Why Manipur’s historical status cannot be dismembered
|
Dr Laishram Malem Mangal
The Asiatic State of Manipur which existed as an independent sovereign country before the arrival of colonial British became part of the Indian Union in 1949 through the contested Manipur Merger Agreement. A politico-legal analysis is carried out based on the historical and political facts surrounding the peculiar status of Manipur.
To drive home the point, an Instrument of Accession (IOA) was signed by Manipur’s ruler on 11th August, 1947 which is purportedly said to have been accepted three days later by Mountbatten the then Governor-General of the Indian Dominion. IOA was designed to be executed by those Princely States which had full power and jurisdiction over its subjects and territory. By Article 3 of the IOA, the rulers ceded to the Dominion Government of India three subjects namely defence, external affairs and communication. Excepting these subjects, the States had full sovereignty in their internal administration. As per Article 7, accession did not amount to acceptance of future Constitution of India nor limiting the liberty to enter into arrangements with the GOI under such a Constitution. Article 8 underscored the continuing sovereignty of the Ruler over his State including his powers, authority and rights and validity of laws in force in his State. Article 5 prohibits the GOI from amending or modifying Article 3 subject-matter jurisdictions without the acceptance of the Ruler through an Instrument supplementary to the IOA. Restoration of sovereignty of the States is evidenced from Section 7 (1) (b) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947.
IOA is found to be incompatible with the scheme of the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 thus rendering it invalid. Section 9 (b) of the Constitution placed the Maharajah as the nominal Constitutional head of Manipur and he lacked executive authority over matters involving the legitimate interest of Manipur’s administration (Section 10 (a)). His prerogatives were circumscribed by Section 8 (a). Matters involving the well-being of people and Government required the approval of 2/3rd majority of the legislature (Section 18). These legal analyses equally apply to the issues of legality of the Merger Agreement. No historical evidences exist which suggests that Manipur’s National Assembly had ratified the IOA of 1947 or the 1949 Merger Agreement.
Questions of political status of a people are determined by conventions and State practices not by signatures of the rulers. UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970 recognises the ‘free’ association or integration principle with an independent State as one of the modes of implementing the right of a people to self-determination. The requirement to hold a plebiscite is grounded upon this philosophy. This universal principle is now an established norm of exercising the right of self-determination in international law. Referendums held in Junagadh and Pondicherry in 1948 and 1954 respectively re-affirms this. The GOI did not consider important to allow peoples of Manipur, Tripura, Hyderabad, Travancore, Jammu & Kashmir, etc. to hold referendum to determine their own political choices. Conclusion of the Merger Agreement by termination of the popular Government of Manipur and National Assembly on 15th October, 1949 by the Government of India amounts to violation of Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. Before the enforcement of its own Constitution, India violated UN Charter obligations. Manipur National Assembly denounced on 28th September, 1949 the nullity and unconstitutionality of the Merger Agreement. Nor did the people of Manipur hold a referendum to integrate with India.
In the light of such historical and political circumstances as evidenced from various State records, treaties and agreements including the White Paper on Indian States of the Ministry of States, Government of India, 1950, the taking over of Manipur’s administration by the Government of India stipulated in Article 1 of the Merger Agreement constitutes occupation of the former by the latter from the standards of international law, jurisprudence established by the UN and State practice. The political circumstances which coerced Manipur’s Maharajah to sign the Merger Agreement and unilateral dissolution of the popular Ministry and Manipur National Assembly read together with Article 43 of the Four Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907 confirms India as an administering authority, having responsibility towards Manipur’s well-being and its administration.
This foundation of India’s administration over Manipur attracts its State responsibility in international law. India is under obligation to protect the historical and political status of Manipur and the rights of the people who constituted its population legally in 1949. India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur is couched in the language of the Manipur Administration Order (MAO) dated 15th October issued by the then Chief Commissioner. More than Entry number 19 of the First Schedule of the Indian Constitution which seeks to define Manipur as its 19th State, this order testifies how the GOI established its authority over Manipur and its people in 1949. This is the material connexion between India and Manipur for which GOI is held accountable.
