Revisiting the Merger of Manipur
- Part 3 -

Sanatomba Kangujam *

The Shillong Accord 1949
Warning: These images CANNOT be reproduced in any form or size without written permission from the RKCS Gallery

(Peaceful transformation of the armed conflict in Manipur should involve recognition of the numerous lapses inherent in the Merger Agreement)

Stand taken by MSLA : Recent findings reveal a very significant event that marked a major opposition to the signing of the Merger Agreement. As per the proceedings of the 4th Sitting of the 3rd Session of the First Manipur State Legislative Assembly (MSLA) held at the Assembly Chamber in the Johnstone High School at 2:30 P.M. on the 28th September 1949, the Assembly had declared in no uncertain terms that Manipur would have no relations with the Indian Government whatsoever while categorically rejecting the Merger Agreement signed by Maharaja Bodh Chandra under immense pressure and duress. The document was signed by P.B. Singh, Chief Minister, T.C. Tiankham, Speaker and I.B. Singh, Minister of Finance and Foreign Affairs. (Reference: The Manipur State Gazette, October 14, 1949 (Part IV): Printed and published by the Supdt. State Press G-100/14-10-49/ MANIPUR STATE ARCHIVE).

This revelation is remarkable as it runs contrary to the general understanding which upholds that the Assembly had not register any form of protest or opposition to the Merger Agreement. Besides, this particular episode assumes more significance because of the fact that the Assembly was the only sovereign authority to say anything on the issue of merger. It may be stated that the Assembly was very much functioning as on 28th September 1949 since it got dissolved, though unconstitutionally, only on 15 October 1949. The historic resolutions adopted by the MSLA had rendered the Merger Agreement null and void right from the inception. Under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, the State Assembly was the only supreme body which alone was capable of taking a decision on the issue of merger.

Concluding Remarks : From the preceding analysis, it is quite obvious that serious procedural lapses were committed by the Government of India in securing the signing of the Merger Agreement. Had the Government of the Indian Dominion followed certain procedural norms in the process of signing the agreement, the existing controversy centering on the said agreement would never have emerged.

The Central Government of the Indian Dominion should have allowed Maharaja Bodhchandra to return to Manipur to consult his Council of Minister and obtain the consent of his people. The Maharaja reminded the Indian authorities several times that he alone could not undertake such a transaction without consulting his government and the people in whom sovereignty resided. But the Indian Government rejected the Maharaja's plea and instead literally coerced him into signing of the most controversial Agreement in the history of Manipur thereby setting the stage for one of the most protracted conflicts in the North East.

The controversy has become the ground for emergence of conflict between the Indian State and the non-state actors of Manipur. Had the integration of Manipur been carried out in keeping with the relevant democratic norms which are universally recognized by civilized nations, the prevailing conflict could have been averted. Lack of diplomacy and political far-sightedness coupled with scant regard for the principles enshrined in the United Nations' Charter had rendered the Merger Agreement a highly contested issue.

Another grave political blunder was committed by the GoI even as the Merger Agreement came into force on October 15, 1949. The Constitution of Manipur was scrapped and the democratically elected Manipur State Legislative Assembly was arbitrarily dissolved by passing two orders namely the Manipur (Administration) Order 1949 and the State's Merger (Chief Commisioner's Provinces) Order, 1950. Such a line of action pursued by the GoI led to complete usurpation of democratic space in Manipur which in turn created widespread political discontentment among the Manipuri elites. This had prepared the ground for political dissent that finds articulation in the form of insurgency. Here it needs to be emphasized that the politics behind the insurgency movement in Manipur is to recover the democratic space that was usurped in 1949.

Viewing from the hindsight, it would have been politically more prudent if the GoI had allowed Manipur to retain its Constitution and the Assembly as in the case of Jammu and Kashmir while working out the structure of relations between Manipur and India through special constitutional arrangement.

