RPF committed to free Manipur: Ngouba
Source: Chronicle News Service

Imphal, February 25 2025:

cont from previous issue

Citing an example, he stated when defending our villages, individuals and organisations came together as one, sharing the same purpose and giving their best efforts without hesitation.

However, once the defence ended, divisions emerged where some resorted to vandalising government properties and staging public protests out of frustration with the government 's inaction, while others focused on protecting the assets of politicians and government authorities.

Another example is that the objectives and goals of some organisations fail to align with the people s desires or demands.

Additionally, there are ambiguities in people's demands too.

Moreover, infiltration of some individuals and organisations who have fallen victim to the deceit and threats of the suppressive regime, is undermining the goals of the movement.

All these are the main factors contributing to the failure to achieve unity, or a lack of trust in collective efforts.

The beneficial outcomes given by unity, both in present and in the future, are immense.

"Among these outcomes, the greatest one will be the ability to safeguard identity and integrity, which will bolster courage and elevate national honour in a historical context.

It isa worthy and valuable legacy that can be passed down to future generations.

It's not that people do not collaborate, there are many movements where people worked together, which is also a form of unity, " he acknowledged, while urging people to align in ideals, goals, actions, and principles.

"One thing people must not forget is that the strength of unity lies in a just cause.

If the cause is just and right, it will generate limitless strength, and this very cause will serve as a unifying force.

The only rightful cause for Manipur is 'Independence'.

Straying from this path would be a misguided investment, yielding nothing but sorrow as its return".

According to MM Ngouba, the root cause of the people's suffering for generations is the loss of Manipur's independence, which was taken away through deception.

This statement is beyond debate, and the people of Manipur have repeatedly declared the Manipur Merger Agreement of 1949 as invalid on multiple occasions and in various instances.

While this truth is well-known to our people, a reminder is necessary at this moment.

According to intellectuals, there are three key criteria that render the agreement null and void and criteria are international law, Manipur State Constitution Act and the policy of British on princely states.

Summarising the international law criteria, the MM Ngouba said firstly India violated the trust that should exist between sovereign and independent states when signing agreements.

International customary law has long recognised the importance of trust between sovereign states that are not at war.

However, India breached Manipur's trust on September 21, 1949.Secondly, the use of military and paramilitary forces by Indian authorities to intimidate Manipur's representatives in Shillong was a direct violation of international law.

India violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state.

By challenging Manipur's sovereignty in September 1949, India engaged in an act of aggression.

Thirdly, according to Articles 51 and 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VGLT, 1969), any treaty obtained through threats or the use of force is considered null and void.

This principle is widely recognised by international law jurists.

Lastly, no referendum was conducted to determine whether the people of Manipur supported integration into India.

In contrast, regions such as Junagadh, Pondicherry and Sikkim were only integrated into India after a referendum was held.

To express the people's democratic will, whether in favour or against, everyone must have the right to participate in decisions concerning independence, as clearly stated by international law.

Since a referendum was never held to ascertain the people's will regarding Manipur's integration into India, it can be concluded that Manipur remains a colony under India's military occupation, he asserted.

On the Manipur State Constitution Act criteria, MM Ngouba said that firstly, on July 26, 1947, under the provisions of the newly-implemented Manipur State Constitution Act, the powers previously held by the Maharaja of Manipur were transferred to the Manipur Legislative Assembly, enabling the elected representatives of the people to govern the state independently.

Secondly, according to Sections 8(a), 9(b), 10(a), 18, and 26 of the Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA) 1947, as the Maharaja's power to make decisions independently was removed, the agreement he signed was rendered invalid, recounted MM Ngouba.

Additionally, the Merger Agreement was never ratified by the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Since the agreement was not ratified, Manipur is not bound by the terms of the Merger Agreement.

India's forcible takeover of Manipur's administration was not permissible under International Law.

According to Sections 8,10, and 18 of the MSCA, any decision regarding the fate of Manipur and its people should have been first debated in the Manipur Legislative Assembly.

Furthermore, it was not only necessary for the assembly to discuss the matter, but a referendum must be conducted too, to allow the people to express their stance on the issue.

On the policy of British on princely states, MM Ngouba said that the political status of the princely states had already been determined before the British left India.

According to the Cabinet Mission Plan (CMP) of May 16, 1946, it already stated that paramountcy would come to an end, and the states could only be linked to the Indian Union in three areas, that is, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Communications.

Apart from these three areas, the princely states gained full autonomy.

They regained all the rights that were previously surrendered to the British Crown, and as a result, the international law 1946, clearly states that the princely states had the right to negotiate whether to join the new constitutional structure of the Indian Union.

As a result, the British transformed all the states into fully sovereign and independent political entities.

Under no circumstances could the Indian Union force these states to integrate.

The agreement, which led to the annexation of Manipur by India, is now null and void, as it violates constitutional provisions and was made without the consent of the people of Manipur.

Having identified the root cause, recognised the way forward and people are resolute and ready to move forward with strength, MM Ngouba said that the right way to move forward together is to remove the signboard of Manipur Merger Agreement 1949 that has deceived Manipur and misled the public for generations causing them to bear the burden of colonialism.

This signboard should be eradicated from both people's consciousness and collective history.

The most fitting course of action would be for the king of Manipur to publicly declare that this agreement is null and void.

At the same time, the Manipur Legislative Assembly should deliberate on the reasons for the agreement's invalidity and make a decision.

"We recognise that the king lacks legal authority, and the Manipur Legislative Assembly is just another tool df the Delhi rulers.

Nevertheless, the party view this as an essential task, given the current circumstances, in order to send a clear and transparent message to all stakeholders.

These two entities should demonstrate the necessary fortitude to take this decisive step.

RPF call upon our people to inspire courage in everyone involved in this effort and to support the RPF's national liberation movement," MM Ngouba said in his message.

MM Ngouba said that RPF salutes all the comrades of CorCom who have stood together, as well as to the various fraternal parties, individuals, and organisations that have demonstrated their unwavering commitment to the nation.

(Concluded) .

Comment