Why Manipuris Fight for Right to Self Determination?

 WHY MANIPURIS FIGHT FOR RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION

I. A Brief  History of the Manipuri People

INTRODUCTION

            ‘Manipur’ is the ancestral territory of the ‘Manipuri’ people. Manipur is presently under Indian colonial rule. It is situated in the northeast corner of India and bounded in the east by Myanmar (Burma). The present territorial area is 22,327 sq. km. It lies within 23.83°N to 25.68°E latitude and 93.03°E to 94.78°E longitude. A fertile alluvial valley extends north-south in the middle and it is surrounded on all sides by hill ranges forming a part of the eastern Himalayas. Though constituting only about 12 p.c. of the total geographical area, the valley is settled by more than 75 p.c. of the total population of 2.3 million (2001 Census).

            The Royal Chronicle Cheitharol Kumbaaba maintains an uninterrupted historical record of the land and its people since 33 A.D. Throughout the history, the valley was, and continues to be, the core region where the distinctive Manipuri culture and way of life took shape and where political developments having repercussions throughout the Indo-Burma Region often originated.

            Among the Manipuris, the Meiteis form the predominant ethnic group and they traditionally inhabit the valley. The surrounding hill ranges are settled by many tribes. They are broadly grouped together and known as the Naga and the Kuki tribes. While the Meiteis thrive on wet cultivation, the tribal population subsists largely on the slash-and-burn technique of cultivation and depends heavily on the valley for their needs. In recent decades, however, the steady influx of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent into the hill areas and into parts of the valley and also the internal migration of tribes from the hills to the valley, have disturbed the traditional settlement patterns and demographic balance both in the hills and the valley of Manipur.

            The tribal ethnic groups have their mutually distinct cultural heritage. The members of a tribe communicate among themselves in their own dialect, but the Manipuri language is the lingua franca used for inter-tribal communication and by all Manipuris settled inside and outside Manipur. The tribal dialects are in varying stages of development; they are all written in the Roman script. The Manipuri language had evolved from Meiteilon, the native language of the Meiteis, which is written in its own script. All the tribal dialects as well as the Manipuri language belong to the Tibeto-Burman family of languages, just as all the indigenous ethnic groups in Manipur are of the southern Mongoloid stock racially.

            Of the 18 ‘national languages’ constitutionally recognised in India, the only language from the Tibeto-Burman family so recognised, though done so under political compulsions of the ongoing liberation struggle, is the Manipuri language. Anybody whose mother tongue is Manipuri language or who identifies himself/herself as a Manipuri, whether living inside or outside Manipur, belongs to the Manipuri people. There are about three million Manipuris in the world today. The Manipuris as a people are thus bound by a common racial origin, a common language and culture and by inheritance of a common ancestral territory now called Manipur. The following paras give a brief account of how their distinctive identity was forged and how they rose time and again against all odds throughout their long history.

EARLY HISTORICAL SETTING

            The origins of the Manipuri people are filled with myths and legends. One of them relates to three brothers who went in different directions from a place called Makhel in the northern hills of Manipur. The youngest of the brothers is said to have gone to the valley to become the ancestor of the Meiteis while the remaining brothers became those of the Naga tribes. Another common myth among the people is that of human beings originally coming out of a big cave.

            Manipur lies on an ancient trade route linking South-east Asia with South Asia and beyond. Scholars agree that waves of migration from the north and the east brought the Tibeto-Burman speaking peoples to the region in the prehistoric times. Archaeological evidence also point to the fact that the present valley was under water during the quaternary period and that the earliest human settlements in the hills gradually extended downwards and to the valley over the centuries. A successful response to the historic challenge of draining the valley and consequent transformation from food-gatherers and hunters to sedentary cultivators gave birth to a rich culture and a distinctive way of life.

            During the early centuries of the Christian era, seven major exogamous clans struggled fiercely for power and supremacy in the valley. The Ningthouja clan emerged victorious. Under its leadership, a larger and composite Meitei identity was forged out of the clans through a long historical process. Many tribal elements from the hills and many streams of migrating people naturally became a part of the cultural melting pot. The hill tribes in the interior regions maintained a subordinate relationship to the more powerful Meitei king. The consolidation of the Meitei State was more or less completed by the 12th century. It then embarked on a process of territorial expansion from the next century onwards.

            The Meiteis emerged as an important player in the regional political arena by the 15th century, particularly during the reign of King Kyamba (1476-1508). The boundaries of the Meitei kingdom expanded in the east up to the west bank of the Chindwin River (in Myanmar today) and were recognised as such by other powers in the region. The Meiteis were also known variously to the neighbouring peoples during the early period. They were the Kathe to the Burmese, the Cassay to the Shans, and the Meklee to the Ahoms.

 

MANIPUR AS A SOVEREIGN STATE

            A steady migration of non-Mongoloid peoples from the Indian subcontinent, Brahmins and Muslims in particular, began in the 16th century. They were subsequently assimilated into a larger Manipuri society. Under the impact of these migrations, however, the cultural complexion of the indigenous society underwent far-reaching changes. A pluralistic society and polity emerged. The Meitei kings began to assume Hindu names and titles. The kingdom itself came to be known as ‘Manipur’ during the 18th century, even though it was still referred to as ‘Meckley’ in the treaty of alliance signed between King Jai Singh and the British East India Company in 1762.

The 18th century also witnessed the zenith of Manipur’s power and influence as a sovereign state in the Indo-Burma Region. During the reign of King Pamheiba @ Garib Niwaz (1709 to 1748) the Manipur cavalry frequently raided deep inside the Burmese territory and gave a deathblow to the ruling Toungoo dynasty of Burma. The sacking of Sagaing in 1738 was the most remarkable event of the Manipuri attacks into Burma. The territorial extent of Manipur also spread far beyond the present boundaries. The Burmese retaliated in good measure when their opportunity came.

            A schism occurred in the Manipuri society with the advent of Hinduism under royal patronage since the time of Garib Niwaz’s reign. The Meitei followers of the indigenous faith, with its accent on ancestor worship, strongly resisted the imposition of the new religion on the people. It was taken as erosion of their distinctive culture and national identity. The religious dissension not only sapped the vitality of the people but also blurred their political vision. In fact, the national disunity and a corresponding discord among the Manipuri princes were principal factors that invited the Burmese invasion to Manipur with its disastrous consequences. When the Burmese forces also began to pose a threat to the eastern frontier of the British Indian Empire, it led to the First Anglo-Burmese War.

            The Burmese forces invaded and occupied Manipur for seven years (1819 to 1826). The Seven Years’ Devastation, as the period is known in history, marked a turning point in the fortunes of the Manipuri people. The Burmese pursued a policy of genocide on the Manipuri people and adopted scorched earth policy that thoroughly devastated the land. Thousands of Manipuris were taken prisoner and carried away to Burma as slaves; many more fled the country. A sort of Manipuri ‘Diaspora’ took place. Their descendants are still settled in large numbers in other States of ‘northeast India’, in Bangladesh and Burma. Those who stayed behind used guerrilla tactics to harass the Burmese occupation forces. However, it was not until Gambhir Singh, a Manipuri prince who fled from Manipur, raised a force called the Manipur Levy with British help in Assam and fought the Burmese who were ultimately driven out of Manipur in 1826. 

            Gambhir Singh was recognised as the king of independent Manipur by both the British and the Burmese under the Treaty of Yandabo (1826), which ended the First Anglo-Burmese War. However, the Manipuris as a people were at the nadir of their power and influence. They could not resist effectively when the Kabaw Valley, a strip of Manipur territory on the border, was ‘made over’ to Burma in 1834 by the British Indian government. The British adopted the policy of appeasement at the expense of Manipur to safeguard the northeast frontier of British India, to which the latest addition was Assam in 1826. The British did not feel secure enough by an independent Manipur as a buffer state because, despite its long record of antipathy to Burma, Manipur was then very weak. Manipur was compensated for the loss of her territory by a monthly allowance of ‘500 sicca rupees’ to be given to the Manipur king until such time the Kabaw Valley was reverted to Manipur. Gambhir Singh died of heart attack on the same day the Kabaw Valley was transferred to Burma.

            Extremely depopulated and economically ruined, a majority of the Meiteis began to take refuge and find solace in the escapist Vaishanava cult of Hinduism from Bengal. The Manipuri ruling class began to find living under the British imperial umbrella convenient for them, even though Manipur was referred to by British authorities as ‘an Asiatic power in alliance with the [British] Queen’. A British Political Agent was posted at Imphal, the capital of Manipur, from 1835 onwards to facilitate a friendly intercourse. A Manipur representative was similarly posted at Calcutta. The Manipur king collaborated with the British imperialists on subjugating the neighbouring peoples, such as the Lushai and the Naga tribes outside Manipur, in the second half of the 19th century. When the British encouraged the emigration of certain non-Naga tribes from Burma in order to exploit their traditional hostility to the Nagas, the Manipuri ruling class did not protest against the imperialist policy. Such co-operation with the imperialists earned for the Manipur king a British knighthood, but it alienated the Meiteis from the neighbouring peoples.

            Manipur’s usefulness to the British as a buffer state between Burma and the British Indian Empire and as the cat’s paw in their colonial expansion vanished when the British annexation of Burma was completed in 1885 and Manipur remained as the only independent kingdom in the midst of a vast British Empire. Many unreasonable and unfriendly demands were soon made on Manipur by the British Indian Government to give an excuse for the annexation of Manipur. In their moment of truth, the Manipuri ruling class called on the national feelings of the Manipuri people to meet the imperialist designs. The Manipuris, of course, knew that they were no match against the British might. But it was a measure of their pride as a nation that they deliberately chose open confrontation with the British rather than succumb tamely to their ploy.

             So, five high-ranking British officers specially sent by the Governor General to the Manipur king for political arm-twisting were beheaded inside the palace compound. And when, as expected, the British retaliated by dispatching three army columns to Manipur, all sections of Manipuris fought pitched battles in the hills as well as in the valley against the invading British forces. The outcome of the war was, of course, a foregone conclusion. The Manipuri forces were defeated in what came to be known in history as the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891. Yet, it was the finest hour for the Manipuri people.

 

MANIPUR UNDER BRITISH COLONIAL RULE

            The British hanged the Defence Minister and younger brother of the King, along with the General of Manipur army, in a public square to intimidate the Manipuri people. Many others, including the King, were exiled or imprisoned for long years. Manipur’s ancient and holy seat of power, the Kangla, became the new barracks for the British occupation forces. An annual tribute, a heavy fine and other punitive measures were imposed to subdue the rebellious masses. Significantly, however, Manipur was never annexed to the British Indian Empire.

            The British imperialists put on the Manipur throne a distant relative of the deposed king as ruler of the state. The ruler was assisted by a Durbar. However, real powers were exercised by the Political Agent and by the President of the Durbar, who were invariably British officers. The latter was personally made responsible for administration of the hill areas. In other words, nearly 90 p.c. of Manipur’s territory was deliberately kept outside the jurisdiction of the native ruler.

            Drastic changes were made in the administration to facilitate better collection of the revenue and to consolidate their colonial rule. Importance was subtly given to inter-tribal differences and rivalries in the hills. The British rulers also gave indirect encouragement to Christian missionaries who came to fulfill the White Man’s Burden among the tribes in the hills. The subsequent religious differences between the tribal converts to Christianity and the Meitei converts to Hinduism were then exploited to cause social and political friction among the Manipuri people. The policy of divide-and-rule was given a further refinement when the ‘prestige’ of the native ruler was propped up by turning a blind eye to his imposition of feudal and Hindu orthodox values and practices on the people. This served the useful purpose of diverting the attention of the people from the colonial masters to the oppression by their puppet.

            Manipur was important to the British as their strategic outpost in the Indo-Burma Region. Little attention was therefore paid to direct economic exploitation of the state as was usually done elsewhere. However, the indirect British colonial administration, through a native ruler and the tribal chiefs, extracted a heavy price from the people in the form of compulsory free labour in the construction of roads for use by the occupation army and in supplying rations to far-flung army outposts. Heavy taxes were also levied for payment of the annual tribute and the punitive fine and for contributions towards maintenance of roads, etc. Such measures angered the Manipuri public.