India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur is continuing in character. The people of Manipur do not recognise Section 3 of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 in so far as it sought to establish Manipur as a ‘new’ State under the Union of India. New Delhi’s theory of the establishment or creation of the State of Manipur anew in 1971 amounts to annexation of the State in so far as it sought to officially incorporate Manipur as the 19th State of the Indian Union. It is not recognisable as it seeks to obliterate Manipur’s existence as a historical and political entity before 1949. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, UN GA resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970 and decision of the ICJ in the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 136, 2004, etc. qualifies acquisition of territories through the use of force as illegal in international law. Manipur’s Statehood in 1972 is no more than a mere legal fiction of India’s Statecraft. The White Paper on Indian States, 1950 which shows the total area of Manipur as 8,620 (eight thousand six hundred twenty) square miles at the time of the contested merger is another pointer towards this. Manipur did not come into being by virtue of Articles 2 and 3 of India’s Constitution nor by the 1971 (Reorganisation) Act. Manipur Administration Order, 1949 testifies this facticity. This order read together with the resolutions adopted by the Manipur National Assembly on 28th September, 1949 and the National Convention on Manipur Merger Issue on 28-29, 1993 also nullifies the applicability to Manipur as a State which participated of her own free will into the making of the idea of India as a “Union of States” as defined in Article 1 of its Constitution.
Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention, 1907 limits the authority of the Indian State to apply or impose Article 3 of its Constitution to Manipur. The jurisprudence of utipossidetis juris stands to reinforce India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur’s inviolable political status. Utipossidetis juris protects the original state of National integrity, not only in terms of territoriality but also the organic character of Manipur’s polity, society and culture at the time of independence from British rule. Any attempt to change its demography, settlement patterns, division or bifurcation of the territory which affects its composite identity, etc. violates the objective of this international norm. India cannot disturb or alter Manipur’s original state of ethnic composition, settlement patterns and composite character of its demography, society and culture which existed in the material period. The international norm of utipossidetis juris rise to protect Manipur’s historical and political personality and integrity both territorial and non-territorial as it stood on August 15, 1947. As a State party to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, India had enacted the Geneva Conventions Act, 1960 to give effect to the provisions of these Conventions. Articles 47, 50 and 54 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949 prohibits the GOI from changing or altering the historical and political status of Manipur as existed in 1947. India’s Constitutional relationship with respect to Manipur is circumscribed by the above-mentioned treaties and principles of international law. Article 3 of India’s Constitution does not have jurisdiction over Manipur. To those blinded by sectarian ethnic homeland philosophy or rather propaganda let these historical records, data and legal principles guide your vision to come out of your blood thirsty agenda. Distortions of history through oral narratives may appear to be worth listening, but written historical data would make your prophecy fail. Policy makers at New Delhi should not consider crossing the Lakshman-Rekha again by trying to dismember on ethnic lines the historical Asiatic entity called Manipur which pre-dated the idea of India.
The writer is Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School, Pune. The author can be contacted at [email protected]. The views expressed herein are author’s own
The Asiatic State of Manipur which existed as an independent sovereign country before the arrival of colonial British became part of the Indian Union in 1949 through the contested Manipur Merger Agreement. A politico-legal analysis is carried out based on the historical and political facts surrounding the peculiar status of Manipur.
To drive home the point, an Instrument of Accession (IOA) was signed by Manipur’s ruler on 11th August, 1947 which is purportedly said to have been accepted three days later by Mountbatten the then Governor-General of the Indian Dominion. IOA was designed to be executed by those Princely States which had full power and jurisdiction over its subjects and territory. By Article 3 of the IOA, the rulers ceded to the Dominion Government of India three subjects namely defence, external affairs and communication. Excepting these subjects, the States had full sovereignty in their internal administration. As per Article 7, accession did not amount to acceptance of future Constitution of India nor limiting the liberty to enter into arrangements with the GOI under such a Constitution. Article 8 underscored the continuing sovereignty of the Ruler over his State including his powers, authority and rights and validity of laws in force in his State. Article 5 prohibits the GOI from amending or modifying Article 3 subject-matter jurisdictions without the acceptance of the Ruler through an Instrument supplementary to the IOA. Restoration of sovereignty of the States is evidenced from Section 7 (1) (b) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947.
IOA is found to be incompatible with the scheme of the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 thus rendering it invalid. Section 9 (b) of the Constitution placed the Maharajah as the nominal Constitutional head of Manipur and he lacked executive authority over matters involving the legitimate interest of Manipur’s administration (Section 10 (a)). His prerogatives were circumscribed by Section 8 (a). Matters involving the well-being of people and Government required the approval of 2/3rd majority of the legislature (Section 18). These legal analyses equally apply to the issues of legality of the Merger Agreement. No historical evidences exist which suggests that Manipur’s National Assembly had ratified the IOA of 1947 or the 1949 Merger Agreement.
