The crisis in Manipur: Revisiting historical and legal perspectives

The ongoing crisis in Manipur, as many scholars and observers have pointed out, is deeply rooted in historical events that continue to influence the present-day political landscape. Among those voices, the late professor N. Sanajaoba’s writings stand out for their rigorous examination of the legal and constitutional underpinnings of Manipur’s status within the union of India. He argued that the crisis we witness today is a direct consequence of what he termed the illegal annexation of Manipur to the Indian union, a perspective that invites both reflection and debate.
Manipur, with its distinct historical and cultural identity, was governed by its own constitution long before it became part of India. Article 3 of the 1947 Manipur constitution explicitly vested all rights, authority, and jurisdiction in the maharajah, who governed the territory. This legal framework underscored the sovereignty of Manipur, which had been recognized both regionally and internationally long before the Indian constitution was drafted.
Any legitimate territorial claims over Manipur by neighboring countries, or indeed by India itself, would have had to be substantiated by constitutional provisions that were operative in 1947. This forms the first crucial criterion for any lawful negotiations regarding the region. However, the subsequent inclusion of Manipur into the Indian union, according to professor Sanajaoba, did not meet these standards. He pointed out that article 3 of the Indian constitution, which grants parliament the power to alter the boundaries of existing states, does not apply to Manipur. Manipur was not an existing state within India at the time of the constitution’s adoption but rather a pre-existing sovereign state.
The first schedule of the Indian constitution defines the territory of Manipur as that which was administered as if it were a chief commissioner’s province before the constitution commenced. This categorization raises critical questions about the legitimacy of Manipur’s inclusion in the union, particularly in light of its pre-existing territorial integrity, which had been established and recognized long before British colonization and continued to be upheld after British Paramountcy lapsed in 1947.
Moreover, India’s obligations under international law, particularly under article 2(4) of the UN charter, which it subscribed to before its official independence, further complicate the matter. This article obliges member states to refrain from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. For Manipur, which had been an internationally recognized entity with a defined territory, government, and external relations, this raises the issue of whether the annexation was consistent with these obligations.
The principle of UTI POSSIDETIS JURIS, which dictates that newly formed sovereign states should inherit their pre-independence borders, also comes into play. Manipur’s territorial integrity was well-documented and recognized in maps from as early as the 1500s through to the 19th and 20th centuries. This principle, reinforced by various international declarations and conventions, suggests that Manipur’s borders, as they stood before its annexation, should have been respected.
The implications of these legal and historical arguments are profound. They challenge the narrative of Manipur’s integration into the Indian union and provide a framework for understanding the ongoing crisis as a result of unresolved questions about sovereignty, identity, and territorial integrity. As the people of Manipur continue to grapple with these issues, it is imperative for both the Indian government and the international community to revisit these historical and legal perspectives, recognizing their significance in the quest for a peaceful and just resolution.