STRUGGLE AGAINST COLONIAL RULE - EARLY PHASE

            Public resentment against the colonial rule was evident as early as 1904 when the capital’s main market and the residences of some British officers were destroyed by fire during the night under suspicious circumstances within the span of a few days. The Political Agent ordered the male inhabitants of Imphal to rebuild the residences at their own cost. Six Manipuris who were alleged to be ringleaders in the acts of arson were also ordered to be expelled from Manipur. An agitated public could no longer take such high handedness lying down and decided to defy the orders. And in a manner, which is still peculiar to Manipur, the women took the lead in the mass struggle. Thousands of them converged on the Market Square in Imphal and demanded to meet the Political Agent for withdrawal of the orders. The police were ineffective against the massive outburst of pent-up fury. The colonial administration and the normal public life were completely paralysed. The British had to beat a hasty retreat and cancel the orders.

             The colonial masters had learnt a lesson. But the exigencies of the First World War prompted the British to raise a labour corps from among the Naga and the Kuki tribes of Manipur.  Though much against their will, the first batch of some 2000 recruits were sent to France in 1917. However, when the British proceeded to recruit and send another batch, the Kuki chiefs did not obey the orders. The Political Agent took this an issue of prestige and sent troops to punish some of the more rebellious tribal chiefs. In the hilly tracts where the Kukis routinely shift their settlements from place to place, the British found them more elusive in the prevailing atmosphere of mutual suspicion and antagonism. So, what began as a limited measure to teach a lesson to some Kuki chiefs, snowballed to a big punitive expedition against the Kukis in general with the participation of many British forces from India and Burma. The expedition continued, despite considerable casualties on both sides, sides, till the last of the leading Kuki chiefs was captured in 1919.

            From this bitter experience with the Kukis, the British appointed more British officers in the hill areas to ensure strict control over the people. The co-operation and assistance they received from the then native ruler was a crucial factor in their success and therefore, a Knighthood was conferred on him in appreciation of the services rendered. And mindful of the geopolitical importance of the valley and of the need to keep the majority Meiteis settled there in good humor, the British rulers began to make other ‘friendly’ gestures also, like reduction in the amount of annual tribute, relief from contribution to maintenance of roads, easier terms in loan repayment, etc. More funds were made available for more extensive administrative machinery.

 

STRUGGLE AGAINST COLONIAL RULE - LATER PHASE

            The spontaneity of the earlier struggles against the colonial rule gave way to more organized movements in the 1930s. One such movement was that of the Zeliangrong Naga tribes in the western hills of Manipur. As Christianity under colonial patronage began to challenge the traditional values and ideals of the tribal people, this mass movement under a charismatic leader was in the beginning a movement for reform in the traditional religion and society. The British rulers were uneasy at its mass support and became really worried when it gradually transformed into a movement against the British colonial rule. The leader told his followers to stop paying taxes, to disobey unjust laws, to fight against all foreigners and to struggle for a ‘kingdom promised long ago by God.’ The British suppressed the movement ruthlessly by hanging their leader in 1931 and his more prominent followers were imprisoned for long years.

             More sustained struggles against the colonial rule became possible with the emergence of educated native elite who had been exposed to the Indian freedom struggle during their study in Indian colleges and universities. It began as a non-political pan-Manipuri movement to bring all Manipuris, inside and outside Manipur, under one banner. They combined this with reformist zeal against the oppressive feudal and Hindu orthodoxy of the puppet ruler. In the ‘petition phase’ of the struggle, they submitted all kinds of petitions to the British rulers but mainly for various constitutional reforms in Manipur. This kind of passive and elitist protest was rudely shaken by an upsurge of mass indignation against colonial exploitation.

            The immediate provocation was an artificial scarcity of rice, the staple food of the Manipuris, during harvesting season and the consequent jump in prices in 1939. This was caused by the unrestricted export of rice from Manipur by Indian traders who, along with the Bengali clerks, were appendages to the British colonial rule. They were settled in large numbers inside the British Reserve, an extraterritorial enclave in Imphal, which came under the direct rule of the Political Agent. While the Bengali clerks were petty tyrants in government offices, the rich Indian traders were sharks in the colonial economy.

            In 1939 also, as it was in 1904, the first explosive reaction against the colonial regime came from the women of Manipur. As if out of nowhere, thousands of them gathered in Imphal and demanded immediate stoppage to the export of rice from the state by the Indian traders. In the course of their demand, they braved rifle butt and bayonet charges by the occupation forces, they lay down on the road in front of trucks loaded with rice for export, and they even compelled the high and mighty Political Agent to go with them to the rice mills and cut off their power supply so that the wily Indian traders would not be able to process rice for export even secretly. The fierce intensity of their anger, though brief, unnerved the colonial masters and their Indian lackeys so much so that the events came to be known in history as the Nupi Laan (Women’s War).

            Unlike in the previous occasions, the mass struggle continued with widespread disobedience movement with active participation by men. The social, economic and political superstructure carefully built up in Manipur on feudal and colonial foundations, simply collapsed in the frenzy of a mass defiance of colonial authority in the next few months, And the awe in which the British rulers were held by ordinary Manipuris was gone forever in the aftermath of the Nupi Laan. The nature of the struggle in Manipur was obviously influenced by the civil disobedience movements in India under Mahatma Gandhi’s leadership. But, being motivated by local issues and in the absence of any links organisationally between them, the movement in Manipur was not a part of the Indian freedom struggle.

            It was during such a politically fluid condition that the Second World War broke out and the Japanese dropped their first bomb on Imphal in 1942. Manipur was then quickly drawn into the vortex of war. From a transit route for hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing from the advancing Japanese forces in South-east Asia and from a camp for the retreating Allied Forces, Manipur itself was turned into a prime target for the two contesting armies. After fierce battles on Manipur soil in 1944, the Japanese advance was checked for the first time by Allied forces on the outskirts of Imphal and, in a decisive turn in the fortunes of the War in Asia, it was rolled back until the Japanese were finally defeated.

            Never before were the Manipuris so intensely exposed to the ravages of a modern war. The business of day-to-day survival took precedence over anything else for the majority of the people. But, to the more politically conscious Manipuris, men and women who actively took part in the Nupi Laan and in the subsequent disobedience movement, the Japanese forces were seen as liberators. They went underground and mobilised the public to provide food, shelter, information, etc. to the Japanese forces. Despite the strict wartime surveillance by the British, they established pockets of influence in the valley. The local support enabled the Indian National Army led by Subhas Chandra Bose, an ally of the Japanese, to raise for the first time the flag of their ‘Provisional Government of Free India’ on Manipur soil. They announced it as the beginning of the end of British colonial rule in the Indian subcontinent.

            Of course, the hope of liberation from colonial rule was dashed with the Japanese defeat. But it soon became apparent that the British had neither the energy left nor the inclination to continue ruling over an increasingly hostile Indian people. When the modalities for the transfer of power were finally worked out, the Native States like Manipur, administered by the native rulers under British paramountcy, were given the option to remain free or to join one of the two Dominions, namely, Indian and Pakistan.

BACK TO SQUARE ONE

            When political developments of such historic significance were taking place around them rapidly, the Manipuris were still recovering from the traumatic experiences of the War and were trying to bring back some normalcy to their lives. So, war compensation, to them, was perhaps an issue more important than political happenings elsewhere. Besides, while the old social values and mores had been swept away by the War, new ones were yet to take roots. During such a period, Maharaja Bodh Chandra, the then young and inexperienced native ruler of Manipur who was put on the throne by the British on the death of his father during the War, signed the Instrument of Accession (see Appendix I) on 11 August 1947 acceding Manipur to the Dominion of India, just three days before the long-awaited dawn of freedom. Nobody knew how and under what circumstances he signed, or was made to sign, the document which put the clock back in Manipur and placed the Manipuri people once again at the mercy of the new rulers in New Delhi. However, under the terms of the Instrument of Accession, the Maharaja of Manipur retained the sovereign power to reject ‘any future constitution of India’.

            Manipur’s political relations with an independent India were still the same as they existed under British paramountcy. Under the terms of the Instrument of Accession, the Indian government was responsible for Defence, External affairs, and Communications and the Maharaja enjoyed considerable autonomy in internal administration. A leader of the Indian National Congress from Assam was appointed the Dominion Agent in Manipur to look after India’s colonial interests, just as the Political Agent did regarding British colonial interests. The Political Agent had functioned during the British Rule under the direction of the Governor of Assam in Shillong who was in overall charge of the Indo-Burma Region in his capacity as Agent to the Crown Representative in India. The Governor of Assam now had similar responsibilities as Agent to the Government of India. The Governor now reported to the Minister of States, Government of India. Almost everything remained unchanged, including the occupation of the Kangla, the sacred and ancient seat of power of Manipur kings, by an Assam Rifles battalion.

            There were however significant changes in Manipur’s internal administration and politics. The long-standing public demand for a ‘full responsible government’ in Manipur, which was disrupted during the War, had gained political momentum once again when the winding-up of the British Indian Empire became imminent. A Constitution Making Committee headed by the President of the Durbar, a British officer, was therefore constituted by the Maharaja by the end of 1946. The 15-member Committee included five elected members from the valley, five nominated non-officials from the hills and officials deputed or nominated by the government departments concerned. After years of procrastination on the issue, there was a sense of urgency all around. A draft Constitution incorporating the basic structure of a responsible government was ready a few days before the transfer of power by the British.

            But the Maharaja was reluctant to outright introduction of a responsible government. In the meanwhile, the Durbar was abolished and replaced by an interim Manipur State Council as the hub of administration in the wake of the transfer of power. With a Chief Minister at the head, the Ministers in the Council were appointed by the Maharaja and they were responsible to the Maharaja. The Maharaja-in-Council had both legislative and executive powers over the whole of Manipur.

POLITICAL POLARIZATION

            The most vocal element in the protest over delay in adoption of the Constitution was the Manipur State Congress, a political party which came into existence overnight in the second half of 1946. Its leaders had a political godfather in the Dominion Agent, a veteran Indian Congress leader. They resorted to demonstrations, picketing government offices, and other forms of agitation to dislocate normal life in Imphal. The Manipur State Congress was later affiliated, in 1948, to the All India States’ Peoples’ Conference, a front organization of the Indian National Congress for the people in Native States.

            The role of the Manipur State Congress was that of a usurper, for the demand for a responsible government had been spearheaded since 1938 by a broad-based political movement under the charismatic leadership of Hijam Irabot. The Manipur State Congress was nowhere on the political scene when Hijam Irabot was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in 1940 for leading the Nupi Laan and the mass disobedience movement that followed. The British rulers incarcerated him at the far away Sylhet Jail (now in Bangladesh). On being released from the jail, he was not allowed to enter Manipur. He was re-arrested and detained in the Silchar Jail (now in Assam state) till the end of the War. No other political leader was so popular and respected among the Manipuri people, and for that reason so ‘dangerous’ to the British, as Hijam Irabot.

            During the years he spent in jail, Hijam Irabot had the opportunity to interact with Indian communist cadres and to study Marxism-Leninism. As a result, he became a committed Marxist with a radically changed political outlook. But Hijam Irabot’s political line was conditioned by his long experience in political organization and his intimate knowledge of the Manipuri people and society. He did not, therefore, subscribe to the then prevailing communist dogma originating from Moscow and being obeyed in toto by the Indian communists, even though he was organizationally associated with the Assam unit of the Communist Party of India. For this, in October 1949, he was subjected to self-criticism by the party and he confessed that he had been following the political line of Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia. Translated into ordinary language, it meant that Hijam Irabot was a Manipuri nationalist who also believed in the revolutionary tenets of Marxism-Leninism.       

