Time to revisit Kabow Valley agreement

Dr Th Suresh Singh *

Kabaw Valley - Pix :: Yaruingam Kashung/IndyaRocks

It is an opportune time to re-visit Kabow Valley agreement signed on 9th January, 1834. The agreement has 3 versions - i) English Version ii) Translation of the Burmese Version by Major General Nuthall, officiating Political Agent of Manipur and iii) Lateral translation of the Burmese Version, received from the Chief Commissioner, British Burma.

The 3 versions were dated in April, 1834, May, 1871 and June, 1872. We also should not forget that there is also another agreement known as the Agreement regarding compensation for the Kabow Valley, 1834 where Manipur was granted a monthly stipend of 5,00 Sicca Rupees per month with the rider that the stipend be stopped in case of revert to Manipur.

Without going into the details of these 2 agreements, let me come straight to the present hot topic of Boundary between Burma and Manipur. Based on the KV Agreement, the boundary was demarcated by a line drawn by Pemberton and his party. What is this Pemberton Line? It is an imaginary line drawn northwards from the KV in 1834 and doted in a map. The difficulty is that it was exactly defined by natural landmarks only along the western face of Kabow Valley.

North of this valley, the area at that time was uninhabited and the line running through it was never laid down on the ground. This unclear area has been described in the agreement as "a straight line passing due north from the north extremity of KV upto the first range of hills east of that upon which stand the villages of Cho-eetar, Noorgbree and Noonghur" of the Lahupa (or Tangkhul) tripe of Nagas.

In 1848, during Nara Singh's reign, Burma complained of aggressions by Manipur's hill valley of Loohoopa and wanted to subdue them if it was not in Manipur territory. However, Political Agent (PA) Mcculloch declared it to be in Manipuri territory. In February, 1849, a Manipuri force went against the said village and reduced it to subjection.

After the death of Nara Singh, with aggressive Burma on the other side and the incompetent King Chandrakirti on our side, many Burmese aggression on the border continued with counter-agression by the Manipuris. Chandrakirti was very much restrained by the British. During his reign, Thangal Major seems to be the only aggressive and patriotic one.

In 1869 and 1871, Burma claimed Manipur's Mokoo and Nat-seng-nga villages as their own. However PA Dr. Brown took up the matter with the Woon of Gendat (Kendat) and the villages remained in Manipur. The Burmese then further claimed the village of Narmweelong as theirs in addition to the above 2 villages. Hence to acertain all these, General Nuthhall, acting PA, visited the boundary in April 1871 along with Thangal Major and confirmed that these villages belong to Manipur and informed the Woon accordingly. The General, however did not meet Tsetkai, Burmese Native Judge representing the Woon, or the Woon himself because of their unwanted behaviour.

In the meantime, the description "The eastern part of the chain of mountains which rise immediately from the western side of the Kubo Valley" found in the 1st edition of Aichison's Treaties the boundary between Manipur and Kubo Valley was found to be a misprint as pointed out by General Nuthall as the same is described as "The eastern foot", & the misprint was corrected in the revised edition of the Treaties.

Further development was the visit of officiating PA Col. M Thomson to the frontier in November, 1872 and subsequent discussion with Kendat Woon. Thomson further confirmed the above 3 villages + Numthou Thana + Thangbong + Monggong villages belonging to Manipur rejecting Burmese claims. However, he proposed another boundary line and submitted the same to GOI who asked him to clarity whether he can identify Pemberton line. Thomson replied in the -ve but accreted it was as close to Pemberton line as possible. The idea of resurvey was dropped when Dr. Brown relieved Thomson as PA. By this time Manipur Darbar fully placed the matter in PA's hand as demanded by GOI. Brown objected to Thomson's line as it cut off Manipur's old town of Moreh. In the meantime, the Burmese wished to adhre to 1833 Teaty, hence the boundary question was droped.

In February, 1875, raids and counter raids occurred in Nampee village and areas in and around Kongal Thannah with killings on both sides. Nampee is a disputed village and was not marked on Pemberton's Map. The Burmese raided another attack on Kongal Thannah which is situated on the bank of Nummeah river. Maharaja wanted to take revenge but was restrained by P.A. Cl. Jonstone. In February, 1880, Thangal Major and Balram Major led a 1000 strong men force and punished the chassad kukies. Further, there were troubles in Koontuk Khoonao, Kussang, Chingsao, Chaltik, Chawhoon Khulen and Chowhoon Khunoo.