Questions of political status of a people are determined by conventions and State practices not by signatures of the rulers. UN General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970 recognises the ‘free’ association or integration principle with an independent State as one of the modes of implementing the right of a people to self-determination. The requirement to hold a plebiscite is grounded upon this philosophy. This universal principle is now an established norm of exercising the right of self-determination in international law. Referendums held in Junagadh and Pondicherry in 1948 and 1954 respectively re-affirms this. The GOI did not consider important to allow peoples of Manipur, Tripura, Hyderabad, Travancore, Jammu & Kashmir, etc. to hold referendum to determine their own political choices. Conclusion of the Merger Agreement by termination of the popular Government of Manipur and National Assembly on 15th October, 1949 by the Government of India amounts to violation of Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter. Before the enforcement of its own Constitution, India violated UN Charter obligations. Manipur National Assembly denounced on 28th September, 1949 the nullity and unconstitutionality of the Merger Agreement. Nor did the people of Manipur hold a referendum to integrate with India.
In the light of such historical and political circumstances as evidenced from various State records, treaties and agreements including the White Paper on Indian States of the Ministry of States, Government of India, 1950, the taking over of Manipur’s administration by the Government of India stipulated in Article 1 of the Merger Agreement constitutes occupation of the former by the latter from the standards of international law, jurisprudence established by the UN and State practice. The political circumstances which coerced Manipur’s Maharajah to sign the Merger Agreement and unilateral dissolution of the popular Ministry and Manipur National Assembly read together with Article 43 of the Four Hague Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907 confirms India as an administering authority, having responsibility towards Manipur’s well-being and its administration.
This foundation of India’s administration over Manipur attracts its State responsibility in international law. India is under obligation to protect the historical and political status of Manipur and the rights of the people who constituted its population legally in 1949. India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur is couched in the language of the Manipur Administration Order (MAO) dated 15th October issued by the then Chief Commissioner. More than Entry number 19 of the First Schedule of the Indian Constitution which seeks to define Manipur as its 19th State, this order testifies how the GOI established its authority over Manipur and its people in 1949. This is the material connexion between India and Manipur for which GOI is held accountable.
India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur is continuing in character. The people of Manipur do not recognise Section 3 of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971 in so far as it sought to establish Manipur as a ‘new’ State under the Union of India. New Delhi’s theory of the establishment or creation of the State of Manipur anew in 1971 amounts to annexation of the State in so far as it sought to officially incorporate Manipur as the 19th State of the Indian Union. It is not recognisable as it seeks to obliterate Manipur’s existence as a historical and political entity before 1949. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, UN GA resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970 and decision of the ICJ in the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 136, 2004, etc. qualifies acquisition of territories through the use of force as illegal in international law. Manipur’s Statehood in 1972 is no more than a mere legal fiction of India’s Statecraft. The White Paper on Indian States, 1950 which shows the total area of Manipur as 8,620 (eight thousand six hundred twenty) square miles at the time of the contested merger is another pointer towards this. Manipur did not come into being by virtue of Articles 2 and 3 of India’s Constitution nor by the 1971 (Reorganisation) Act. Manipur Administration Order, 1949 testifies this facticity. This order read together with the resolutions adopted by the Manipur National Assembly on 28th September, 1949 and the National Convention on Manipur Merger Issue on 28-29, 1993 also nullifies the applicability to Manipur as a State which participated of her own free will into the making of the idea of India as a “Union of States” as defined in Article 1 of its Constitution.
Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention, 1907 limits the authority of the Indian State to apply or impose Article 3 of its Constitution to Manipur. The jurisprudence of utipossidetis juris stands to reinforce India’s historical responsibility towards Manipur’s inviolable political status. Utipossidetis juris protects the original state of National integrity, not only in terms of territoriality but also the organic character of Manipur’s polity, society and culture at the time of independence from British rule. Any attempt to change its demography, settlement patterns, division or bifurcation of the territory which affects its composite identity, etc. violates the objective of this international norm. India cannot disturb or alter Manipur’s original state of ethnic composition, settlement patterns and composite character of its demography, society and culture which existed in the material period. The international norm of utipossidetis juris rise to protect Manipur’s historical and political personality and integrity both territorial and non-territorial as it stood on August 15, 1947. As a State party to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, India had enacted the Geneva Conventions Act, 1960 to give effect to the provisions of these Conventions. Articles 47, 50 and 54 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949 prohibits the GOI from changing or altering the historical and political status of Manipur as existed in 1947. India’s Constitutional relationship with respect to Manipur is circumscribed by the above-mentioned treaties and principles of international law. Article 3 of India’s Constitution does not have jurisdiction over Manipur. To those blinded by sectarian ethnic homeland philosophy or rather propaganda let these historical records, data and legal principles guide your vision to come out of your blood thirsty agenda. Distortions of history through oral narratives may appear to be worth listening, but written historical data would make your prophecy fail. Policy makers at New Delhi should not consider crossing the Lakshman-Rekha again by trying to dismember on ethnic lines the historical Asiatic entity called Manipur which pre-dated the idea of India.
The writer is Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School, Pune. The author can be contacted at [email protected]. The views expressed herein are author’s own