Why India cannot disturb Manipur Boundary of 1947?
Uti possidetis juris
- Part 1 -

Professor (Dr.) N. Sanajaoba *

Manipur Map

ISSUE

Never before since India's disputed annexation of Manipur in 1949, has the issue of balkanisation of Manipur or, alteration of her ancient historical boundary been raised as it is being done today. The annexation has let loose unimaginable events like ethnic-cleansing, highway-blockade, economic strangulation and claims to respective clan lands and many more things. Annexation is the pandora's box. In the 19th century, rival claims over Kabo valley by two independent states in South Asia had been settled through multilateral negotiation on the production of historical boundary documents by the legitimate state authority of both the countries. Even today, an arbitration commission can easily and peacefully settle similar issues on the production of century-wise maps of the boundary by the respective legitimate state authorities, who had properly undertaken the state succession under the law.

The editorial of Assam Tribune (7 June, 1999) has captured the ongoing process. Except the realisation in the NSCN (I-M) leadership that their "Sovereignty" cannot be water-tight is undoubtedly pregnant with possibilities justifying cautious optimism about peaceful solution. Similarly the virtual pressing the demand for covering all the "areas inhabited by our forefather" will pose another hurdle as this will affect the integrity of Manipur as a State besides demands for territories from Assam's North Cachar Hills. This hurdle will pose greater difficulty than the sovereignty demand".

The people of Manipur whose forefathers lived together for two millennia centuries before the ethnic names have been adopted or, given by the British has put up strong resistance to this sort of claims. The All Manipur Students' Union, as for instance, lodged strong protest to Indian premier in 1960s against such moves. The Sunday Hindustan Standard (January 7, 1968) has carried the protest, " Manipur split-up move condemned' while stating that any "Attempt for Balkanisation of Manipur would have serious consequences". The Indian premier, whose Government has illegally annexed the Asian state of Manipur might have understood the outer limits of his jurisdiction in this context.

The five lakh-strong Manipuri's historic rally on 4th August, 1997 has resolved that "The people of Manipur shall resist, as one man, the sinister and diabolic designs which pose a tremendous threat to the territorial integrity of the state and ethnic symbolic harmony of its people". Manipur legislative assembly also has adopted similar stand by its resolution, dated 24th March, 1995 to resist against all designs, mooted for disruption of Manipur's territorial integrity. *The Burmese insurrection in Manipur for 500 years had also been repulsed by the Manipuris in similar fashion in order to preserve Manipur's territorial integrity.

The politico-military apparatus, which has to defend Manipur has been taken over by the Government of India unlike the situation in which the Burmese disturbances for five centuries that had been decisively defeated by Manipur's political military apparatus. In the changed scenario, we discuss issues that merit legitimate attention of the constitutional authorities and International-law-persons by citing the principles and practices.

The Constitution

Two political constitutions of the post-war period are relevant in driving home the point. Article 3 of 1947 Manipur constitution provides, "The territories for the time being and hereafter vested in the Maharajah are governed by and in the name of the Maharajah. All rights, authority and jurisdiction which appertain or are incidental to the Government of such territories are exercisable by the Maharajah subject to the provision of this Act".

Any premier of any country in the neighbourhood or, his plenipotentiary who has claims over any part of the territory of Manipur in 1947 has to satisfy any commission or mediating party with his or her constitution that lawfully operates in his or her country in 1947 and cite the precise constitution provision relating to their territory. This is the first sine qua non for both India and any other internationally recognised state for a peaceful negotiation of the claims, should there be any lawful claim as such.

The second pre-condition relates to historical rights of that state. How the successive constitutional rulers of any state whatsoever (chronologically speaking) had maintained by proper documents, records and historical official records. The Burmese in 19th century produced similar materials before the boundary commission relating to Kabo valley and Manipur contradicted with her records and documents. The Government of India can initiate this process su-motto without triggering possible discomfort among the neighbouring states, presently in her union; governance function cannot abdicate this primary obligation for conflict off resolution and a 'white paper' could also be issued if possible mishaps have to be averted or, pre-empted in time.

The second instrument is the republican constitution of India which provides in article 3, parliamentary power to alter areas, boundaries of existing states after hearing 'views' of the state legislature concerned which will not bind the President at all. This article applies to India's existing states and not to Manipur, which has been 'a pre-existing state' before the adoption of India's Constitution. Rather, it has been an illegally annexed state to which article 3 has no contextual bearing at all.

The first schedule of the constitution defines territory of Manipur thus, "The territory which immediately before the commencement of this constitution was being administered as if it were a Chief commissioner's province under the name of Manipur." The first schedule of the Constitution serial No. 19 on Manipur categorically established the fact that the territorial integrity of Manipur preceded the Indian Constitution. This status quo ante of the pre-existing state can not be disturbed by a subsequent provision of the Constitution like the article 3 or 4 of the Constitution.

The Constitution defines the matters specified in the Instrument of Accession for legislative purposes. For Jammu and Kashmir, which like Manipur had entered into the Instrument of Accession, article 370 of the Constitution provides that the power of the parliament shall be limited to 'matters specified the Instrument of Accession governing the accession' of Jammu and Kashmir state to the Dominion of India. Like the British, the Indian rulers played divide-and-rule policy by denying the same privilege, enjoyed by Kashmir to Manipur.

As per the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) order, 1954, C.O. 48, the President of India made the order:
To article 3, there shall be added the following further proviso, namely :-
"Provided further that no bill providing for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of that State shall be introduced in parliament without the consent of the Legislature of that state".

A re-statement has also been subsequently issued by the union government of India. The Government of India was expected to issue a similar order in 1954 or thereafter, in regard to the boundary of Manipur, but it failed her constitutional responsibility to treat two annexed states on equal terms. Even to-day, the Government has the responsibility to issue a similar order in regard to Manipur. Claims and counter claims to balkanise Manipur would not have gathered so much attention as of now but for the unfairness of the Government and its deliberate abdication of constitutional obligations.

UTI Possidetis Juris

Fratricidal wars and never-ending-political instability ensured in some parts of the world, where similar ethnic groups settle in contiguous areas of a state or country; but baseless claims to territory of other state have never materialised in the recent state practices in the last two centuries, despite world-wide conflagrations, which every sensible student of history knows. Somalia claimed contiguous areas where Somalian tribes settled in both Kenya and Ethiopia; but her claims have been rendered absurd and futile by the international communities.

Hardly any country in the world can afford to similar claims, as every contiguous country has definitely a considerable population of common ethnicity of the neighbourhood. Palestinian people are spread over in almost all the neighbouring Arab states. Yet baseless claims had never been made by the responsible leadership of PLO, who are conversant with the basic international law. Baseless claims, made by irresponsible non-state bodies would impede even the exercise of legitimate rights of people, as the comity of nations would disregard them.

To be continued....