Fresh angle to the Lim debate
- The Sangai Express Editorial :: July 18, 2010 -

The lengthy statement issued by the United Naga Council to the media establishments in Imphal and subsequently published in the July 15 edition, is interesting and thought provoking and has the potential to take the debate over the issue of Naga integration to a totally new and hitherto uncharted territory.

To the Government, be it Nagaland, Manipur or the Centre, the argument put forward by the UNC to justify their stand will fall flat in the test of legality or Constitutionality, since Manipur merged (albeit allegations that it was done so under duress) with the Union of India on October 15, 1949.

However this is besides the point but it is significant to note that till today, quite a large section of people in Manipur and of course, those waging a bush war against the Union of India, still stick by the allegations and to them, 15 October 1949 is not about the merger of Manipur to India but annexation.

This can be gauged from the manner in which October 15 is observed as Black Day ever year by the armed groups. The passing reference to the merger agreement between India and the then indepen- dent State of Manipur is necessitated in the backdrop of the UNC quoting a clause from the Constitution of Manipur when the British left India in 1947, before its merger with the Union of India.

The said clause which the UNC pointed out and claimed as contained in the Constitution of pre-merger Manipur is quoted as '... right of any section of the Hill people to secede at the end of the five year period, should conditions within the Constitution be not satisfactory." If memory does not fail us, then we have not come across this point in all the debates concerning the Greater Lim demand. Correct us if we wrong.

Due to time constraints to contact veterans in the winter of their lives, but whose mental faculty still functions efficiently, we have not been able to exactly confirm the existence or otherwise of the said clause.

Though this is of not much significance to all the stake-holders, since Manipur came under the Constitution of India on October 15, 1949 and hence all laws and Acts framed earlier had to be automatically rendered defunct, the point raised by the UNC cannot be simply swept under the carpet or ignored.

The clause was incorporated at the insistence of some hill leaders of that time when the administration of the Integrated Manipur Hills and Valley came into force on August 15, 1947, said UNC. One interesting and thought provoking point is the term 'at the end of five years,' mentioned by the UNC in quoting the said clause.

Does this in any way allude to the point that the pre-merger Constitution of Manipur was to be effective for only five years, or does it mean that the Constitution was drafted in a hurry and hence will need a relook after five years. This is confusing and we would welcome anyone who can clear this cloud of doubt.

A whole lot of debates, with some descending to the lowest of the low, using derogatory and inflammatory tones, have been witnessed since the Greater Lim aspiration began to influence the polity and society in Manipur.

The interesting point is that while the NSCN (IM) has been maintaining that Manipur is a part of India since its Maharaja signed the merger agreement in 1949, the UNC is falling back or invoking a clause that supposedly existed before the merger. We see some sort of a contradiction here.

To strengthen and lend credibility as well as legitimacy, the UNC also mentioned the 16 Point Agreement of 1960 signed between the Government of Nagaland and India. If we are not mistaken, former Chief Minister of Nagaland, SC Jamir was one of the signatories.

Again if we remember correctly, the 16 Point Agreement has been vetoed and discarded by the very man and outfit leading the demand for the creation of a Greater Nagalim.

Bringing in the 16 Point Agreement inked in 1960, but discarded and dubbed as a sell out of the Naga people, by the NSCN (IM), to the debate raging over the demand of a Greater Lim today either betrays lack of a clear cut vision or using the agreement at the fancy and whims of anyone who claim to represent the Naga people.

Opposition leader in the Manipur State Legislative Assembly, Radhabinod Koijam, did the right thing, as expected from a leader representing Manipur, in raising the private member resolution to exempt Manipur from the purview of Article 3 of the Indian Constitution. Remember Article 3 empowers the Centre to change the boundary of States or carve out States etc.

There is no reason why the UNC should feel so upset by the resolution moved by Mr Koijam. This however is besides the point and while it is important to establish whether the claim of the UNC with regard to the clause of the pre-merger Constitution of Manipur is true or not is important, the matter of greater importance is to see how this claim affects the ongoing debates and verbal due over the question of creating a Greater Lim.

As for the debate on the cultural, geographical and social aspects in the creation of a Greater Lim, we will have our say when the time comes, but for now, if any of our readers can enlighten us on the said clause claimed by the UNC, it would be of immense interest to us, not because it will have any bearing in the ongoing peace process between the NSCN (IM) and the Government of India, but it will certainly throw some light on the political climate of Manipur in the pre-merger days, that is from August 15, 1947 and October 15, 1949.