It needs to be sated that conflict between the Dominion of India and the independent Manipur had started much before the signing of the Merger Agreement. The stationing of an extra-constitutional body known as the Dewan in Manipur in April 1949 had created much confusion and discord in the bilateral relations between the Dominion of India and Manipur. It was primarily with a view to resolve the simmering tension generated due to excessive power exercised by the Dewan that the king of Manipur was invited to Shillong. The chain of events that unfolded at Shillong has now become history which everyone is aware of.

The attempt to interfere into the internal affairs of Manipur was made by India even before the formal declaration of independence in 1947. In fact, the signing of the Instrument of Accession and the Standstill Agreement on August 11, 1947 marked the beginning of the conflict between Manipur and India. By signing these two agreements, Manipur had virtually surrendered its external sovereignty to India.

Besides, the internal autonomy of Manipur was eroded to a large extent under the Instrument of Accession and the Standstill Agreement. The legality or illegality of the two agreements is quite another issue. But the signing of these two agreements did not directly led to complete usurpation of democratic space in Manipur. Notwithstanding the signing of the Instrument of Accession and the Standstill Agreement, Manipur was allowed to adopt its own constitution and install a partially democratic government elected on the basis of Universal Adult Franchise.This is primarily the reason for not citing the Instrument of Accession and the Standstill Agreement as the major causes of the prevailing conflict.

However, the signing of the Merger Agreement subsequently resulted in complete usurpation of democratic space. This is the basic reason why the Merger Agreement remains central to the understanding of the conflict and insurgency in Manipur. In this regard, it is worthwhile to argue that the dissolution of the Manipur State Legislative Assembly can be considered more significant than the signing of the Merger Agreement. Because it is the dissolution of the MSLA and not the signing of the Merger Agreement per se that instantaneously usurped the democratic space in Manipur. Still then, the dissolution of the MSLA itself can also be construed as a direct consequence of the Merger Agreement.

The signing of the Merger Agreement and the dissolution of the Manipur State Assembly has to be viewed as a single chain of events and not as separate occurrences. Here lies the centrality of the Merger Agreement in the study of conflict and insurgency in Manipur. As such, resolution of the current conflict should involve recognition of the lapses that were committed in the process of securing the Merger Agreement as well as the shortcoming inherent in dissolving the Manipur State Assembly. Restoration of democratic space that had existed in pre-1949 period will remain a key factor in ushering peace and normalcy in Manipur.

Postscript: Politics of the Royal Palace : The latest move of the state government to take over the Royal Palace on the pretext of renovating it can be seen as a logical corollary of the Merger Agreement. The move can be interpreted as a policy to complete the unfinished agenda of the merger. The take-over plan aims at completely usurping what has been left with Manipur i.e. the titular kingship which remains as a cultural symbol that represents the sovereign past of Manipur.

When the king is separated from the palace, the existence of kingship is devoid of any meaning. The palace take-over, therefore, implies the end of the titular kingship. In other words, the government apparently does not want to retain the kingship even in the present titular form on account of its intrinsic political implications. So the latest move is to finish the process that had been started since 1949 at Shillong.

Given this understanding, there is a need to critically observe the resistance to the palace take-over plan. Resisting the palace take-over plan from the historical and cultural point of view is fully justified. But if expediency assumes primacy over consistency in the act of resistance, then the danger lies there. It is pertinent to point out that invoking the provisions of the Merger Agreement for ensuring the protection of the Royal Palace is tantamount to endorsing the said Agreement.

Because when the demand for implementation of certain provisions of the Merger Agreement is made, it implies recognition of the validity of that Agreement. Therefore, the line of politics that seeks to protect the Royal Palace by invoking the Merger Agreement only stands to endorse the same. Although, the state government has already withdrawn the plan to take-over the Royal Palace, ultimately it is the government which has won the battle. The politics of resisting the palace take-over plan remains entrapped in its own strategy. Political correctness and consistency is something which is lacking in any kind of movement being witnessed in Manipur.

(The views expressed here are solely that of the writer)

Concluded..