The 'national failing' and Ah Q-ism of the people of Manipur
- Part 2 -

Puyam Nongdrei *

Ghose strongly argued that the status of Manipur on 24th March 1891 was of an independent sovereign state under the rule of the King of Manipur. Manipur was acting as a kingdom in alliance with the British Empire not as a kingdom owing allegiance to the Queen. It was not waging war against the Queen but "an act of self-defence". Despite knowing the fact that the Manipuri people took the measure against the invading British forces to defend themselves, Tikendrajit and Thangal General were hanged to death on 13 August 1891at Pheidabung. Maharaja Kula Chandra was convicted of "waging war" against the Queen Empress and later, he was deported to Andaman & Nicobar Island.

Another injustice was done to the people of this land. One should not forget the factionalism among the princes over the question of Sura Chandra appealing to British to regain the throne. Disunity and 'games of throne' led to another case of British interference leading to subjugation of the people of Manipur.

Not long after regaining sovereignty of the Kingdom, the annexation of Manipur state by the Dominion of India took place on 15 October 1949. The King of Manipur along with his team was detained in Shillong by Indian security forces under the strict command of the Government of India. The Merger Agreement was extracted from the King under duress and threat of military action against the state.

As usual, there was disunity among the people following different political parties this time when the fate of Manipur was at stake. The Manipur state congress party played the role of Khelleinungnang Telheiba in the 20th century Manipur history inviting Government of India to integrate Manipur while dreaming to lick the cream of the new arrangement after winning only few seats in the State Assembly following the 1948 general election conducted under Manipur State Constitution.

The long struggle for 'responsible government' in Manipur was sacrificed overnight in return of Part C status ruled by a Chief Commissioner until Manipur got statehood in 1972. From the stage of warring tribes/clans, the people of Manipur had their own constitution unlike many other states and people in the world by 1947.

As per the Royal Order No. 30 P of 1946 dated 12th December 1946, a 16 member constitution making committee was formed on 10th March 1947. The constitution was adopted on 26 July 1947. Even before the lapse of the British paramountcy, King Bodhachandra had remained a constitutional ruler since 1st July 1947 as the state council was already in operation.

Under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, general election was held in 1948 and the Manipur State Legislative Assembly and the Council of Ministers were constituted to take care of the affairs of the state. However, the Maharaja of Manipur signed the Instrument of Accession and the Stand Still agreement on 11 August and sent them to Delhi on 13 August 1947. No doubt, Manipur was having some negotiations with the Dominion of India over its future status taking into account the strategic location of the state.

Though the king signed the instrument of accession and the standstill agreement, the articles 7 & 8 of the instrument and the article 3 of the standstill agreement did not surrender the sovereignty of the state. Thus, the sovereignty of the King in and over the state of Manipur and any paramountcy power were not sacrificed. Besides, the King was only a constitutional ruler when he signed the arrangements with the Dominion of India in August 1947. The first Manipur State Assembly Session was convened on 18 October 1948 and the King made the Royal Proclamation.

The king was coerced to sign the Merger Agreement on 21st September 1949 and the takeover was officially made on 15 October 1949. Interestingly, on 28 September 1949, a resolution of the Manipur State Legislative Assembly attended by all the 53 members nullified the said agreement entered into with the Dominion of India. Even though the Maharaja of Manipur has his authority under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, the circumstance under which the king signed the merger agreement and lack of absolute authority on his part to enter into agreement makes it unconstitutional and invalid. There have been resolution, declaration and convention opposing the forced merger of Manipur since 1949.

The use of force, coercion, threat and treachery on the part of the Dominion of India was well recorded. Therefore, the imposition of the Indian Constitution on Manipur is an act of violation of the spirit of Manipur State Constitution Act of 1947. The Article 57 of the Chapter XI-General Clauses states:
"Where in any case circumstances arise which prevent the proper operation in law or in spirit of this Constitution Act, the council may at their discretion refer the matter for decision to such authority outside the state as may be decided hereafter and the decision of that authority shall be binding."

According to Chapter II-Definitions (e) Council means the State Council of Ministers constituted under this Act, (i.e., Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947). As this article clearly says, "Where in any case circumstances arise which prevent the proper operation in law or in spirit of this Constitution Act, the council may at their discretion" refer the matter for decision to such authority outside the state as may be decided hereafter. The signing of the Merger Agreement by the King and the Manipur Administration Order dated 15 October 1949 declaring the dissolution of the legislature and the suspension of the Ministers of Manipur State were the "circumstances" preventing the "proper operation in law or in spirit of this Constitution Act".

However, the council failed to use their discretionary power to "refer the matter for decision to such authority outside the state" so that the operation of the Constitution "in law or in spirit" could be restored. The WW II ravaged state with less than five percent literacy rate and geographically landlocked was left to the hands of the Dominion of India like the proverbial sacrificial lamb to serve India's national security on the eastern strategic frontier. Should we sacrifice our well-being in the name of India's national security for we live in a strategically important frontier area?

Interestingly, Manipur had a Foreign Affairs Minister before the undemocratic merger with Indian Dominion. Honourable Minister Arambam Ibotomcha Singh (signature-I.B. Singh) held the post of the Minister of Finance and Foreign Affairs when the Manipur State Legislative Assembly took the resolution on 28th September 1949 opposing the annexation/merger. Therefore, Manipur State had its own Foreign Minister to conduct foreign affairs nullifying the claim that the Instrument of Accession and the Standstill Agreement compromised the sovereignty of Manipur. Late Mayengbam Anand Mohan, the then ADC of Maharaj Bodha Chandra in his "Shillong 1949 (2005)" took the signing of Merger Agreement as "subject to terms thereof" after signing the above mentioned two agreements with the Indian Dominion in 1947.

