergence of the present-day insurgency.

Irabot founded the 'Red Guard Council (RGC) the armed wing of the Manipur Communist Party (MCP). The cadres of the Red Guards were given systematic training in handling of arms and ammunition. The Red Guards had set up many camps in the rural areas. The communist insurgents were successful in establishing some free pockets from where they started engaging in subversive activities.

The communist activities rose to a great height that the Government of India began to take cognizance of their existence. In the meantime, Irabot sneaked out to Burma with the objective to establish contact and elicit help from the Burmese communists. However, by early 1951 most of the leaders of the Red Guards were either arrested or eliminated by the Government. Coincidentally, Irabot also died of Malaria at Ango Ching on September 26, 1951. With his untimely death, the communist insurgency in Manipur came to a natural death.

At least three lessons can be learned from the aborted revolution of 1948-51. First, any movement which is based entirely on the personality cult of a single individual was bound to collapse like a house of cards. Second, any movement which has gone far too ahead of the people's level of political consciousness will not be able to sustain itself. Third, any movement /ideology should not be imported or transplanted at random but should be worked out on the basis of our unique experience to suit our soil.

The Question of Manipur's Independence

Informed quarters hold the view that Irabot had wanted a greater and independent Manipur which would include the Meitei inhabited areas of Cachar and Lakhimpur in the state of Assam. It is said that Irabot had wanted to establish an Independent Peasant Republic in Manipur with its headquarters at Nongada. According to Chhatradhari, Irabot stood for independent sovereign Manipur with full responsible government based on socialism. He further opined that Irabot had wanted the kind of relationship Ukraine or Belurus had maintained with Russia in case Manipur was to merge with India. Few contemporary scholars have started to view Irabot as a nationalist affirming his anti-merger stand.

However, it seems problematic to project Irabot as a nationalist who stood for complete independence of Manipur. A few points have been elaborated in brief to contribute something towards better understanding of Hijam Irabot and his nationalist credentials.

First, the primary objective of Irabot's armed struggle was not the liberation of Manipur, but the establishment of a communist society free from exploitation and oppression. The main focus of his struggle was to change the political regime through social revolution. The question of liberation did not conspicuously form part of his political objective as Manipur was then an independent state. Besides, he went underground much before Manipur was integrated into the Dominion of India.

The Communist Party under Irabot began to operate as an underground organisation since September 21, 1948 while Manipur Merger Agreement was signed on September 21, 1949, just one year after he went underground. His struggle was chiefly directed against the feudal and semi-capitalist regime that prevailed in Manipur at that time. He was more concerned about setting up a communist society rather than establishing a completely independent Manipur.

Second, the Communist Party which Irabot established in 1948 was not an independent organisation which was absolutely under the control of the indigenous Manipuris. The Manipur Communist Party (MCP) was merely a District Organising Committee (DOC) of the Assam Branch of Communist Party of India (CPI). An authority on Manipur history wrote that Irabot did not establish a full-fledged Communist Party in Manipur.

Professor N. Sanajaoba also pointed out that the Manipur Communist Party (MCP) was not honoured as a separate unit like that of Assam unit of the CPI as it had been calculatively subordinated to the inferior status of District Organising Committee (DOC) by the CPI of mainland India. All his activities were carried out according to the strict directive of the party leaders of the CPI. He was under the control and guidance of a political party of India. Being a member of the CPI, his allegiance was questionable.

Third, there is no concrete evidence about Irabot's opposition to Manipur's merger with the Dominion of India. He never denounced and disowned the Manipur Merger Agreement of 1949.

Some writers strongly refuted the assertion that Irabot had opposed the Merger Agreement and stated that he never had any opinion against the integration of Manipur with India. Professor N. Sanajaoba also holds that the Manipur Communist Party (MCP), or the CPI later on had never denounced the Indian annexation of sovereign Manipur.

He pointed out that the Red Guard Council that struggled for the emancipation of the exploited in Manipur was not sponsoring the armed struggle with a view to undoing the disputed Merger Agreement. As a matter of fact, Irabot had enough time to raise his voice of dissent against the merger before his death. But he failed to do it while over-ground leaders like A. Daiho and Yangmaso Shaiza did so. Had he uttered a single word of protest or demonstrated a symbolic act of opposition to the merger of Manipur with India, Irabot would have been considered as the father of the present day insurgency movement in Manipur.

Fourth, Irabot's vision about Manipur was "a free Manipur within free India". In this regard, it will be worthwhile to place the resolution of the Manipur Mahasabha and the Praja Mandal in their joint meeting held on April 5, 1946. It states;

"Resolves that Manipur will remain as a free Manipur state inside free India where the Manipuris will be able to freely develop their own educational, cultural, political and economical aspects …… and the people of free Manipur state will remain ( as an Indian state) or will affiliate to a province of free India."

The significance of this resolution lies in the fact that Irabot was the leader of these two organisations. Besides, the resolution had two components namely "within India" and "integration with another Indian state". It has been pointed out that the Communist Party of Irabot or its frontal organisations did not ask for sovereign status of Manipur. Even way back in 1937 at the second session of the Manipuri Mahasabha, which was held at Mandalay, Irabot spoke in favour of a great Indian federation like many Indian nationalists of that time. It has also been emphatically pointed out that Irabot never fought for an independent Manipur of a Byelorussian variety.

According to Jyotirmoy Nandy, Irabot and the communists fully supported Manipur's accession to India at certain point of time when the transfer of power was taking place and the question of accession was gaining prominence.

It appears obvious that Irabot had no problem in joining the Indian Union provided India was a Communist Country. His opposition was only against the Congress ruled India. His stand on the independent status of Manipur was highly ambiguous. Being a noted member of the CPI, it is of course, inconceivable that Irabot could have imagined a completely independent Manipur. Even if he had ever dreamt of an Independent Socialist Republic of Manipur, it was very much within the Union of India.

Fifth, according to Professor N. Sanajaoba, there is no relation between the Communist Revolution of 1948-51 and the National Liberation Movement that emerged in the 1960's onwards. In his view, the de-annexation agenda was invariably the interwoven, clearly worked out contribution of the post-MCP gen-next and their organised rebellion or insurgency.

Conclusion

In the absence of any concrete evidence to substantiate the anti-merger stand of Irabot, it is increasingly difficult to project him as the father of the present day liberation movement in Manipur. His nationalist credential also remains ambiguous as ever on account of his excessive attachment with the CPI. The slogan of "a free Manipur within free India" still resonates in the conscience of the critics.

Otherwise, it is difficult to find a parallel of Irabot in the contemporary history of Manipur to match his contributions which were so huge and multifarious as he was controversial. That he was a communist is clear. What is not clear was his nationalist stand. Irabot's main shortcoming lies in his failure to address the national question of Manipur.