Decode Politics | ‘Current crisis akin to humiliation of 1949 merger’: Why Manipur MP made the statement

What did Akoijam say in Parliament?

Akoijam, an academic and first-time MP, said he had expected the President’s speech to outline the steps being taken by the Union government to address the conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities.

“But call it arrogance or a reflection of a peculiar form of ‘rashtra chetna (national consciousness)’ followed by the ruling party (BJP), they have chosen to remain silent in an effort to make the crisis invisible to the rest of the country as well as the globe,” Akoijam said.

Referring to the accession to the Indian dominion of the erstwhile Manipur princely state in 1949, Akoijam said, “When the Constitution was adopted 75 years ago, we had a Constitution of our own. The constitutional monarchy was bulldozed on August 15, 1949; that insult should have been ‘let the bygones be the bygones’… But the manner in which the (ongoing) crisis has been handled… is making you remember that humiliation once more. This is the most saddening and unfortunate part as we celebrate the Constitution’s 75th year.”

What is Manipur history before merger?

For centuries before it became an Indian state, Manipur was an independent kingdom under the Meitei rulers centred around present-day Imphal. By the 15th century, the kingdom had spread out into regions far beyond what is present-day Manipur.

“As the kingdom grew, it also acquired the consciousness of being a ‘people’,” writes Akoijam in a 2001 article published in the Economic and Political Weekly. “Their ‘peopleness’ was shaped not only by the fact that they were under the rule of the same ruler but also by historical forces like the confrontations with the Burmese and later with the British,” he adds.

In 1891, Manipur became a princely state under the British Raj, governed only symbolically by the Meitei royalty while the administrative power was vested in the hands of the British.The Manipuri identity developed against this historical context that was further consolidated in the early 20th century through the struggle against the British and the autocratic rule of then Maharaja Churachand, which manifested itself in the struggle for statehood. Hijam Irabot, a Communist Party leader emerged during this period as a mobilising force. In 1946, he formed the Praja Sangh to demand an independent Manipur.

Consequently, the Manipur State Constitution Act was enacted on June 27, 1947. It came into effect soon after the British rule ended. Under the provisions of the Act, Assembly elections were held in 1948, a coalition government was formed involving parties other than the Congress, and then Maharaja Bodhchandra was made the constitutional head of the state. A council of ministers was elected by the state Assembly and a chief minister was appointed in consultation with the Maharaja.

However, the Manipur Congress, which was then the opposition party, was firmly against Manipur’s Constitution and launched a movement for its merger with India. Both Irabot and the Maharaja were, however, firmly opposed to the merger.

What happened ahead of the merger?

The tussle over the question of the merger came to a head on March 23, 1949, when the Praja Santi Party, on behalf of the people of Manipur, dispatched a memorandum to then Assam Governor Sri Prakasa, with copies to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, noting their dissent against the proposed merger with India.

Just days later, on March 29, 1949, Sri Prakasa sent a letter to Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, head of the States Department, saying that “in Manipur, the general sentiment appears to be against the merger. The only proponents of the merger were the state Congress.”

Sri Prakasa and his adviser for tribal affairs, Nari Rustomji, made an urgent trip to Bombay (currently Mumbai) to meet an ailing Patel to apprise him of the situation in the border state with an increasingly restless tribal population, on the advice of States Department secretary V P Menon.

In Bombay, Sri Prakasa and Rustomji met Patel in his bedroom and spoke nervously about the disturbed affairs in Manipur. Patel was said to be relaxed and quiet, listening and watching the two. Finally, he responded, “Do we not have a brigadier in Shillong?” Soon after, they were signalled out of the room by Patel’s daughter Maniben and the conversation was over.

“(Patel) meant to say that the matter is hardly a big deal. We just had to get the Indian Army involved,” explains Sanjib Baruah, professor of Political Science at Bard College, New York.

How was the merger signed?

After their conversation with Patel, Rustomji writes in his memoir, they returned to Imphal to convey to the Maharaja the bitter tidings. “The Maharaja was beside himself with emotion, now bursting into tears, now wrapped in sullen melancholy,” Rustomji writes.

Eventually, it was decided that the Maharaja would proceed to Shillong to meet with the Assam Governor there. On the first day of the meeting itself, the Maharaja was presented with an already prepared “merger agreement”.

While the Maharaja stood firm in his refusal to sign the agreement without consultation with his council of ministers, he was put under immediate house arrest. “Simultaneously in Imphal, Indian forces encircled the palace, seized control of telephone and telegraph lines, and effectively isolated the Maharaja from his people,” says Imphal-based writer Wangam Somorjit.

The Maharaja signed the merger agreement on September 21, 1949, and ceded to the dominion Government of India. Somorjit explains the first action undertaken by the Indian government was to reclassify Manipur as a “Part C” state, or a Union Territory, and bring it under the chief commissioner’s rule, dissolving its Assembly. This, he says, was a “designation signifying the lowest attainable political status within the Indian context”.

“It was a huge insult to the Manipuris. Not only was it given Part C status, but also it was one of the last Northeastern regions to get statehood,” says Baruah. “These are all accumulated grievances, particularly given the fact that they have always been conscious of their history of a large empire,” he adds.

It was not until 1963 that Manipur got its own Assembly again. It became a full-fledged state only in 1972, after the enactment of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971.

Current turmoil

Manipur has been roiled by a conflict between Meiteis and Kuki-Zos since May 3, 2023, which has killed over 250 people and left tens of thousands homeless.

Ahead of the upcoming Assembly session, the simmering discontent among a section of the ruling BJP MLAs has again flared, even as Chief Minister N Biren Singh reached Delhi Wednesday.

The CM’s trip to the national capital comes soon after state Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Minister Y Khemchand Singh, a known Biren critic, travelled to Delhi after being reportedly summoned by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Last week, Manipur Speaker and BJP leader Th Satyabrata Singh had also met Shah in Delhi.

Days before the Assembly session, which is starting on February 10, several state BJP leaders, who have been upset with both Biren’s leadership and the party-led Centre’s management of the Manipur crisis, have again started putting pressure on the party leadership.

One of the dissident BJP MLAs said, “For the last two years, neither the state leadership nor the Centre has come up with a roadmap for peace and they are just diverting attention by saying that ‘we will seal the border’, ‘we will implement the NRC’ or ‘launch a war on drugs’. But the main issue is the restoration of peace and normalcy. We are saying that if there is no change in this before the Assembly session begins, something big and unprecedented will happen during the session.”

Sources in the central BJP, however, ruled out any change of guard in Manipur in the near future.