            When Hijam Irabot was allowed to return to Manipur in 1946, he did not reveal initially his new political ideology but quietly went about organizing the peasants at the grass roots in a class struggle against the feudal land owners whose class interests were best represented by the opportunist and urban based leaders of the Manipur State Congress. Most of his political colleagues and followers of the pre-War period belonged to the petty bourgeoisie and they were now regrouped under one banner. Hijam Irabot also tried to forge a political alliance of the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie and the tribal leadership for a national democratic revolution in Manipur.

            So, when the British rulers left Manipur, there was a clear political polarization. The Manipur State Congress, which got all their political sustenance from India and represented the land-owning urban middle class, was on one side. In the Manipur State Council, where the feudal elite were entrenched, they also had an ally. There was, on the other side, Hijam Irabot’s broad nationalist alliance of the petty bourgeoisie, the tribal people and the increasingly class conscious peasants. The contradiction turned into a class antagonism when the Manipur State Council, vested with enormous legislative and executive powers, felt threatened by the political awakening among the peasants and took up repressive measures in 1948 against the movement led by Hijam Irabot. He went underground in September 1948 to avoid being arrested on fictitious criminal charges.

DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY

            The Maharaja-in-Council finally adopted the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 (See Appendix 2) and also the Franchise rules, which laid down, the details regarding conduct of elections. The salient features of the Manipur Constitution and the Rules were:

(a) a 53-member legislature, of which 51 members were elected from territorial constituencies on the basis of adult suffrage by secret ballot and the remaining two being representatives of Educational and Commercial interests;

(b) a seven-member Council of Ministers, consisting of six Ministers, including two Ministers reserved for the Hill people, elected by the legislature and a Chief Minister appointed by the Maharaja in consultation with the elected Ministers;

(c) a Maharaja who was ‘Constitutional Head of the State’, enjoying certain  personal prerogatives and a fixed percentage of the state revenue as civil list and to whom the Council of Ministers was jointly responsible for administration of the state;

(d) a provision of the Fundamental Rights and Duties of the citizens which, among others, guaranteed the rule of law, equality before the law, ‘freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship, vocation, association, and action subject to law and public morality’; and

(e) a Judiciary, which was completely separate from the Executive.

            There were about half a million eligible voters, adults above 21 years of age, in the electoral rolls of the 51 territorial constituencies. In view of the inadequate manpower and poor communication facilities, the elections were conducted in a staggered manner from June 11 to July 27, 1948 and the final results were published on 20 August 1948. The new legislature was ceremonially inaugurated by the Maharaja on 18 October 1948.

            The Manipur State Congress secured just four seats in the legislature, reflecting the big gap between their pretensions and the reality. A local party, with support from Independent legislators, came to power. The Maharaja  appointed his younger brother as the Chief Minister and the new Council of Ministers were sworn in by the Chief Judge on 26 November 1948. Thus Manipur became perhaps the first among the Native States to have a secular and democratic government within the framework of a constitutional monarchy (See Appendix 3). In a society which was steeped in feudal values and with an electorate which were largely illiterate, it was a bold and remarkable achievement.

INDIAN INTRIGUES AND ANNEXATION OF MANIPUR

            When the new Ministers were feeling their way in the government and when the legislators were busy debating on all kinds of issues in their new-found freedom and enacting basic laws urgently required for governance, the leaders of independent and resurgent India were consolidating the empire they inherited from the British. The so-called merger of hundreds of Native States, big or small, to the Dominion of India was on the top of their agenda. The process was nearly complete by the beginning of 1949. But the people and the government in Manipur were too absorbed in their respective local problems to fully appreciate the real strategic importance of Manipur to India’s security and, therefore the necessity, from India’s point of view, of annexing it as soon as possible. On the other hand, they contented themselves with an assurance given by the Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in a letter to the Maharaja, that the integrity and distinct identity of Manipur would be preserved.

            The first Indian move was planting a Trojan Horse in Manipur. The Governor of Assam, on behalf of the Government of India, insisted on appointing an officer called the Dewan to look after the ‘treaty obligations’ between Manipur and the Indian Dominion, on the ground that such an officer was essential at Imphal with the abolition of the Dominion Agency. The Maharaja reluctantly agreed to the proposal as the Chief Minister was to be appointed concurrently as the Dewan. But the Governor changed his mind soon after the appointment and told the Maharaja to appoint a person nominated by the Indian Government as the Dewan ‘with full powers over the whole range of administration’.

            The Government of India had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Manipur like this under the terms of the Instrument of Accession. Clearly, the Indian political leaders who claimed to be the champions of democracy had no respect for the democratic government and institutions in Manipur. Through the Governor of Assam, they adopted the tactics of recognising the Maharaja only and nobody else. They now pressurised an inexperienced Maharaja into accepting a situation where the Ministers of a responsible and popular government were to take orders in day-to-day administration from an extra-constitutional functionary like the Dewan.

            With the installation of a Major General as the new Dewan in April 1949, the denouement came quickly. The Manipur State Congress, which had been smarting from their election fiasco, soon began to whip up public emotions on the alleged oppression of the people in ‘social and religious matters’ by the Maharaja and demanded the Maharaja’s head as well as the integration of Manipur with India as the price. To get over the last hurdle in India’s colonial expansion, the Governor was now orchestrating the pressure on the Maharaja in Manipur through the Dewan on the one hand and, on the other, he applied guile and flattery so skillfully that he could pose as the Maharaja’s saviour!

            It was primarily to seek the advice of the Governor on a contentious legal matter involving the disqualification of a Minister by the Election Tribunal and also to entreat his ‘saviour’ to restrain the unruly Manipur State Congress that the Maharaja went to Shillong, the then capital of Assam State, in September 1949. The conspiracy hatched up in New Delhi and Shillong was thus working according to plan. The Maharaja’s own plans, of course, fell apart. Instead of the benign Indian Congress freedom fighter whose sole concern in the past always seemed to be the Maharaja’s welfare, there was now a Governor in his true colours telling a shocked Maharaja to forget about the popular government in Manipur and to put his signature on a prepared document ceding full and exclusive authority regarding the governance of Manipur to India.

            There were indeed for some time all sorts of press reports and rumours about possible merger of Manipur into India. But in his naivety, the Maharaja could not have thought that it would come about in such an abrupt and treacherous manner. So, according to well-documented accounts of that sordid episode, the Maharaja was adamant in his refusal, insisting on first  taking into confidence the popular government and legislature in Manipur. The Governor and his masters in Delhi then resorted to applying intense psychological pressures on the Maharaja. The Indian Army soon cordoned off the ‘Redlands’, the private residence of the Maharaja in Shillong, where he and his small entourage were staying. All means of communication with the outside world were totally cut off. Not so subtle hints of dire consequences in case of continued defiance and prospects of a much enhanced Privy Purse in case of compliance were conveyed to the Maharaja. On the third day of torture, the Maharaja broke down. And on the next day, 21 September 1949, India got a new colony on its northeast frontier as the Maharaja signed the so-called ‘Manipur Merger Agreement’ (See Appendix 4). It looked as though the British were fools in 1891.

            To the Maharaja’s credit, he had signed the so-called agreement ‘on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors’ only. In other words, the Maharaja left the door open for the Manipuri people either to reject or approve of his action. Needless to say, the ‘Agreement’ was never ratified by the Manipuri people’s elected representatives in the State Assembly nor approved by the then popular government in Manipur. Besides, being a document signed by the Maharaja under duress and in violation of the provisions of the Manipur Constitution, the ‘Manipur Merger Agreement’ was, and continues to be, legally invalid.

            According to the terms of the ‘Agreement’, the formal annexation of Manipur took place on 15 October 1949 amid tight security.

II. Indian Colonial Rule in Manipur

 

THE BACKGROUND

            India’s struggle for freedom from the British colonial rule was a movement of historic proportions. With sacrifice and participation by millions of Indians under Gandhi’s unorthodox leadership, it was an inspiration to all freedom-loving peoples worldwide. Not surprisingly, its impact on those Manipuris who were educated in India before the Second World War was considerable. Moreover, there had been cultural interaction between the two peoples for about two centuries. So the bulk of the Manipuris were not ill-disposed towards India or the Indians in 1949. Only the Indian rulers thought and behaved otherwise. They adopted underhand treachery to annex Manipur and India’s very first official acts in Manipur were the dismissal of the popular government and the dissolution of the elected legislature. All powers were concentrated in a Chief Commissioner who, at the first opportunity, muzzled the press and banned all public meetings.

            However, as perceived by the new colonial regime, the greatest threat to them was the peasant movement led by Hijam Irabot. This movement had acquired international ramifications after Hijam Irabot attended the Second Congress of the Communist Party of India (CPI) at Culcutta in March 1948 where he met with Thakin Than Tun, leader of the ‘White Flag’ Burma Communist Party (BCP). This development, with its potential for linking up Hijam Irabot’s movement with other anti-colonial, nationalist and usually communist movements in South-east Asia which extended in a continuous arc from Burma to Indo-China, was a key factor in the hastening of Manipur’s annexation by India overriding the popular sentiment against ‘merger’ and the Maharaja’s sovereign power, under the terms of the Instrument of Accession, to reject ‘any future constitution of India’. In the Indian context too, the Second Congress was a landmark in communist movement in that the CPI decided to launch armed struggle against what they called the sham Indian independence and the bourgeois ruling class.

            Hijam Irabot, then working underground, felt strongly against Manipur’s annexation. The manner in which it was effected was, from his Marxist viewpoint, a further confirmation of the reactionary character of the Indian ruling class. So Hijam Irabot seized the opportunity provided by this tactical change in the communist movement and took advantage of the comparatively easy availability of arms and ammunition in Manipur in the after math of the Second World War. He then began to transform the anti-feudal peasant movement in Manipur into a guerrilla movement against the Indian rulers.

            By the middle of 1950, his armed ‘Red Guards’ were in control of scores of villages in the Manipur valley. The colonial administration promptly declared them as ‘disturbed and dangerous area’. The police and the paramilitary forces were then unleashed on the people to crush the movement. Hijam Irabot directed the struggle from his hideout in a Burmese village, which was facilitated by his cordial relations with the BCP. Unfortunately, he died in September 1951 due to illness, and the guerrilla movement also petered out in the next few months from lack of proper leadership. Though the armed struggle led by Hijam Irabot, the first of its kind in the Indo-Burma region, was not a success, its revolutionary legacy is still cherished by the Manipuri people.

            Unlike the struggle in Manipur valley, which adopted a basically Marxist political line, there was also opposition to the Indian colonial rule on ethnic lines by many freedom-loving tribes. For example, the Naga tribes in what is now called Nagaland (then a part of Assam) began their own armed struggle for national liberation by 1956. There also, it was a story of brutal suppression by India’s Occupation Forces.

THE WATERSHED

            When the mass of indigenous peoples in the Indo-Burma region were thus feeling alienated from India and the Indians, the Sino-Indian War broke out in 1962. A unilateral cease-fire by China saved this strategic region for India by a hair’s breadth. This brought about a change in the attitude of Indian rulers to the region. There was now more of a carrot in addition to the big stick. A new State of Nagaland in the Indian Union was formed in 1963, followed by the States of Tripura, Manipur and Meghalaya in 1972. But it was too little and too late in the day for the Manipuri people.

            A new generation of Manipuris, born during and after the Second World War, brought up without their parents’ wishful thinking about India’s freedom struggle but wiser from their own bitter experiences of the Indian rule, had come of age by the middle of the Sixties. They initially got their inspiration from the glorious past of the Manipuri people. More important, they began to realize the irreconcilable nature of the national contradiction between the Manipuris who have very close historical, cultural and racial affinity with the peoples of South-east Asia and the Indians who have their own rich and distinctive cultural heritage. They also realized that similar national contradictions prevailed in the Indo-Burma region with respect to other indigenous peoples. 

            The thought, feelings, aspirations and grievances of this generation of Manipuris found a concrete expression in, and were propagated by, the establishment of the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), Manipur in November 1964. Some veterans of the struggles led by Hijam Irabot also joined to lend their experiences to the organization and to complete what they felt was their unfinished task.

