The revision of the 1949 Manipur merger agreement and the circumstances of the signing on 21 September 1949 between the Maharajah of Manipur and the Indian authorities in Shillong is urgently needed, particularly with a view to finding a peaceful political solution to the apparently tenacious armed conflict in Manipur. A new debate on the “merger of Manipur” is also needed in the light of new discoveries in order to recognize the intricacies of the conflict and the fundamental incompatibility that underlies it. At the time of this contract, the Maharajah must acquire full ownership, exploitation and enjoyment of all private property owned by him (unlike public real estate). [1] On 21 September 1949, Maharaja was ordered to sign a merger agreement with the Union of Indians, which was due to come into force on 15 October of that year. [16] As a result of the agreement, Manipur State merged with the Indian Union as a Part C state (similar to a high-level province under colonial rule, later called Union Territory) to be led by a senior commissioner appointed by the Indian government. The representative assembly of Manipur has been abolished. [17] It is also worth verifying the legality of the Indian government`s various injunctions in light of the Indian Independence Act of 1947. Indeed, two orders, namely the Order of Manipur (administrative) 1949 and the Order of State Merger (Chief Commisioner`s Provinces), were issued in 1950 by Mr. K.
Vellodi, Secretary of the Government of India, Ministry of State and C. Gopalachari, Governor General of India, to complete the integration process. Two extremist affiliates based in Manipur – the Coordinating Committee (CorCom) and the Alliance of Socialist Unity, Kangleipak (ASUK) – and the Tripura-based National Liberation Front Twipra (NLFT) announced the closure to mark the “forced merger” of the two states with India on 15 October 1949. Another serious political error was made by the GoI when the merger agreement came into force on October 15, 1949. The Manipur Constitution was abolished and the democratically elected Legislative Assembly of Manipur State was arbitrarily dissolved by two ordinances: the Manipur (Administrative Order) of 1949 and the Order of state Fusion (Chief Commisioner`s Provinces) Order, 1950. Such an approach to the GoI led to a complete usurpation of democratic space in Manipur, which caused widespread political discontent among the Manipury elites. This had set the stage for political disagreements that find articulation in the form of an insurgency. It should be noted here that the policy behind the Manipur insurgency is to reclaim the democratic space that took hold in 1949. His Highness, the Maharajah, will continue to enjoy the same personality rights, privileges, dignity, titles, authority over religious observances, customs, customs, rites and ceremonies, and institutions that are responsible for the same thing in the state, which he would have enjoyed had this agreement not been reached. The first important point of disagreement often raised by informed circles about the merger agreement is that the Maharajah was brought to sign the agreement under duress and “coercion”. This alone is a serious assertion, because any agreement or contract whose conclusion has been ensured by the use of force or threat is invalidated by the relevant provisions of international law. Thus, Article 52 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on contract law provides that its sovereignty, the Maharajah, is entitled, from this day on, to receive each year, for its portfolio, the sum of three tax-free lakhs from the state`s revenues.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.