All these are Manipuri villages. These troubles forced the British Government to appoint a 2nd Boundary commission to replace the imaginary Pemberton line of 1834 drawn northwards from KV. PA Cl. Johnstone was appointed as Boundary Commissioner, Mr. R. Phayre, C.S of the British Burma Commission as Assistant to Johnstone and 3 other officials to survey and map. The team, along with Mrs. Johnstone, left Imphal on 16th December, 1881 and returned on 9th January 1882. The Survey party met Samjok Chief who had an obstructive attitude. They also met Pagan Woon and Phoong yee of Tammo. During Survey, the team discovered a natual little steam that could form the boundary line in accordance with the terms laid down in Pemberton definition. The lines are marked on the map.

"The boundary thus fixed follows the base of the eastern slopes of the Malain range, crosses the river Namia a few hundred Yards south of Kongal Thanna, thence turns east to the Talain River, follows that river upward to its source, and then proceeds down the Napanga River to where it passes through a gorge in the Kusom Range. From thence it runs northward along the crest of that range. The points where the boundary intersects the Namia River and touches the Talain River have been marked with pillars, and road map has been cut connecting these two points". After fixing pillars, the team had a great Christmas on 24/12/1881 consisting of 9 Europeans which Jonhstone himself described as the "biggest European assembled at Kongal Thana. Sougaijam Major accompanied Johnstone in fixing of boundaries with pillar.

What is important for us to note is that this 2nd Boundary commission gave a way a large portion of KV to Burma which previously belonged to Manipur as per the Pemberton time. This loss was never compensated. This boundary remained intake till KV became a British procession in December, 1885 i.e. upto Chandrakriti's reign. In early 1892, Tsawbwa of Thanngdut claimed the Salt well at Kongal Thana to be on Burmese side; accordingly Burmese Administration sent Mr. Wingate, SDO of Paungbyn to confirm the same from the boundaries fixed by Cl. Jonstone. P.A. Maxwell sent one Moirang Tonjao from Manipur side to meet the Burmese officials.

The Burmese were clearly shown that the salt spring was well within Manipur Territory and thus ended Burma's offand on unjustified claim on Manipur frontier. That means the areas marked with Pillars by Johnstone in December, 1881 continued to be our border till today. In the North frontier - In 1835, the forest between Doyang River and Dhunsiri River was declared as boundary between Manipur and Assam. In 1841-42 Survey by Lt. Biggs, he met Captain Gordon, PA of Manipur, and fixed the boundary between Manipur and the Angami country.

This was again reasserted in 1867, Manipur's PA Dr. Brown had a meeting with Captain Bulter, Deputy Commissioner of Hills District in 1869-70 to tace the boundary line. They differed, hence decided to appoint a Boundary Commission. Survey team consisting Major Golwin and Auten was formed. The team found a broad valley, the Lanier Valley enclosed between 2 ranges and it is possible that Lanier and Diko might be Separate Rivers.

In fact, the Lanier might be an affluent of the Irrawaddy. If it is so, the British feared that Manipur would be at liberty to annex the whole tract of Naga country lying between the two ranges. The survey was continued upto Telzo Peak and not beyond; hence Manipur objected very much. From 1873 to 1875, various surveys were conducted by the British from Sibsagar side and Nagaland side.

And finally in 1878, the northern boundary of Manipur eastward of Telizo was settled when a line was finally laid down. This was accepted by Manipur with a pinch of sault. We are supposed to get more, but could not. Cheitherol Kumpaba mentions that stone bearing Kings Name was fixed in the boundary. Dr. Brown, Thangal Major and Thumjao Purel represented Manipur in the said final settlement.

However the year was mentioned as March, 1874 in Cheitharol Kumbaba. This was the occasion when Thangal had arguments with 5 British officers regarding the origin of Ngari river which flows from Shiroi Hills. The river is called Laii-turel by the Manipuris and Nagiyaby the British. From Shiroi hill, it flows towards the north and joined another river in the east of Thasimei Khunou and then flows South East direction towards Awa. British records put it as the year 1878.

In his book, PA Johnstone claimed that substantial justice was done to both parties. This statement is one among the many hypocracies of Johnstone. Though contents are more or less same, the year should be taken as 1874 and not 1878, according to C.K; further PA Johnston was never associated with this final northern boundary settlement.

Post-independence: In an article in a local daily, Karal Lamba wrote that another demarcation was done in 5-4-1975 by GOI without Manipur representatives and without local villages. After this survey General of India published a boundary map through Molcham and surrounding villages. Manipuri's old BP No. 33 which was on the eastern side of Tuivang village and surrounding areas of Manipur was destroyed and replaced by a new boundary pillar 66; and upto BP No. 68 was marked as defecto boundary. It is also mentioned that Choro Khulain Village and Molcham village are under Manipur as per Toll ceute vide codeNo. 485 and 1006 respectively. Though year 2011 census writer don't have the details of this survey, it should be taken at its face value.

