Land Records: Some Manipuri Arguments Against India
An excerpt from A Paper On Questioning Political Solution in Armed Conflict of Manipur by Dhanabir Laishram, which appeared in the 6 July 2010 edition of the Imphal Free Press
In the paper, the author outlines the arguments put forward by insurgent organisations in Manipur, regarding the nature of the loss of sovereignty of Manipur:
1. The sovereign status of Manipur State had been recognised bilaterally when Manipur entered into Indo-Manipuri Friendship Treaty in 1762 AD.
2. The political sovereign and independence of Manipur had been officially recognised by both Burmese Government and the British Government as per the provision of the Yandaboo Treaty 1826.
3. After the military defeat of Manipur by the British army in 1891, the British Government did not annex Manipur to its empire; this itself gives testimony to the remitting independence of Manipur.
4. Despite the British and Indian interference in Manipur Affairs, Manipur became fully independent and sovereign on 15th August 1947 vide Indian Independence Act 1947 (Indian Supreme Court ruling 1954 to 1993).
5. Manipur had entered into the treaty known as the Instrument of Accession on 11th August 1947 but did not transfer more than 3 subjects to the dominion of India which was not independent at the time of making the Instrument of Accession signed on 11th August, 1947 in between Manipur and Dominion of India had clearly giver prerogative right to Manipur to retain its sovereignty and independence.
6. Manipur State Constitution Act. 1947 was in operation at the time of signing of the merger agreement between the Manipur Maharaja (King) who lacked the capacity and authority to enter into any treaty with any power or the representative of the Government of India on 21st September, 1947 since he was not the plenipotentiary of the Independent and sovereign state of Manipur of which he was only the constitutional head.
7. The people of Manipur had not deputed a representative duly elected by the people of Manipur to the then Constituent Assembly of India. Although from the Indian Foreign Policy and colonial perspective, a foreign national was considered as representative to the Constituent Assembly of India. Any representation of Manipur people by a person of the colonial country professing to represent the people of Manipur is quite inconceivable, preposterous and accordingly null and void as lacked the capacity and jurisdiction. Hence. Manipur cannot be brought within the colonial constitutional framework of India, since it was not a part to it.
8. No referendum or plebiscite of the people of Manipur had ever been held in connection with annexation or merger of Manipur to a foreign country, the republic of India.
9. The installation of a colonial government on 5th October, 1949 in the soil of Manipur did not in terms repeal the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 although the colonial government without having any jurisdiction whatsoever had passed a colonial order under Notification No. 219-p Gazette of India, Ministry of State, dated 15.10.1949, which, illegally and unconstitutionally dissolved the popular Ministry as well as the popular Assembly (the Parliament) of Manipur on the strength of the null and void Manipur Merger Agreement.
10. There is a widespread popular awareness among the people of Manipur that the Manipur Merger Agreement. 1947, as stated above is null and void and unconstitutional from the point of view of Manipur State Constitutional Act, 1947 and also in the backdrop of contemporary norms of the International Law. The National Convention on the Manipur Merger issue was convened by tri-ethnic platform of Manipur from the 28th to the 29th October, 1993 in the capital city, Imphal; the convention has unanimously resolved in plenum that the impugned Merger Agreement with India in 1949 is illegal and unconstitutional, considering the entire process and circumstances that led to the Merger Agreement.
11. The UN Security Council in similar circumstances had proclaimed similar annexation to be illegal, void and untenable. The Security Council declared annexation of Goa by India as Illegal (vide S/5033. SCOR. 988th Meeting, 18th December 1961). It took action against Iraq under Security Council Resolution No. 660-678 for annexation of Kuwait in 1991. The UN precedents, contemporary International Law, Jus Cogens and Vienna Convention on Law of Treaty clearly regard annexation Manipur by India in 1949 after two states falls in line with and is comparable to the Kuwait precedent in 1991 among others.
12. Considering the historical materials and records, documents and treaty, the sovereign and independent political status of Manipur which had been continuing for at least 2,000 years remains under suspension with the intervention of the Indian colonial administration, under Indian colonial political process and by the physical occupation of the Indian Colonial Army.
From the above arguments the revolutionary people takes up arms and fights for all the dependant and colonised people of Manipur representing the ethnic and indigenous people namely, the Meiteis, the Meitei-Pangan, the Manipuri Nagas and the Manipuri Kukis for granting and restoration of independence and decolonisation of the state of Manipur - that continues to exist since the Christian era, despite unlawful political and military occupation from the present colonial and hegemonic administrative power of the Indian State.
FOOTNOTE:
I don't endorse the ideologies of these insurgent groups, but rather shared the author's perspective when he wrote:
"Whenever, concerned citizens are talking about conflict resolution of armed conflict situation in Manipur, majority of them always urge to assert the political solution. But the author is difficult to understand what kind of political solution could be brought and fitted it in the rigid mind set of non-state actors – their political aspiration of historical importance and historical rights. It seems to be the genesis of conflict in Manipur."
I don't endorse the ideologies of these insurgent groups, but rather shared the author's perspective when he wrote:
"Whenever, concerned citizens are talking about conflict resolution of armed conflict situation in Manipur, majority of them always urge to assert the political solution. But the author is difficult to understand what kind of political solution could be brought and fitted it in the rigid mind set of non-state actors – their political aspiration of historical importance and historical rights. It seems to be the genesis of conflict in Manipur."
Comments
Post a Comment