            To the new generation, the fundamental national contradiction between the Manipuris and the Indians explained why India’s ‘democratic’ rulers had no qualms about trampling on Manipur’s nascent democratic government and institutions in 1949; why they were interested only in the physical security provided by the Himalayan range which extends upto the Indo Burma region, ignored Manipur’s rightful historical claim over the Kabaw Valley while settling the India-Burma boundary and erected an artificial wall between countless families who have been living on the border for centuries; why India’s professed ideals like anti-colonialism, secularism and socialism do not extend to the Mongoloid indigenous peoples of the region; why India’s armed forces behave and operate like an army of occupation; why this region is the least developed economically despite its rich natural resources and has instead become the dumping ground for Indian industries as well as the cheap source of their raw materials; why even the judiciary adopts a different norm on human rights for the peoples of this region; or why an ill-concealed attempt is being made to change the demographic composition of the region. The list seems endless. In short, the irreconcilable national contradiction explained why Manipur and the rest of the Indo-Burma region remain an Indian colony.

THE CAPTIVE MARKET

            The so-called development activities undertaken by India from the late Sixties onwards were naturally conditioned by considerations of India’s security and territorial integrity. Priority was given to construction of roads in the border areas for better deployment of an ever-increasing number of Indian Occupation Forces  (IOF) in the region. That the people could also use the same roads was an incidental benefit. With its vast untapped natural and mineral resources, with its perennial rivers, the Indo-Burma region has the potential to generate huge surplus power and become a well-developed region. But India’s colonial rule has ensured that it remained the least developed and the most backward region thereby making it totally dependent on India. Not much attention was given to planned development of the human resources nor to modernization of the means of production. India was interested only in extracting the raw materials that its developing industries desperately needed, such as tea, oil and timber and in keeping the region as a captive market for their shoddy products. Consequently, it has caused an ecological disaster in the region.

            In Manipur, for example, its handloom and handicraft industries, the traditional mainstay of livelihood in a majority of Manipuri families and famous for their exquisite workmanship, were allowed to be strangled economically by cheap, machine made goods from India. In the absence of irrigation facilities, multiple cropping was unheard of in Manipur’s fertile agricultural lands even though their acreage was shrinking due to increased population pressure. Not long ago, Manipur used to export rice and many more items, but it is now compelled to depend on India for each and every item of human needs.

            Under the circumstances, the more India invested money in Manipur’s ‘development’ under its Five Years Plans, the more profit thus accrued to Indian business and industry. All the reins of the colonial economy are consequently held by their agents and collaborators in Manipur. What is more, not even 5 p.c. of the huge amount mobilized annually from Manipur by the Indian financial institutions and banks are reinvested in Manipur. By any yard stick for measuring human development, Manipur today is far below India’s national average except for the literacy rate. At 60.96 p.c. (1991 Census), it is higher than the all-India average of 52.11 p.c. This happened despite, not because of , India’s policies. Many private schools and colleges were established, particularly in the late Fifties and the Sixties, not only to provide more educational facilities for the rising generation but also to create the only avenue to employment for those who were already educated.

            But there is a limit to how much employment can be provided in this manner. In the absence of meaningful development in agriculture and industry to absorb them, a massive unemployment among the educated youth is thus a natural corollary of ‘development’ under colonial rule. A tragic social consequence of this has been Manipur’s educated but frustrated young men and women drifting to drugs in large numbers. So the world knows Manipur better today as the land with possibly the highest per capita concentration of drug addicts and the related HIV-positive cases in the world, not as the land from where the modern game of polo originated during the British Rule and where a glorious heritage in martial arts is still alive. Of course, from the ranks of the educated youth have also come the bulk of the patriotic freedom fighters who have vowed to destroy the evil colonial regime.

            The real beneficiaries of the present regime are only a handful of persons who have managed to pocket a portion of the so-called development funds as they trickled down from New Delhi. Though their share of the loot is a small fraction of the amount that has gone back to Indian hands, it is enough to create this local elite who are servile and given to vulgar ostentation. They are the fountain of corruption, which has become endemic and pervasive, and of moral degeneration in the society. They belong to any ethnic, linguistic or tribal community in Manipur. The members of this class will be found in positions of power and influence, as ‘representatives’ of the people, as ministers, bureaucrats, police top brass, contractors and so on. Underpinned by the Indian Occupation Force, they are putting up the show of a democratic government in Manipur.

             After half a century of colonial rule, there are only Indian collaborators in Manipur, not even a native capitalist class that can take advantage of new economic opportunities. Now, in the free-for-all environment of a liberalized Indian economy, the Manipuris and other peoples in the region are not going to have a level playing field for competition. The delicate balance in their natural environment will be under greater threat than ever before as the multinationals and the Indian capitalists spread their tentacles with renewed vigour into the region. The Indian colonial regime did not in the past protect the vital interests of the peoples in the Indo-Burma region. Neither can it be expected now nor in the future too. To see light at the end of the tunnel and for the sake of generations yet to be born, those living today have no alternative but to organize themselves and fight to end the Indian colonial rule.

THE CHALLENGE AND THE RESPONSE

            The reply to India’s colonial policies, practices and attitudes has been, therefore, the birth of many national liberation movements in the Indo-Burma region. And like any colonial power, India had resorted to brute force to pacify them, to wear them down by attrition and finally to bring them to total submission. India had also adopted the policy of divide-and-rule, had tried to placate a section of the population, had physically shut off the region from the world by restricting the entry of foreigners, had made a mockery of the internationally accepted human rights norms by such laws as the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 which empowers any armed personnel to kill anyone with impunity, and had even tried to change the demographic composition of the region by turning a blind eye to illegal infiltration and settlement by co religionists from Nepal and Bangladesh.                 

            Of late, special attention has been given to administer a heavy dose of propaganda through the government-owned electronic mass media. However, the outcome of all their efforts has been generally negative. Because, the economic exploitation, the indiscriminate arrests and physical torture in detentions without trial, of which anybody can be a victim, the enforced disappearances, the killing of innocent people in cross-fire or in fake encounters, the cynical destruction and looting of private property by Indian security forces during their operations, the cases of rape and molestation, and other innumerable harassment that ordinary citizens have to endure, are simply too harsh realities of daily life under Indian colonial rule to be glossed over by India’s propaganda.

            As India had unleashed state terrorism against the political  movements of the indigenous peoples, this region had witnessed enough bloodshed and human misery during the last five decades. But India had singularly failed in its efforts to get a military solution. Now, there is a growing political polarization. On the one hand, there are the lackeys of the colonial regime and, on the other, an increasing number of people who are alienated from the repressive Indian rule. To counter the growing unity and understanding among peoples and organizations in the region, India has perfected the technique of divide-and-rule, that old favourite of all colonial powers. Old wounds, ancient misunderstandings or any cracks in the society have been exploited to the hilt for the purpose. The hostilities in the late 1990s between the Naga and the Kuki tribes in Manipur which claimed hundreds of innocent lives on both sides including those of women and children, and now trying to pitch the Nagas against the Meiteis through the process of India-NSCN (IM) ceasefire, is a glaring example of how successful, and also how cynical, can India be in the pursuit of its colonial interests. Thus India has managed ‘free of cost’ to divert the attention of these tribes from their rulers in New Delhi to their own neighbours, at least for the time being.

THE STRUGGLE

Peace can once again return to the picturesque hills and valleys of the region, bring back the smiles to the people, only when India opts for a political solution to this political problem of the indigenous peoples in the region. So far, instead of accepting this reality, India has been pushing for a military solution thereby prolonging the armed conflict between the Region and India. Therefore, the organizations in the vanguard of the struggles for national liberation are compelled to fight for the right to national self-determination of their respective peoples so as to regain their freedom and independence. Against this background, the UNLF also has been spearheading the fight for the right of the Manipuri people to determine freely their own political status according to their own genius as guaranteed by the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.

 

III. Human Rights Situation in Manipur

INTRODUCTION

            A striking feature of the Indian political system is the wide gap between theory and practice. The Manipuri people had been painfully aware of this fact even when, in the first flush of India’s freedom, its leaders were giving lectures to the world about the historical necessity of decolonization and of granting freedom to dependent peoples. Because, in sharp contrast to their outward postures, India had treacherously annexed Manipur on 15 October 1949 and its very first official act were the dissolution of the elected State Assembly and the dismissal of the Council of Ministers. All legislative and executive powers were then concentrated in a Chief Commissioner appointed by New Delhi and he was responsible only to his masters. A semblance of these powers was restored to the Manipuri people when, in January 1972, Manipur was reluctantly granted the status of a ‘State’ under the Indian Constitution.

THE FRAMEWORK

            The discrepancy between what is presented to the world and what actually happens on the ground, is glaring in the matter of human rights as well. The Indian Constitution has undoubtedly many features in common with the human rights standard accepted by the international community. In March 1979, India also acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with reservations, inter alia, on the Right of Self-determination but accepting nevertheless obligations under the above Covenants. India, however, has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Then, under its municipal law called the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, a National Human Rights Commission and many State Human Rights Commissions, were set up recently including one in Manipur. Within such a constitutional and legal framework, there ought to be a reasonable observance of human rights in any part of India. But, as in other spheres of public life, there is a different standard even in human rights for the indigenous peoples in the Indo-Burma region.

A DIFFERENT STANDARD

            From the very beginning, the ‘democratic’ Indian leaders sought a military solution to a political problem concerning the indigenous peoples. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 was enacted specifically for Manipur and the other six States in the region. It negates every constitutional and legal provision concerning human rights when a State or a part of it has been declared a ‘disturbed area’ under the Act, and this declaration is made by the rulers not for a few months to cope with an emergency but for years or even decades together. For example, the whole of Manipur has been a ‘disturbed area’ since 1980, with no sign of respite from it in the near future.

            Under this Act, the subjective opinion of or a mere suspicion by a Non-Commissioned Officer of the Indian armed forces is enough for the arrest without warrant, torture and killing of any person even before he has committed any offence, and for the destruction of any property. There is actually no need for the Indian Occupation Forces to invent fake encounters to cover up their crimes, for the Act provides them legal immunity from any prosecution. The Act enjoins on the Indian Occupation Forces to hand over a person in their custody to the nearest police station ‘with least possible delay’. But they ignore even this minor concession by the Act and routinely interrogate and detain persons arrested by them, interpreting the time-limit according to their convenience. Cruel and degrading treatment, torture, extra-judicial executions and ‘disappearance’ of innocent persons take place during such unauthorized detentions. But, under section 19 of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, even the National Human Rights Commission is debarred from direct investigation into such flagrant violation of human rights by the India’s armed forces.

            In a ‘disturbed area’, the Indian armed forces are supposed to operate in aid of the civil authority. But, in actual practice, the deployment of armed forces personnel in large numbers with unlimited powers over a long period, against the background of an irreconcilable national contradiction between them and the indigenous Mongoloid peoples, has induced them to operate and behave as a racist army of occupation. The continued and deliberate defilement of the Kangla by stationing an Assam Rifles battalion, despite its incalculable hurt to the Manipuri psyche, is just a case in point. This itself has undoubtedly provoked many young men and women into joining the struggle for national liberation. Their arrogance and ill-concealed contempt for civilians have alienated the Indian Occupation Forces even from the local civil authorities to whose aid they are supposed to be operating.

            In 1991, the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations not surprisingly remarked that several provisions of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act 1958 seemed to be incompatible with those of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Again, in 1997, the Human Rights Committee endorsed the view that the problems in the region were ‘essentially political in character and that the approach to resolving such problems must also, essentially, be political’. In this respect, the Committee had in mind, among others, the right to self-determination of peoples in article 1 of the Covenant.

             The Committee regretted that the Armed Forces Special Powers  had been applied throughout Manipur since 1980 and that India was ‘in effect using emergency powers without resorting to article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant’. The Committee recommended that ‘the application of these emergency powers be closely monitored so as to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the Covenant’. Further, the Committee hoped that the provisions of the Act would be closely examined by the Supreme Court of India for their compatibility with the Covenant.