Coming to the present trouble: After a hue and cry by various civil societies and many political parties after the Burmese Army started constructing pillar inside Manipur Holenphai Village (3 km south of Moreh Police station), the following points are worth mentioning:

i) BP No. 76 has been destroyed by the Burmese authority and they have constructed BP No. 23. This is a disputed area and Burma tried to construct a temporary military camp there.

ii) Internationally, 10 meter each side is a no-construction Zone area and every border fencing has to be done just beyond 10 meteres away the border. GOI has constructed border fencing in a 10 km area between BP 81 and 97.

iii) According to Union Home Ministry media cell release, the disputed pillars are BP no. 66, 76, 78, 79, 81, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 that is a total of 11 BP areas.

iv) Manipur Government constituted a 6 members high power committee with Dr. Suresh Babu, Principal Secretary, Home as Chairman. They have visited the area on 26th August, 2013 and submitted a report to the Government. The chairman gave a very controversial statement that the present fencing is not a boundary fencing but a security one.

v) Various political parties have expressed their strong opposition against the present fencing as well as Burmese attempt to established their camps in Manipur's sacred soil. An all party committee has also been formed and demanded action against Burma. The Governor visited Moreh on 27-8-2013 and assured the people of Moreh that required action will be taken up.

(vi) On 28-8-2013, MP Meinya Singh had taken up the matter in the Lok Sabha by drawing attention of the Home, External Affairs and Defece Ministries. Next day on 28-9-2013, CPI MP D. Raja brought the matter to the notice of the Rajya Sabha. The list is endless.

Worrying factor: The present volatile expressions will be followed by a dormant stage. What are they?

i) Our state Congress Government cannot do anything against their masters sitting in Delhi. Hence Delhi will continue to do what they think fit to appease Burma in the name of peace and friendship after the present din is over.

ii) Our civil societies and Political parties will remain silent spectator after some time as done on many occasions.

iii) We don't know that this frontier trouble is not only in the eleven nos. of BP areas but throughout the Manipur-Burma border. Not only that, we had lost areas in Mao Gate and famous Zuko Valley and Zessami sectors and are in great trouble with Nagaland. Please read my article “where have all those civil societies political parties and individuals fighting for Manipur integrity gone" - courtesy a local paper 4, 5 & 6th June, 2012 publication. At least this writer had pointed out the factual positions regarding boundary trouble with suggestions. That nobody listen is another matter.

iv) Whether officials associating with the present trouble have the historical knowledge of our frontier? Did they knew Pemberton line and 2nd Boundary commission? If not, what will they do in future? Those are worrying factors. These are certainly questions to be put forward.

What is then to be done:

i) Immediately sand our state police force to Moreh and Prevent Burmese incursion. Who is preventing Ibobi Government to do this? Are our 40,000 + strong Police force is meant only to prevent some students' demonstration and women's cry here and there by tear gas cells and blank fire? Enough is enough. Show the mantle of our force in the border area; if it had happened in Nagaland, Delhi must be trembling by this time. Regarding such matters, I always envy our Nagaland brethren for their dedication and fearlessness.

(ii) Ibobi Government should take a firm stand telling the centre that border fencing should be stopped at once till the same is settled amicably. As they will not be willing to be a part of the all party delegation, their own teams should visit Delhi specifically for this purpose and tell their masters to take up the same.

iii) Most important one is - we should ask for a 3rd Manipur-Burma Boundary Commission to find out the lost pillars, to map out actual areas and to re-align in certain areas, if required.

iv) Take up the Kabow Valley issue which was handed over to Burma illegally by Nehru n 30/3/1953 and without Paradament's approval. This is the opportune time to press Delhi for the same.

v) The all party committee + a civil Society committee should march to Delhi, meet opposition leaders and request them to take up the matter both in parliament as well as at Government level.

vi) The state Government and Civil Societies should prepare a thorough background paper separately to be used in future negotiations. The paper should be based on historical facts which is abundantly available in many books, write ups etc. We have many knowledgeable persons who can throw light on our troubled frontier. Both the party should consult and associate these knowledgeable persons while preparing the background knowledge.

On the part of the writer, some information has been thrown out in this write up. Whether, it is useful or not is to be decided by the concerned parties. However, it is sooner the better for us to execute the points given above in 'What is then to be done'.