Accession and Merger of Manipur with India: A Moment for Reflection

As Manipur marks the anniversary of the Merger Agreement with India on September 21st, it is an opportune time to reflect on the agreements that shaped the state’s political destiny. The Instrument of Accession (IOA), signed on August 11, 1947, and the subsequent Merger Agreement of 1949 continue to stir debates over the sovereignty of Manipur and its relationship with India. Recent discussions in Parliament, particularly those raised by Dr. Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, MP from Inner Manipur, bring these historical questions into sharper focus and challenge us to consider the broader implications of these foundational agreements.
Recently, Dr. Bimol expressed his concerns over the IOA, emphasizing the need for India to take the security of Manipur seriously, given that the IOA entrusted India with control over the state’s defense, communications, and external affairs. His remarks highlighted a sentiment among many in Manipur who feel that the state’s security is often sidelined in national discussions. The implication was clear: according to Dr. Bimol, India should take responsibility for the state’s security with the same seriousness it applies to other regions. This call for attentiveness reveals an underlying anxiety regarding Manipur’s autonomy and its position within the larger framework of Indian federalism.
The IOA, far from being an imposition that stripped Manipur of its sovereignty, involved the ceding of only specific domains such as defense, external affairs, and communications. It is crucial to note that the IOA did not dissolve Manipur’s autonomy; rather, the state retained the ability to govern its internal matters, including its legislature, which was established through adult franchise. This arrangement allowed Manipur to maintain a degree of self-governance while aligning with India on matters of national interest. To suggest that the IOA compromised Manipur’s sovereignty overlooks the fact that the agreement enabled the state to navigate its political landscape while benefiting from Indian resources and security frameworks.
Moreover, claiming that the IOA, particularly its Articles 7 and 8, severely limited Manipur’s autonomy misinterprets its true scope. These articles, which placed control of defense, external affairs, and communications under India’s purview, were consistent with agreements made by other princely states that acceded to India. Such provisions were part of a broader strategy to ensure national cohesion in the immediate aftermath of independence. Thus, understanding the historical context in which these agreements were made is essential to evaluating their impact on Manipur’s political identity.
Manipur’s transition from monarchy to democracy stands out as a remarkable achievement. Following the Indian Independence Act of 1947, which ended British colonial rule, Manipur evolved into a constitutional democracy. The Manipur State Constitution Act (MSCA), adopted by Maharajah Bodhchandra in 1947, established a legislature through adult franchise, making Manipur the second parliamentary democracy in Asia, after the Philippines. This democratic framework not only represented Manipur’s political maturity but also highlighted its sovereign status within the Indian Union, allowing the state to navigate its governance with a degree of autonomy not afforded to many other regions.
Furthermore, the IOA’s validity raises critical questions, particularly because it was never ratified by the Manipur Legislature. Like many other agreements signed with princely states, the IOA required legislative ratification under the legal frameworks in place at the time. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), 1969, renders the IOA invalid as it was not ratified by the legislature. The VCLT serves as a significant codification of customary law and treaty practices, even though it was adopted two decades after the IOA and is retroactively applicable.
Finally, the issue of coercion regarding the Merger Agreement of 1949 also warrants scrutiny, as there are persistent claims that Maharajah Bodhchandra was coerced into signing the agreement. Such claims highlight the contentious nature of this historical moment and call into question the legitimacy of the agreement itself. Therefore, both of these agreements, the IOA and the Merger Agreement, stand in potential violation of the principles set forth by the VCLT 1969, complicating our understanding of Manipur’s political evolution and its ongoing quest for sovereignty within the Indian Union.