             The Indian Supreme Court did not find the time to examine the constitutionality of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and kept it pending for about two decades until international public pressure could not delay it any longer. When it gave its judgment finally on 27 November 1997, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in toto within India’s democratic framework. It amounted to prescribing a different human rights standard for the Manipuris and other indigenous peoples in the Western Southeast Asia region; it could also be interpreted as judicial sanction to racial discrimination as the indigenous peoples of the region are mostly of Mongoloid origin.

            The indigenous peoples of the Region are simply outraged by the Indian Supreme Court judgment. In a recent workshop for human rights defenders in India by the Amnesty International, it was decided to protest against the judgment and to observe every year 27 November as ‘Anti-Armed Forces Special Powers Act Day’ throughout the region.

            The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1987 (TADA) gave a similar licence to the civil police in regard to arrest and detention. However, being a law extended to the whole of India and the public outcry against its continuance being that much more effective, the TADA was allowed to lapse while another repressive Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) has been repealed as a result of public outcry against the Act throughout mainland India. However, the Armed Forces Special Powers Act remained intact. Then there is also the Punjab Security of State Act 1953 which has been extended to Manipur and it enables the rulers to impose inter alia collective fines on villages and towns.

 

THE TORCH BEARERS

            The Manipuri people naturally do not repose much faith in the Indian political and judicial system for the protection of their human rights. An association of like-minded lawyers in Manipur called the Civil Liberties and Human Rights Organization (CLAHRO), established in 1983, used to plead in the courts for victims of human rights violations by the Indian Occupation Forces or by the police. They are now resigned to their ineffectiveness and quite disillusioned with India’s judicial system. Then, in 1993, the Committee on Human Rights (COHR) was formed in Manipur as an apex body of many NGOs active in human rights. The COHR, unlike CLAHRO, relies more on creating awareness among the people to build up a mass movement against human rights violations. The trickle of information that the outside world now gets regarding the human rights situation in Manipur owes every much to these NGOs and human rights activists.

            However, the vanguard in the struggle against colonialism from the time of British Rule down to the present is the ordinary women of Manipur. Today, in their respective localities, they keep all-night vigil with bamboo torches at the first sign of trouble from the police or the Indian Occupation Forces. They are called the Meira Paibis or, literally, the torchbearers. A mass of angry women participating in a rally or marching to any government functionary when they think a grave injustice or human rights violation has been committed, is a common sight. A glaring example - on 15 July 2004 twelve Meira Paibi Imas (mothers) staged a historic protest against the rape and killing of a young woman, Thangjam Manorama, by the 17 Assam Rifles of the Indian Occupation Forces stationed at the Kangla in the heart of Imphal. The women protestors were so enraged and shocked by the barbaric act of the Indian soldiers that they unrobed their cloths at the gate of the Kangla and challenged the Indian soldiers there to rape and kill them also. Sensitised by this unique protest, the long pent up anger of the entire people of Manipur exploded in revolt against the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in particular and the Indian colonial occupation in general. This is the beginning of a democratic struggle against Indian colonial occupation of Manipur.  

 

IV. The United National Liberation Front

(UNLF): Manipur

THE PREMISE

            The armed struggle led by Hijam Irabot in Manipur was an exciting new experience to those who participated in it. But it had a comparatively short existence; by 1952 it was suppressed by police and paramilitary forces of the new colonial administration. Therefore, questions have been raised ever since about the cause of its failure. The obvious and most important one was the vacuum in leadership after the death of Hijam Irabot. But it was also distinctly possible that the Manipuris of that period were not fully prepared, socially and politically, for that kind of ant-colonial and communist armed struggle.

            The armed struggles by many tribes in the Indo-Burma region on ethnic lines have been more resilient, though, in the end, the outcome has not been much different. While the ethnic bonds brought cohesion within the tribes and provided a critical psychological input during armed confrontations with the Indian Occupation Forces, that very ethnic character also tended to put others off. It became all the more difficult for a broader political concept or a new national identity to develop with the changing times. For the colonial power, it becomes that much easier to apply the policy of divide-and-rule, now divide-and-destroy, among them and then bring them to heel one by one.

            When the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), Manipur was formally established on 24 November 1964, it was with an acute awareness of these twin dangers: that of a liberation struggle going far too ahead of the people’s level of political consciousness and that of being stuck in an ethnic groove.

            Subsequent events and the experiences of the Naga and the Mizo struggles have borne out what the UNLF feared. Once in the forefront of armed liberation struggles in the region against the Indian colonial rule, the Mizos have been bought over by India with ‘statehood’ in 1987. In the case of the Nagas too, the then tired leaders of their armed struggle had capitulated to India with the signing of the so-called Shillong Accord in 1975. The Naga people owe it to the leadership in the undivided National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) for bringing them back to the path of a liberation struggle. However, the present leadership of the Naga struggle also may ultimately capitulate in the process of talks with India under the current ceasefire agreement.

THE FIRST PHASE

            The UNLF, it may be recalled, came into existence as the ‘representative’ organisation of a new generation of Manipuris who were born during and after the Second World War. It represented the hopes and aspirations of this generation for freedom and human dignity and it propagated their feelings against the Indian colonial regime. It also reflected their frustrations and grievances against their parents’ generation and their disillusionment with what their parents stood for.

             Because it was a time when Manipur and the Manipuri people have been systematically obliterated from the school textbooks; a time when children were ignorant of their distinctive and rich cultural heritage and of even elementary geographical and historical facts about Manipur. But they knew all about, say, the Indian film actors and actresses. It was a time when families of those martyrs in the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891 used to go on pilgrimage every year to Khongjom, the place where the last and decisive battle with the British forces was fought, and prayed in private for the souls of the departed and nobody took notice of. It was a time when sycophancy was a prerequisite qualification for climbing up the colonial hierarchy and when servility was the social norm.

            It became apparent to the UNLF leaders that there was no alternative to a painstaking political socialisation of a whole generation with a new Manipuri political ethos and that there would be no quick-fix solutions. The means they adopted for the purpose was the establishment of front organisations in the late Sixties to reach out to all sections of the Manipuri society. These organisations had their own separate memberships, organisational structures and objectives. Most of them were pioneers in their respective fields. By dint of their sincere and dedicated service to the Manipuri society for about three decades, they are highly regarded by the people in their own right.

            The effectiveness of the front organisations has been such that, following the ground swell of public pressure, even the colonial administration in Manipur had to adopt as their own some of the programme initiated by them. For example, the puppet government today officially observes the following Manipuri national functions: the Khongjom Day on April 23 to commemorate the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891; the Patriots Day on August 13 to pay homage to all martyrs of that War, as it was on this day in 1891 that the then Defence Minister and younger brother of the Manipur king and the then General of the Manipuri forces were hanged by the British in a public square; the Women’s Day on December 12 to honour the brave Manipuri women who, in the Nupi Laan of 1939, led the mass defiance of British authority in protest against their colonial policies.

THE ADVENTURE

            The multifarious activities of the front organisations also gave birth to a patriotic revolutionary generation of Manipuris by the late Seventies. Many from this generation began to look askance at the strategy and the pace of the UNLF. Thus came into existence a number of underground organisations in Manipur during this period, proclaiming their armed struggle for the liberation of Manipur from the yoke of Indian colonialism. Indeed, many of the members belonging to these patriotic organisations laid down their lives either in their sporadic attacks on or in counter-attacks from Indian Occupation Forces. The Manipuri public applauded the bravery and sacrifice of these patriots, as though a whiff of fresh air had come into the prevailing climate of corruption and sycophancy.

            However, subsequent course of events proved that sacrifice alone was not sufficient and that a realistic strategy and tactics for liberation in the context of the Western Southeast Asia as a whole was needed. This valuable lesson has guided the UNLF in its approach to the liberation struggle as a whole.

THE SECOND PHASE

            The UNLF believes in the inter-relatedness and in the inter-dependence of all peoples in the Western Southeast Asia. It believes that there is no scope for isolated ethnic struggles, however charismatic their leaders are or however powerful the organisations may appear at present. All must join hands together in a liberation struggle against our common enemy. But that depends on achieving a minimum level of political consciousness among all the peoples, such as the ability not to be a pawn in India’s divide-and-rule policy. The UNLF also believes that the strategy and tactics of the struggle should be uniquely from our own practice and experiences, not something borrowed or transplanted from somewhere. The nature of the struggle will also be determined by the nature of the enemy. Taking all relevant factors into consideration, the UNLF decided in 1990 to begin the next phase of the struggle. While the valuable work of the front organisations will continue as before, the focus has shifted to armed propaganda. In fact, preparations for this phase had begun in the Eighties when the UNLF and the NSCN started co-coordinating in their activities. The basic objective of this armed propaganda is to consolidate the unity of the Manipuri people by raising the level of their political consciousness.

Therefore, in the early stages, armed actions by the UNLF were directed mainly against antisocial elements, particularly against those who committed crimes on women or exploited them for immoral purposes. They were given appropriate punishments after careful investigation. The UNLF also provides the ‘cutting edge’ to campaigns by the Manipuri public against rampant alcoholism, gambling, drug peddling and drug abuse. Having lost their faith in the kind of justice meted out by the corrupt colonial administration in Manipur, the people have begun to bring even their private and petty disputes to the UNLF for adjudication. It is a measure of their trust and confidence in the UNLF that its armed cadres operate freely among the Manipuri people today. Thus, having established a considerably vast area of mass base, both in the hills and the plains, the UNLF has now entered the next phase of the struggle to engage the Indian Occupation Forces in a full-scale armed struggle for national liberation.

TOWARDS UNITY

That the strategy and tactics of Manipur’s liberation struggle should be charted out in the context of the interdependence and inter-relatedness of all the peoples of the WESEA region and of the common external enemy they confront today, is the basic political and military line of the UNLF. This demands unity first among the revolutionary organizations of Manipur. The UNLF, therefore, has all along taken the stand that all the genuine revolutionary organizations of Manipur should unite and fight together against Indian colonial occupation. Urged by this reality, the UNLF has been seeking possibilities of bringing about unity among the revolutionary organizations of Manipur. Other fraternal organizations have also been working for unity in their own ways. Their efforts, the hurdles they faced and the consequences thereof, are now a part of the history of the national liberation struggle of Manipur. This experience in the search for unity has provided invaluable lessons for the future.

                        Thus the common efforts of the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP), Kanglei Yawol Kanna Lup (KYKL), the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK), the People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK-Pro), the Revolutionary People’s Front (RPF) and the UNLF brought them together in July 2011 to discuss the paramount necessity for unity among them. Ultimately, as the result of a long deliberation for 6 days, they committed themselves to fight together for the liberation of Manipur from Indian colonial occupation. Thus the COORDINATION COMMITTEE (CORCOM) was formed on 08 July 2011, first step as confidence building among six Parties to institutionalize their unity. The 6 parties also took the historic decision to unify, step by step, into a single party. The CorCom has formed its Joint Fighting Force (JFF) to fight IOF. Now they are preparing to attack the IOF in the coming near future. Basic unity lies on joint war activities. This war activity will bring to build unity among us. The UNLF believes that the achievement towards unity in Manipur will give a new direction and impetus to the liberation struggle for the region as a whole.

                        The emergence of the CorCom has brought about a new revolutionary situation in Manipur. Now, the Manipuri people’s national liberation struggle can be expected to make significant progress under a unified leadership.

         The decision of the six parties to form the CorCom gave a new hope and a long awaited smile to the entire people of Manipur. There was euphoria all around. However, concerned peoples could not but ask some worried questions: Is the unity real? How long will it go? Will they not break up again…? For the CorCom, these are relevant questions to be answered in time, by deeds.

