Problem of 1949 Annexation of Manipur
- Part 1 -

Professor Naorem Sanajaoba *

INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION executed on 11-8-47 between Governor-General of India and His Highness the Maharajah of Manipur
Courtesy : RK Jhalajit Singh

In these recent few years, the intelligentsias have started giving their attention, and discussing on the issue that Manipur had forcibly been merged in the year 1949. In addition to it, there has been uninterrupted public curfew on 15 October every year since 1991. According to the official press release issued by the state, Manipur had been merged to India with the willingness of the masses. However, according to the newspapers which reflect the voice of the people, bandh had been organized with the overwhelming participation of the masses.

Hindustan Times, a leading national English newspaper, dated 19 April 1993 had on its featured news item titled, "Tact needed to assuage anger in Manipur" stated – "And according to report, it (bandh) was such a success that not a single soul stirred out of the houses." It further added, "The immediate Post-Independence euphoria soon gave way to widespread resentment over the Merger issue." Because of all these reasons, the question surrounding the merger of Manipur remains an inevitable and crucial issue of the land.

On this very issue, three very important and significant questions emerge very clearly. They are:

First Question: What is the political status before Manipur became an integral part of India on 15 October 1949?
Second Question : Whether the integration or merger of Manipur to India is right or wrong as per the existing norms and standards of International Law?
Third Question: After the merger of Manipur to India, whether there doesn't have any scope for Manipur of regaining its pre-merger political status?

Keeping these three questions in imperative and prime consideration, other corresponding and collaborative issue also emerges. To cite an example- How far, the stand taken by the Government of India that, the issue of Manipur falls within the sovereignty of India, any individuals or country have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the country, is true?

Let me give my understanding in brief on this very big historical and people's question from the perspective of Manipur nation.

Parameters used in this discussion are briefly mentioned because solution, responses, and stances are taken depending on the appropriateness, and rightness and wrongness of the parameter. Let the first pick be from the wrong stance. It is not possible to unearth the truth if the history of Manipur is perceived from the viewpoint/perspective of British imperialism and inter alia legacy. Why? Because, if the parameter and yardstick set by imperialism are used, possibility of having a perspective that transcends beyond imperialism is very remote and almost ruled out. The case of merger of Manipur should be viewed and perceived from the base that the state of Manipur has historically evolved (continuity of state).

Since 1,100 AD (Sic. 429 AD, Bogeshwar), both the residents of hills and plains has been cohesively under the political constitution in early in early state (Manipur) except for some brief spell of trying and testing difficult times.

Writings of L. OppenheimMax Sorensen J.G. Starke, James Crawford, Lauterpacht, G.I. Tunkinand other UN documents, Transfer of Power Vol. I-XII edited by Nicholas Mansergh, E. W. R Lumby, Accession of States by V.P. Menon, The Great Divide: Britain, India, Pakistan by H.V. Hodson, Philps and Doreen (ed)'s The Partition of India, Nehru's Discovery of India, Lapierre's Freedom at Midnight, Durga Das' From Curzon to Nehru, Philip Ziegler's Mountbatten are referred and taken into account of such authoritative and well known sources while discussing the issues of Manipur in the light of ending international law and paramountcy.

In addition to it, Maulana Azad's India wins Freedom, D.R. Manekar's Accession to Extinction, H.M. Seervai's Partition of India: Legend and Reality, Wavell's The Viceroy's Journal, Bipan Chandra, et.al (ed)'s India's Struggle for Independence, Stanley Wonpert's Jinnah of Pakistan; and from the perspective of Manipur, British Reports, N Sanajaoba (ed)'s Manipur: Past and Present (Vol. I-III), Manipur University publications of contemporary times have been source materials. Let me discuss the issue of Manipur in entirety using the historical documents and various analytical tools. Inevitably, some foreign vocabularies and nomenclatures will be used as it is so as to avoid the controversy surrounding and arising out of the people.

First Issue

In between two world wars (Inter-war period, 1919-1945), the political status of the states was very dynamic and characterised by fluidity. Its stature and level changes and doesn't have a definable static character. To categorise the political status would be next to impossible. The state system that existed before the First World War does not match with the present times as the former was colonial times. A long historical past of imperialism and colonialism has made the matter more complicated and obscured.