In the 'Introduction' to this book, Dr. Lokendra Arambam argues that sovereignty of Manipur was not compromised by the signing of the Instrument of Accession as stated in the articles 7 & 8 of the treaty. The articles 7 & 8 of the Instrument and article 3 of the Stand Still Agreement did not commit the King of Manipur to accept the Indian Constitution or fetter his discretion. The King's 'sovereignty in and over' the state of Manipur was uncompromised and the Stand Still Agreement did not affect any paramountcy functions relating to Manipur state.

The Council of Ministers failed to approach any international body or any sovereign country to lodge protest against the Indian annexation. As the power of the then Council of Ministers lies ultimately in the hands of the people of Manipur State, the only option being, the people of Manipur has to go to the extent of bringing the erstwhile Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 back to full "operation in law or in spirit". If not, this will remain another 'national failing' of our people. Affirming this failing, Malem Ningthouja, Chairman of Campaign for Peace and Democracy, Manipur in his interview with Tehelka said that "Freedom was in their hands (the people of Manipur) but they did not realise due to the lack of consciousness and unity."

Mass movements demanding repealing of AFSPA, resolution of armed conflict, implementation of Inner Line Permit System and many other issues continue to rock the state. In the meantime, territorial integrity issue and need for mutual understanding and respect among the three major ethnic groups of Manipur haunt the people of the state now and then.

Political aspirations from two major ethnic groups in the state based on ethnic exclusiveness are the talk of the people in the 21st century Manipur threatening the geo-political entity of once independent Manipur with Constitutional Monarchy as form of political system. A family re-union of the three major ethnic groups in the state and rejuvenation of the nation and the people is another political aspiration.

In the meantime, Manipur is experiencing rising cases of mental illness and high crime rates of various types. This could not be totally un-related to the ongoing repression and armed conflict situation in the state. In the words of Frantz Fanon, the criminality of the colonised is rarely directed against the colonisers but primarily against his own fellows, as an uncontrolled eruption of pent-up aggressiveness built up over long periods of unbearable pressure.

Such criminal acts are "collective behaviour patterns of avoidance" leading to self-destruction and internecine warfare. One of the important reasons behind rising crimes is destruction of traditional social and economic bases without replacing with new structures to meet the requirement of the people. Therefore, cases of alcoholism, drug addiction, sexual crimes and domestic violence have to do with impoverishment of the people, repression and social degradation in Manipur.

There is dehumanisation of the people under AFSPA and militarisation in Manipur. And our first contact with New Delhi clique is through the military barracks, camps, patrolling and frisking. Here, the 'military rules supreme' with 'special powers' gifted to them by the parliament of India. On the other hand, racism of Indian state has strengthened the racial stereotypes hurled against the people of the state thus re-assuring the Mongoloid people of their 'inferior complex' both within Manipur and without. Economic impoverishment and their experience in the hands of the repressive state have turned the lives of the million people in Manipur into hell.

The people of Manipur living in twenty-first century have learnt to live in a state where the hospitals and clinics are encircled by potholed and dusty roads looking like death traps. Or they believe that dusty roads around the hospitals are luxuries that have nothing to do with their health and hygiene. Some still sing 'Manipur is the Jewel of India' as if the dusty/muddy national highways have nothing to do with India Shining.

Extra-judicial killings, torture, rapes, and frequent insults hurled at the people are forgotten easily after Yaoshang Thabal Chongba or a musical nite at BOAT. However, the resistance movement continues and the question of 'national survival and continuity' remains to be answered by one and all. Defeating the defeatism of the people is the greater evil if there has not to be another national failing as Lu Xun said once.

Leipaksida Phurup Ahum Thokna Khulinglani
Ha Echa Khomdon Meiloupi Chetna Yaanba Thapharoi (Source: Ancient Meetei Puyas)

Conluded.....

Reference:

1. Lu, Hsun (1953), "The True Story of Ah Q", Peking: Foreign Languages Press.
2. Malem Ningthouja's interview with Tehelka, webcasted on 19 November 2010, Red Banner, Vol.II, Issue 1, March 2011; available here.
3. Mayengbam, Anandmohan (2005), "Shillong 1949", Imphal: Lamyanba Printers
4. Mahapatra, Dhananjay (2012), Is a war going on within India? SC asks, The Times of India, New Delhi, 24 November 2012, available here
5. Naorem, Sanajaoba (ed.)(2005), "Manipur Past and Present vol. 4", New Delhi: Mittal Publications.
6. Ningthouja, Malem (2011), "Freedom From India", Guwahati: Spectrum Publications.
7. Ningthouja, Malem (ed.) (2010), "Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958- Manipur Experience", New Delhi: Classic Offset Printer and Packagers (published for Campaign for Peace and Democracy, Manipur)
8. Parratt, John and Saroj Parratt (1992), "Queen Empress vs Tikendrajit Prince of Manipur", New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd.
9. Phanjoubam, Tarapot (2003), "Bleeding Manipur", New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications Pvt Ltd.
10. Sapam Cha Jadumani (2011), "Kangleipakta inner line permit system amasung masigi ehou", Imphal: Paari Publication.
11. Wang, Shiqing (1984), "Lu Xun - A Biography", Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
12. Yang, Xianyi & Gladys Yang (1980), "Lu Xun Selected Works Vol I", Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
13. Zahar, Renate (2010), "Frantz Fanon- Colonialism and Alienation", New Delhi: Aakar Books.