THE PROPOSAL

The peoples of Manipur have suffered for more than sixty four long years under Indian colonial occupation and military repression. Their fundamental human rights, both collective and individual, have been usurped by the rulers in New Delhi. In order to hold on to their colonial rule, India now deploys more than 40,000 military and para-military forces in Manipur alone. In their attempt to suppress our national liberation struggle the Indian Occupation Forces have committed summary executions of several hundred freedom fighters, committed massacres on many occasions while reacting to attacks by freedom fighters and many of our women have been raped in front of their family members. India also has lost many of their soldiers in the process of the so-called ‘Counter Insurgency Operations’. India’s military effort has only escalated the conflict rather than finding a solution thereby aggravating further the sufferings of our people. 

In order to resolve the Manipur-India Conflict satisfactorily once and for all, the UNLF Central Committee announced a 4-Point Proposal on 31 January 2005 as below:

1.      To hold a PLEBSCITE under UN aegis so that the people of Manipur can exercise their democratic right to decide on the core issue of the conflict – the restoration of Manipur’s sovereignty and independence.

2.      To deploy a UN Peace Keeping Force in Manipur to ensure free and fair conduct of the Plebiscite.

3.      UNLF to deposit all its arms to the UN Peace Keeping Force and India to withdraw all its regular and para military forces from Manipur before a deadline prior to the Plebiscite date to be decided by the UN.

4.      The UN to hand over political power in accordance with the result of the Plebiscite.

The UNLF has made the above proposal so that our people, the ultimate authority of their own fate, could give their judgment on the core issue of the Manipur-India Conflict. We believe that the above proposal is the most democratic means to resolve the conflict, which ‘the largest democracy in the world’ should accept.

We, therefore, appeal to the international community in general and the United Nations in particular, to fulfill their moral obligation of protecting and upholding the rights of nations and peoples to determine their own future by themselves vis-à-vis the Manipur-India Conflict. 

                                                                                                                  Appendix 1

INSTRUMENT OF ACCESSION

            WHEREAS, the Indian Independence Act, 1947 provides that as from the fifteenth day of August, 1947 there shall be set up an independent Dominion known as INDIA, and that the Government of India Act, 1935 shall with such omissions, additions, adaptations and modification as the Governor-General may be order specify be applicable to the Dominion of India;

            AND WHEREAS the Government of India Act, 1935 as so adapted by the Governor-General provides that an Indian State may accede to the Dominion of India by an Instrument of Accession executed by the Ruler thereof;

            NOW THEREFORE I, Bodha Chandra, Ruler of MANIPUR in the exercise of my sovereignty in and over my said State do hereby execute this my Instrument of Accession and

1.      I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India with the intent that the Governor-General of India, the Dominion Legislature, the Federal Court and any other Dominion authority established for the purposes of the Dominion shall, by virtue of this my Instrument of Accession but subject always to the terms thereof, and for the purposes only of the Dominion exercise in relation to the State of MANIPUR (hereinafter referred to as 'the State') such functions as may be vested in them by or under the Government of India Act, 1935, as in  force in the Dominion of India on the 15^th day of August, 1947 (which Act as so in force is hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'); **and I further declare that the Dominion of India may, through such agency or agencies, and in such manner, as it thinks fit, exercise in relation to the administration of civil and criminal justice in this State all such powers, authority and jurisdiction as were at any time exercisable by His Majesty's representative for the exercise of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States.*

2.      I hereby assume the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given to the provisions of the Act within this State so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of this my Instrument  of Accession.

3.      ** Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 1*, I accept the matters specified in the Schedule hereto as the matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for this State.

4.      I hereby declare that I accede to the Dominion of India on the assurance that if an agreement is made between the Governor-General and the Ruler of this State whereby any function in relation to the administration in this State of any lay of Dominion legislature shall be exercised by the Ruler of this State, then any such agreement shall be deemed to from part of this Instrument and shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

5.      The terms of this my Instrument of Accession shall not be varied by any amendment of the Act or of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, unless such amendment is accepted by me by an Instrument supplementary to this Instrument.

6.      Nothing is this Instrument shall empower the Dominion Legislature to make any law for this State authorising the compulsory acquisition of land for any purpose, but I hereby undertake that should the Dominion for the purpose of a Dominion law which applies in this State deem it necessary to acquire any land, I will at their request acquire the land at their expense or if the land belongs to me transfer it to them or such terms as may be agreed, or in default of agreement, determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Chief Justice of Delhi.

7.      Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future Constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangement with the Government of India under any such future Constitution.

8.      Nothing in this Instrument effects the continuance of my sovereignty in and over this State, save as provided by or under this Instrument, the exercise of any powers, authority and rights now enjoyed by me as Ruler of this State or the validity of any law at present in fore in this State.

9.      I hereby declare that I execute this Instrument on behalf of this State and that any reference in this Instrument to me or to the Ruler of the State is to be construed as including a reference to my heirs and successors.

Given under my hand this 11^th day of August, Nineteen hundred and forty-seven.

                                                                                                SD/- Bodha Chandra

                                                                                                Maharaja of Manipur

I do hereby accept this Instrument of Accession.

Dated this 11^th day of August, Nineteen hundred and forty-seven.

                                                                                            SD/- Louis Mountbaten

                                                                                      (Governor-General of India)

S C H E D U L E

The matters with respect to which the Dominion Legislature may make laws for this State.

A.           DEFENCE

1.      The naval, military and air forces of the Dominion and any other armed forces raised or maintained by the Dominion; any armed forces, including forces raised or maintained by an Acceding State, which are attached to, or operating with, any of the armed forces of the Dominion.

2.      Naval, military and air force works, administration of cantonment areas.

3.      Arms, firearms, ammunition.

4.      Explosives.

B.            EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

1.      External affairs; the implementing of treaties and agreements with other countries; extradition, including the surrender of criminals and accused persons to parts of His Majesty's dominions outside India.

2.      Admission into, and emigration and expulsion from, India , including in relation thereto the regulation of the movements in India or persons who are not British subjects domiciled  in India or  subjects of any acceding State, pilgrimages to places beyond India.

3.      Naturalisation

C.           COMMUNICATION

1.        Posts and Telegraphs, including telephones, wireless, broadcasting, and other like forms of communication.

2.        Federal railways; the regulation of all railways other than minor railways in respect of safety, maximum and minimum rates and fares, station and service terminal changes, interchange of traffic and the responsibility of railways administrations as carrier of goods and passengers; the regulation of minor railways in respect of safety and responsibility of the administration of such railways as carriers of goods and passengers.

3.        Maritime shipping and navigation, including shipping and navigation on tidal waters; Admiralty jurisdiction.

4.        Port quarantine

5.        Major ports, that is to say, the declaration and determination of the ports, and the Constitution and powers of Port Authorities therein.

6.        Aircraft and Air navigation; the provision of aerodromes regulation and organization of air traffic and of aerodromes;

7.         Lighthouse, including lightships, beacons and other provisions for the safety of shipping and aircraft.

8.        Carriage of passengers and goods by sea or by air.

9.        Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the police force belonging to any unit to railway area outside that unit.

D.           ANCILLARY

1.      Elections to the Dominion Legislature, subject to the provisions of the Act and of any Order made thereunder.

2.      Offences against laws with respect to any of the aforesaid matters.

3.      Inquiries and statistics for the purposes of any of the aforesaid matters.

4.      Jurisdiction and powers of all courts with respect to any of the aforesaid matters, but, except with the consent of the Ruler of the acceding State, not so as to confer any jurisdiction or powers upon any courts other then courts ordinarily exercising jurisdiction in or in relation to that State.

Appendix 2

The Manipur State Constitution Act 1947

BACKGROUND

            When the British paramountcy lapsed, the basic legal framework for the governance of Manipur was the revised rules for the Administration of the Manipur State which became operative from July 1, 1947. It provided for an interim Manipur state council consisting of a Chief Minister and six other Ministers who were appointed by, and responsible to the Maharaja. The Maharaja-in-Council exercised both legislative and executive authority over the whole of Manipur.

            The detailed structure, powers and functions of the Chief Court and the subordinate Civil and Criminal courts in Manipur were already provided for under the Manipur state courts act 1947. Similarly, the Manipur State hill peoples (Administration) Regulation 1947 gave details about administration in the Hill areas of Manipur. So for the sake of continuity and possibly also with a view to complete their work within the short time at their disposal the 15-membet Constitution Making Committee incorporated the existing laws and rules wherever applicable in the drafting of a new constitution for Manipur.

            The Manipur Constitution, when it was finally adopted and enacted, formalized the transfer of powers from the Maharaja to the elected representatives of the people and confirmed the Maharaja’s position as the constitutional head of the state. The constitution and the form of responsible government introduced by it for the first time in Manipur may appear rudimentary by today’s standards but it was, in its historical context of a colonial and feudal society, a proud achievement of the Manipuri people.

            Given below is the full text of the Manipur Constitution which was written in English and enacted as the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947:

THE MANIPUR STATE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1947

Whereas it is expedient to enact a law for the governance of the Manipur state, His highness the maharaja of Manipur is pleased to enact as follows:

CHAPTER 1

1.      Title: This act shall be called the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947.

2.      Extent and application: This act shall extend to the whole of the Manipur State inclusive of the Hill Areas saving that it shall not apply in any matter where a specific reservation of powers is made to any Authority in the hill under the provisions of the Manipur State Hill (Administration) Regulation, 1947.

3.      Government of the State by His Highness the Maharaja: The territories for the time being and hereafter vested in the Maharaja be governed by and in the name of the Maharaja. All rights, authority and jurisdiction which appertain or are incidental to the government of such territories are exercisable by the Maharaja subject to the provisions of this Act.

4.      Succession: Succession to the throne shall be governed by the Law of Primogeniture provided that the heir must be the legitimate son of a marriage recognized by the Council of Ministers. In the event of failure of heirs in the direct male line, His Highness the Maharaja shall, after consultation with the Council of Ministers and the Assembly, designate his heir.

5.      Attainment of Majority: The Maharaja or his heir shall be taken to attain majority at the age of 21 years.

6.      Council of Regency:

(a) Whereby reason of the Maharaja being a minor or whereby reason of any mental defect or grave bodily sickness as a result of which the Maharaja becomes permanently incapable of exercising his powers, the Council of Ministers shall take steps to set up a Council of Regency which shall exercise their powers in the State and shall continue in office for such time as the Council may determine.

.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection (a) above, the Maharaja in consultation with the Council of Ministers may, at any time or for any reason which may appear suitable, set up a Council of Regency to exercise his functions.

(c) A Council of Regency set under Subsections (a) and (b) may comprise one or more persons as may seem desirable. The Regent or Council of Regency shall before taking office be required to take an oath before the State Assembly to be loyal to the State and to observe faithfully its Constitution and laws.

(d) Where in any event it shall be necessary to set up a Council of Regency either for the reasons laid down in Subsections (a) and (b) above or for any other reason or where exercising his powers before such Regency can be set up, the Council of Ministers shall take whatever steps may be necessary for the governance of the State till such time as the Regency is created.

7.      Failure of heirs and disputed succession: (a) In the event of failure of heirs in the direct male line and failure of the Maharaja to designate his heir under Section 4 above, a joint extraordinary session of the State Assembly and the Council of Ministers shall immediately be convened and shall remain in closed and continuous session till it shall have determined, by a 75 percent majority of the members present and voting, the person to whom the throne shall pass.

(b) Where for any reason the succession to the throne is disputed, the Council of Ministers shall, on the death of the Ruler, take such steps as may immediately be necessary for the good governance of the State and shall refer the matter under dispute to the Chief Court for decision. Where any party is aggrieved by the decision of the Chief Court, an appeal shall lie to such authority as may be determined hereafter.

8.      The Maharaja’s Prerogatives:

(a) All family matters which are the Maharaja’s sole concern as head of the Ruling Family, all matters which are his sole concern as the Defender of Faith and all matters connected with Titles, Honours and Palace Ceremonials shall be deemed to fall within the Maharaja’s Personal Prerogative and in such matters the Maharaja shall exercise full discretion subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the laws of the State.

                                                     The Maharaja’s Prerogative shall not however be taken to comprise any matter wherein the legitimate interests of the State Administration or a civil right sustainable in a court of law is involved. It will be with the prerogative of the Maharaja to remit punishment and pardon offenders subject to the provisions of the Manipur State Courts Act provided that this prerogative shall not prejudice the right of any individual to compensation.