British paramountcy is neither colony, it infringes upon the independence of the states under monarchy, terminology which is not recognised by the international law. Because of it, the unfeasibility and impracticality of appropriately categorising the states' status of sovereign and semi-sovereign occurred during the time of paramountcy.

Table No. 1
Transformation of Manipur State

Period	Status of State	Order
Pre 1947*	International Protectorate	1
26 July 1947	Autonomous State (Constitution adopted)	2
11 August 1947	Associate state (sovereign within Indian Constitution)	3
15 August 1947	Sovereign state	4
18 October, 1948	Sovereign People's Republic (Assembly functions)	5
15 October 1949	Annexed state (Continuous state with suspended sovereignty)	6
January 21, 1972	Constituent state of India (Susp. Sovereignty)	7

Political status of states during the inter war period (1914-1945) and varied in the comity of nations. Categories altered

The political status of Manipur starting from pre-1947 to the year 1972 has been give above in the form of a chart. Firstly, the political status of Manipur in the pre-1947 was not included in the purview of colonialism. This has been treated as true by various colonial sources, Manipuri sources, and other independent sources. Philips Ziegler in his work, "Mountbatten: The Official Biography (1985)" writes, "As the boundaries of British India has gradually extended in the first half of the nineteenth century, an increasing number of princely states had entered into treaty arrangements with the new power, under which they accepted the presence of a British residents in their capitals and a degree of subordination to the Raj, but were not absorbed into the colonial bloc".

James Crawford, while mentioning about the princely state stated that the native states in the Indian subcontinent are included in the purview of neither the protectorate state nor the colonial protectorate. Their status is same as international protectorate. I, myself, have earlier dwelt sufficiently enough on the issues of Manipur during those days of paramountcy. When the paramountcy came to an end, the state can exercise the option of joining either of the two dominions or remaining independent under particular political arrangement. Congress had persistently tried hard and made all possible efforts to substitute and replace the British paramountcy but the British have firmly taken the stance that it was beyond their jurisdiction.

The issue that needs to be clarified at the first instant is the interpretation of the native state by the British did not match and synchronise with interpretation of the British. From the viewpoint of the Congress leadership, states of Moghul, Maratha, and Sikh were very often found to be mentioned as native states. Manipur was never a part of it. Manipur in its historical past and contemporary times also was not mentioned in the "Blood relation" state of Sardar Patel. It is viewed from the perspective of the Congress' native state. Manipur belongs to the same category of separate state like Burma, Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Congress has falsely deemed the Indian subcontinent as a continuous state.

Manipur had its own political constitution in the year 1947. By virtue of it, despite being under international protectorate, Manipur became an autonomous state. Since the said constitution was given neither by the British nor by the Congress, the Manipur constitution stands unique and independent outside their political authority. VP Menon himself writes that the status of the Manipur state was outside the purview of British India. And in August 1947 also, it was a part of neither India nor Pakistan.

On 11 August, 1947, Manipur after signing the Standstill and Accession Act which accordingly had agreed to hand over the three subjects to the (soon to be realised) Indian confederation remained as Associate State. Granville Austin, while describing the status of the states writes, "Somewhat later (Sic. after the Cabinet Mission) most of them (states) become loosely attached to the union government in a relationship more closely resembling confederation than federalism- although several threatened to remain independent". In the case of independence of the associate state, there has been widespread agreement.

James Crawford writes, "even if foreign affairs, defence and other subjects are handed over to another state, associate state remained independent as it happened to Western Samoa. He further mentioned that associate state can cease to be so basing on the principle of self-determination exercised through the free and genuine expression of the will of the people. In the case of Manipur becoming a case of associate state, the free and genuine expression of the people were bypassed. And also Manipur cannot ceased to be associate state, as no visible initiative is forthcoming from the metropolitan state (India) which would pave way for solutions of issues as Metropolitan state is day by day becoming more and more imperialist.

(This article was originally written by Prof. Naorem Sanajaoba and is translated by Aheibam Koireng Singh)

To be continued.....

---

* Prof. Naorem Sanajaoba wrote this article for Imphal Times
This article was posted on July 30, 2016.

---