(b) It shall be the prerogative of the Maharaja and the Maharani that neither may be made answerable at Law or subject to any legal proceedings in the State Courts. Their persons and property shall be inviolable.

(c) Notwithstanding Section 8(b) above, it shall be lawful for the State Council in consultation with the Chief Court to draw up a statement of charges against the Maharaja or the Maharani where it is proved beyond all possible doubt that the Maharaja or the Maharani have been guilty of murder or of any other heinous offence or of any extreme political crime against the provisions of the Constitution.

(d) On a statement of charges being drawn up under clause (c) above, the Council shall present it before the Maharaja or the Maharani and require satisfaction. Should satisfaction be not forthcoming, the Council may refer the matter to such authority as may be determined hereafter.

CHAPTER II

DEFINITIONS

9.      In this Act and the Rules issued thereunder, unless there is something repugnant to the subject or the context:

(a)    State shall mean the Manipur State comprising the whole territory of Manipur as delineated in the maps of the Survey of India current at the date of this enactment.

(b)   The Maharaja means His highness The Maharaja of Manipur, the Constitutional Head of the State.

(c)    Chief Minister means the officer entrusted with the Chief Executive functions of the State.

(d)   Minister means a member of the Council of Ministers appointed under this Act by name or by virtue of his office to administer certain branches of the State Administration and to perform the duties and exercise the power imposed and conferred upon a Minister by this Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

(e)    Council means the State Council of Ministers constituted under this Act.

(f)    Assembly means the State Assembly as constituted under this Act.

(g)   Gazette means the official journal of the State by means of which important orders, notices, communiqués, etc., are published.

(h)   Speaker means the President of the Assembly and includes the Deputy Speaker in the absence of the Speaker or, in the absence of both, a member voted to the Chair.

(i)     Civil List means the appropriation of funds for the expenses of the Ruling Family and the Privy Purse of the Ruler.

(j)     Privy Purse means such portion of the Civil List as is appropriated exclusively for the personal expenses of the Maharaja.

(k)   Revenue includes all receipts of the State from the State Assets, from all Lands, Forest, Taxes, Penalties, Forfeitures, Escheats, Laps and other sources.

(l)     Rules means any Rule issued under this Act.

(m) Fundamental Rights shall mean those rights which the State’s people shall enjoy as of right under this Act.

(n)   The pronoun ‘he’ and its derivatives are used of any person whether male or female.

CHAPTER III

THE EXECUTIVE

10.  Council of Ministers: (a) Subject to the provisions of this Act and subject also to the provisions of the Rules for the Administration of the Manipur State, the Executive Authority of the State is delegated to and shall vest in the Council of Ministers.

(b) Where under this Act or the Rules for the Administration of the State it is requisite that the approval of the Maharaja shall be taken to any measure, the Chief Minister shall seek the approval of the Maharaja in person or in writing and shall obtain the Maharaja’s orders thereon. Should in any case the Maharaja’s approval be withheld, the Maharaja shall be pleased to inform the Chief Minister in person or in writing and to communicate his reasons for withholding such approval in writing to the Council.

      

       (c) The Council of Ministers shall consist of the Chief Minister and six other Ministers.

(d) The Six ministers on the Council shall be elected by the State Assembly subject to the provisions that two of these Ministers shall be representatives of the Hill people of the State elected in such manner as shall be laid down in the Rules of Business of the State Assembly.

(f) The Chief Minister and the Ministers shall receive letters of appointment over the seal of the Maharaja.

(g) The Chief Minister in consultation with the Ministers shall allot portfolios.

11.  The Chief Minister shall be the President of the Council and the Vice-President shall be appointed by the Council.

12.  The Council of Ministers shall have a common seal and shall be jointly responsible to the Maharaja for the Administration of the State.

13.  The Council of Ministers and the Ministers individually shall exercise such powers and functions as may be assigned to them by or under this Act or by or under the Rules for the Administration of the State.

14.  The quorum necessary for the transaction of business at a meeting of the Council shall not be less than three excluding the President.

15.  The Chief Minister and Ministers shall, on taking office, swear an oath of loyalty and allegiance to the Maharaja in the following form:

‘ I (name of the Minister) having been appointed as a Member of the Manipur State Council, do solemnly swear that I will be loyal and faithful and bear true allegiance to the Maharaja, his heirs and successors and that I will faithfully discharge the duties laid on me under this Act’

16.  A Minister of the Council shall not be removable from office except in accordance with the provisions of the Chapter below.

CHAPTER IV

THE STATE ASSEMBLY

17.  There shall be constituted a State Assembly. The Assembly shall be elected for a period of three years and shall comprise Representatives freely elected by the people on an adult franchise and on the principle of Joint Electorates. Elections shall be in such manner and by such franchise as may be laid down under the Rules for the Representatives returnable from General, Hill and Mohammedan Constituencies shall be in the ratios of 30:18:3 respectively with an additional two seats for the Representatives of Educational and Commercial interests.

18.  The State Assembly may debate all matters concerning the Government and well-being of the State which, in the opinion of five Members of the Assembly, it is in the public interest to debate. The Assembly shall tender such advice to the Council of Ministers in any matter in which a majority of the Members present are agreed on the advice which shall be tendered provided that no matter touching the Maharaja’s Prerogative shall be debated and provided that the Maharaja may on the advice of the Council, veto debate on any matter where such course shall in the public interest be necessary.

19.  The State Assembly shall not tender advice to the Council on any matter which is of primary concern to the Hill people unless such advice has the support of a majority of the Hill Representatives in the Assembly.

20.  Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Assembly may make rules for regulating its proceedings and the conduct of business.

21.  Where in any case it is required to pass a vote of no confidence against a Minister of the Council for his individual acts, a motion of no-confidence signed by not less than ten Members of the Assembly and laying out in detail the facts giving rise to the motion, may with the permission of the Speaker of the Assembly be moved. If such motion shall receive the support of at least 75 percent of the Members present and voting, it shall be forwarded through the Chief Minister to the Maharaja who, unless there appear strong and valid reasons to the contrary which shall be recorded in writing, shall after consultation with the Chief Minister require the Minister against whom the motion has been passed to resign.

22.  Wherein any case the State Council or the Maharaja is in the special circumstances of any case unable to accept the advice of the Assembly, the Maharaja or the Council as the case may be, shall communicate in writing the reasons which have led to such course and shall give facilities for personal discussion of the matter with a representative or representatives deputed by the Assembly.

23.  Subject to the provisions of the Act and to Rules framed under it for the disposal of the Assembly business, there shall be Freedom of Speech in the Assembly and no Member shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of any speech or vote given by him in the Assembly or a committee thereof and no person shall be liable in respect of any publication by or under the authority of the Assembly of any report, paper, vote or proceedings.

24.  No Member of the Assembly shall be liable to arrest or detention in prison under a Civil process -

(b)   if he is a Member of the Assembly, during the continuance of the Assembly;

(b)   if he is a Member of nay Committee of the Assembly, during the continuance of the meeting of the Committee;

25.  The elected Ministers, the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Members of the Assembly shall receive such emoluments as may be determined from time to time by the Assembly.

 

CHAPTER V

THE LAW MAKING AUTHORITY

26.  The Law Making Authority in the State shall consist of the Maharaja in Council in collaboration with the State Assembly acting under Section 18 above.

27.  When the Council or the Assembly consider that a law should be enacted the Council shall cause a Bill to be drafted, which shall be laid before the Assembly and a reasonable time shall be given for consideration thereof. The Council shall then cause to be made such alterations or amendments as may be deemed necessary in the light of the advice tendered by the Assembly, and the Chief Minister shall submit the Bill in its final form for the Assent of the Maharaja.

28.  On the receipt of the Maharaja’s Assent, the Bill shall be published in the State Gazette and shall become an Act having the force of law.

29.  Should the Maharaja in any case withhold his Assent to a Bill, that Bill shall lapse as if it had not been passed. If the Assent of the Maharaja is not forthcoming within one calendar month of the Bill being submitted to him, he shall be deemed to have withheld his Assent.

30.  Where the Assent of the Maharaja to any Bill is withheld, the Council may cause the selfsame Bill to be introduced in the next session of the Assembly and if passed without amendment by 75 per cent majority of the Assembly, the Bill shall be certified over the Seal of the Council and shall become law.

31.  Nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to derogate from the absolute right of the Maharaja in Council to promulgate, in emergency case, orders having the force of law without previous reference to the Assembly where the public interest in their opinion, demands that such order shall be promulgated provided that the first opportunity shall be taken of laying the order before the Assembly for consideration. Any such order shall bot have the force of law for a period of more than six months.

CHAPTER  VI

FINANCE

32.  The Revenue of the State and such other receipts as may accrue from whatever source, less such reasonable percentage of the total real Revenue as may be reserved for the Civil list, are placed at the disposal of the Council for expenditure on the Government of the State in the manner prescribed by the State Account Rules saving that in every year a sum representing not less than 17.5 per cent of the average real Revenue of the State for the proceeding three years shall be allocated for expenditure on the welfare and administration of the Hill people.

33.  The Minister in charge of Finance shall prepare an Annual Budget showing the estimated receipts and expenditure for the ensuing year classified under the prescribed heads of account and shall submit it to the Assembly within fifteen days of its meeting for the Budget Session along with a statement of account for the previous year.

34.  The Assembly shall after considering the Budget submit it with their recommendation to the Council who, having made such modifications as may be deemed necessary, shall submit it to the Maharaja for approval. Where any delay occurs in the granting of Assent to the Budget by the Maharaja and where such Assent has not been obtained by the first day of the financial year, provisional effect shall be given to the Budget as passed by the Assembly and funds shall be drawn against its provisions as if it had received Assent.

35.  The Maharaja’s Civil List shall be fixed at a figure equal to 10 per cent of the real Revenues of the State over the preceding three years, provided that no extraordinary revenues shall be taken into account when determining this amount and provided that no State revenue in excess of Rupees twenty lakhs shall be taken into account in any one year. The appropriation to the Maharaja’s Civil List shall be non-votable and shall not be the subject of debate in the Assembly.

36.  No tax whatsoever shall be shown in the Budget and no tax shall be collected by any officer of the State or by any person unless such tax has been imposed by due process of law.

37.  (a) There shall be a State Auditor who shall be appointed by the Maharaja in Council on a nomination to be made by the Comptroller of Audit, Assam or such other officer as may be deemed suitable. Such nominee shall be employed on contract for a period of not less than five years and shall be removable only by the Maharaja in Council in consultation with the authority making the nomination.

(b)   The conditions of service of the State Auditor shall be such as may be prescribed by the Maharaja in Council provided always that he shall not be eligible for any office of profit in the State after his retirement.

(c)    The Auditor shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be laid down in the State Account Rules.

CHAPTER  VII

HILL PEOPLE

38.  The Council shall be responsible for the welfare and the good administration of the Hill people of the State and shall provide such funds for this purpose as may, subject to the provision of Section 32 above, be deemed necessary provided that the Local Authorities in the Hills shall exercise such powers of Local Self Government as may be laid down in the Manipur State Hill (Administration) Regulation, 1947.

CHAPTER  VIII

THE SERVICES

39.  The Council shall issue Rules regulating the conditions of service in the Departments of the State.

40.  A Manipur State Appointments Board shall be constituted and the Council shall issue Rules regulating the constitution, functions and procedure of the Board. The Board shall consist of not less than three members, one of whom must be a Hillman, and a Chairman and shall be the final authority in all matters connected with appointments and promotions to the State Service except in so far as specific powers may be reserved under this Act or the Rules for the Administration of the State.

CHAPTER  IX

THE JUDICATURE

41.  (a)  There shall be a complete separation of the Judiciary from the Executive.

(b) The Judicature of the State shall be as laid down in the Manipur State Courts Act, 1947.

42.  The Chief Justice of the State and two Puisne Judges shall be appointed by the Maharaja in Council under the Royal Seal and shall hold officer until the age of 65 years provided that -

(a)    A Judge may resign his office.

(b)    A Judge may be removed from his office by the Maharaja in Council only on the grounds of misbehaviour or of infirmity of body or mind.

43.  A person shall not be appointed as a Judge of the Chief Court unless he -

(a)    be a graduate in law and has held Judicial Office at least for five years, or

(b)    is a Barrister qualified in England of five years’ standing, or

(c)    has for at least five years held Judicial Office in British India in a post not inferior to that of a Subordinate Judge, or

(d)   has for at least a period of ten years been a Pleader of any High Court or of the Manipur Chief Court, or

(e)    be a person recognized as having a special capacity for the exercise of Judicial Functions.

 

 

CHAPTER  X

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF CITIZENSHIP

44.  All citizens shall be equal before the law. Titles and other privileges of birth shall not be recognized in the eyes of law.

45.  The liberty of the individual shall be guaranteed. No person may be subjected to any judicial interrogation or placed under arrest or be in any other way deprived of his liberty, save as provided by law.

46.  No person shall be tried save by a competent Court.

47.  No person may be tried except by a competent Court who shall give full opportunity to such person to defend himself by a means.

48.  All penalties shall be as determined by law.

49.  Capital punishment may not be inflicted for purely political crimes.

50.  No citizen may be banished from the State, expelled from one part of the country to another, and obliged to reside in a specified place save in such cases as may be expressly determined by law.

51.  Every dwelling shall be inviolable save under express provision of law.

52.  There shall be guaranteed to all people Justice - Social, Economic and Political; equality of status, of opportunity and before the law; freedom of thought, expression, of belief, faith, worship, vocation, association, and action subject to law and public morality.

53.  The practice of Arts and Sciences shall be unrestricted and shall enjoy the protection and support of the State.

54.  Without any prejudice to the communities concerned, public institutions shall be opened to all the citizens of the State.

55.  (a) All officials of the State or of a Local Government shall be answerable before the law for their individual and unlawful actions.

(b)   Where damage is caused to an individual by the act of an official of the State or an official of a Local Government, such individual may sue the State before the Chief Court and may seek redress save where such damage has been caused by a bona-fide act of a State servant in pursuance of a policy duly laid down by a Competent Authority.

 

 

CHAPTER  XI

GENERAL CLAUSES

56.  Any provision of this Act may be subject to amendment by the Maharaja in Council provided that such amendment is laid before the Assembly and receives the support of at least 80 per cent of the Members of the State Assembly present and voting when such amendment is debated.

57.  Where in any case circumstances arise which prevent the proper operation in law or in spirit of this Constitution Act, the Council may at their discretion refer the matter for decision to such authority outside the State as may be decided hereafter and the decision of that authority shall be binding.

58.  The Court language of the State shall be Manipuri or English.

___________________

 

Appendix 3

The Representatives

THE STATE ASSEMBLY

            A peculiar feature of the elections to the State Assembly, conducted in a staggered manner from June 11 to July 27, 1948, was the principle of Joint Electorates. Under this system, separate General and Mohammedan or Hillman electorates in a territorial constituency elected their own representatives to the assembly. This legacy of the divide-and-rule policy of the British rulers was applicable to four constituencies in the Manipur Valley.

Particulars of the representatives elected by the people to the State Assembly are given below:

 

Sl.        Name of                                 Name of the elected                           Remarks

No.       Constituency                          Candidate

 

 1.  Koirengei             Khwairakpam Chaoba Singh                General

 2.  Khwai LalambungKhongbantabam Ibetombi Singh          General

 3. Lamsang                Wangkheimayum Tarpon Singh            General

 4. Patsoi                     Khumanthem Golap Singh                    General

 5. Sagolband              Arambam Ibungotomcha Singh            General

 6. Keisamthong         Elangbam Tompok Singh                      General

 7.Yaiskul                   Sougaijam Samarendra Singh               General

 8. Malom                  Yumnam Megho Singh                          General

 9. Utlow                     Hijam Irabot Singh                               General

10.Nambol                  Ayekpam Anganghal Singh                  General

11.Bishenpur              Khwairakpam Kamalakanta Singh        General

12.Moirang             (i) Mairenbam Koireng Singh                   General

                                (ii) Teba Kilong                                         Hillman

13.Thanga Kumbi   Wahengbam Gourakishore Singh             General

14.Waikhong             Nongmaithem Toyaima Singh                General

15.Kakching KhunouThokchom Shyama Singh                       General

16.Mayang Imphal     (i)  Irom Merajatra Singh                       General

                                   (ii) Md. Suleiman Mia                     Mohamadan

17.Wangoi                   Nongmeikapam Iboton Singh               General

18.Thoubal                  Waikhom Mani Singh                           General

19.Wangjing               Laisram Chandramani Singh                 General

20.Khongjom              Mutum Khono Singh                            General

21.Sekmai Khunbi     Sorokhaibam Chourjit Singh                 General

22.Yairipok                (i)  Waikhom Nimaichand Singh           General

                                   (ii) Md. Amjad Ali                         Mohamadan

23.Irilbung            Moirangthem Gourachand Singh                General

24.Lilong      (i)  Md. Abdul Kadir Khan                          Mohamadan

                          (ii) Md. Alimuddin                                          General

25.Ningomthong    Khwairakpam Giri Singh                           General

          

26.Wangkhei           Laisram Achow Singh                               General

27. Khurai Lamlong    Ningthoujam Leiren Singh                    General

28. Sawombung           Maimom Modhumangol Singh             General

29. Pangei                    Takhellambam bokul Singh                   General

30. Jiri                           Sinam Sree bijoy Singh                        General

31.Tengnoupal (1)         Mono                                                     Hillman

32.Tengnoupal (2)          Holpao                                                  Hillman

33.Hill Sadar                  Ralengnao Khathing                             Hillman

34.Phaisat                       Luying Hungyo                                     Hillman

35.Ukhrul                       Thisan Luikham                                    Hillman

36.Chingjaroi                 Miksha k. Shimray                                Hillman

37.Tolloi                         Rungsung Suisa                                    Hillman

38. Mao (1)                     Mangpithang Kipgen                            Hillman

39. Mao (2)                     (vacant)                    Election could not be held.

40. Tama                          S.L.Lunneh                                           Hillman

41. Tamenglong              Thanggoumang Sithou                          Hillman

42. Langkhong (1)          Buishing Kabui                                     Hillman

43. Langkhong (2)          Kakhangai                                             Hillman

44. Maite                         Dr. L.Kampu                                         Hillman

45.Thlanship                    T.C.Tiankham                                       Hillman

46.Senvawn                     Tualchin                                                Hillman

47. Churachandpur          Damjakhai Waiphei                               Hillman

48.Education             Chingakham pishak Singh          Non-territorial

                                                                                                                 Constituency

49. Commerce &      Ayekpam Gourbidhu Singh        Non-territorial                      Constituency   Constituency

 

THE MINISTERS

            Members of the first Council of ministers under the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 were:

            1.       Maharaj Kumar Priya Brata singh               -                   Chief Minister

            2.       Ralengnao Khathing                                    -                             Minister

            3.       Arambam Ibungotomcha Singh                   -                             Minister

            4.       Ningthoujam Leiren Singh                          -                             Minister

            5.       Ayekpam Gourabidhu Singh                       -                             Minister

            6.       Teba Kilong                                                 -                             Minister

            7.       Md. Alimuddin                                            -                             Minister

______________

 

Appendix 4

The Manipur Merger Agreement

            AGREEMENT made this twenty-first day of September 1949 between the Governor General of India and His Highness the Maharaja of Manipur.

            WHEREAS in the best interests of the State of Manipur as well as of the Dominion of India it is desirable to provide for the administration of the said State by or under the authority of the Dominion Government,

IT IS HEREBY AGREED as Follows:

ARTICLE  I

            His Highness the Maharaja of Manipur hereby cedes to the Dominion Government full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the State and agrees to transfer the administration of the State to the Dominion Government on the fifteenth day of October 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the said day”).

            As from the said day the Dominion Government will be competent to exercise the said powers, authority and jurisdiction in such manner and through such agency as it may think fit.

ARTICLE  II

            His Highness the maharaja shall continue to enjoy the same personal rights, privileges, dignities, titles, authority over religious observances, customs, usages, rites and ceremonies and institutions in charge of the same in the State, which he would have enjoyed had this agreement not been made.

ARTICLE  III

            His Highness the Maharaja shall with effect from the said day be entitled to receive for his lifetime from the revenues of the State annually for his Privy-Purse the sum of Rupees three lakhs free of all taxes.

            This amount is intended to cover all the expenses of the Ruler and his family, including expenses on account of his personal staff and armed guards, maintenance of his residences, marriages and other ceremonies, etc., and the allowances to the Ruler’s relations who on the date of execution of this agreement were in receipt of such allowances from the revenues of the State, and will neither be increased nor reduced for any reason whatsoever.

            The Government of India undertake that the said sum of Rupees three lakhs shall be paid to His Highness the Maharaja in four equal installments in advance at the beginning of each quarter from the State treasury or at such other treasury as may be specified by the Government of India.

ARTICLE  IV

            His Highness the Maharaja shall be entitled to the full ownership, use and enjoyment of all private properties (as district from State properties) belonging to him on the date of this agreement.

            His Highness the Maharaja will furnish to the Dominion Government before the first January 1950 an inventory of all the immovable property, securities and cash balance held by him as such private property.

            If any dispute arises as to whether any item of property is the private property of His Highness the Maharaja or State property, it shall be referred to a Judicial Officer qualified to be appointed as a High Court Judge, and the decision of that officer shall be final and binding on both parties;

            Provided that His highness the Maharaja’s right to the use of the residences known as “Redlands” and “Les Chatalettes” in Shillong, and the property in the town of Gauhati known as “Manipuri Basti” shall not be questioned.

ARTICLE  V

            All the members of His Highness’s family shall be entitled to all the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles enjoyed by them whether within or outside the territories of the State, immediately before the 15^th August, 1947.

ARTICLE  VI

            The Dominion Government guarantees the succession, according to law and custom, to the gaddi of the State and to His Highness the Maharaja’s personal rights, privileges, dignities, titles, authority over religious observances, customs, usages, rites and ceremonies and institutions in charge of the same in the State.

ARTICLE  VII

            No enquiry shall be made by or under the authority of the Government of India, and no proceedings shall lie in any Court in Manipur, against His Highness the Maharaja whether in a personal capacity or otherwise in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by him or under his authority during the period of his administration of that State.

ARTICLE   VIII

(1)          The Government of India hereby guarantees either the continuance in service of the permanent members of the Public Service of Manipur on conditions which will be not less advantageous than those on which they were serving before the date on which the administration of Manipur is made over to the Government of India or the payment of reasonable compensation.

(2)          The Government of India further guarantees the continuance of pensions and leave salaries sanctioned by His Highness the Maharaja to servants of the State who have retired or proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement, before the date on which the Administration of Manipur is made over to the Government of India.

(3)          The Government of India also undertake to make suitable provisions for the employment of Manipuris in the various branches of Public Services, and in every way encourage Manipuris to join them. They also undertake to preserve various laws, customs and conventions prevailing in the State pertaining to the social, economic and religious life of the people.

ARTICLE  IX

            Except with the previous sanction of the Government of India no proceedings, civil or criminal, shall be instituted against any person in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in the execution of his duties as a servant of the State before the day on which the administration is made over to the Government of India.

            In confirmation whereof Mr. Vapal Pangunni Menon, Adviser to the Government of India in the Ministry of States, has appended his signature on behalf and with the authority of the Governor General of India and His Highness Maharaja Bodh Chandra Singh, Maharaja of Manipur has appended his signature on behalf of himself, his heirs and successors.

				BODH CHANDRA Maharaja of Manipur
			V.P. MENON Adviser to the Government of India, Ministry of States.
	SHRI PRAKASH Governor of Assam, Shillong, September 21, 1949