Talk:Manipur

"MANIPUR" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MANIPUR has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 5 § Some overly capitalized redirects until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Link to source

Under Language template, the link to Mao Language link to a incorrect article. Ethiopia is in Africa and Manipur in India. 103.190.10.20 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

August 1947 to October 1949

As discussed in the article, the political status of Manipur State during the period from August 1947 to October 1949 is quite a debated topic both in term of legality and all...Manipur was a state before 1949, if instrument of accession was enough, there would not be a merger agreement reducing the state to a union territory when recognised as a part (territory) of Union of India in 1949. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It was a princely state. All states signed acessions and later merger agreements. See Political integration of India. That is how India became a Republic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

None of the other states of British Raj had a constitution enacted like Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 before (11-15 August) 1947. It might not be genuine to term it as princely state during this period when British colonial rule ceased to exist in the state. Manipur was a protectorate state of British Empire before 1891. It might be worth mentioning British did not annex Manipur to British India even after its victory in the Anglo-Manipur War. When British left Manipur and Indian Empire, the status of Manipur State revert to its status prior to 1891 ( which is definitely not a princely state ). 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "princely state" was not in use in 1891, but it developed later, probably in 1930s when Round Table Conference discussions happned. So, protectorate vs. princely state debate is not worthwhile. But what is true is that the British did not think "British paramountcy" applied to Manipur prior to 1891, but after 1891 they applied it in the most brutal fashion. So, when somebody says it "reverted to pre-1891 fashion", they mean that the "paramountcy" was removed. But modern India applied its own "paramountcy" in stages after 1947.

But all these things are besides the point. When a princely state signed the Instrument of Accession, it is deemed to have become part of the Indian Union. So, if we have a field that talks about "admission into the Union", it should be the date of accession, not the date of merger. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For example, Jammu and Kashmir signed the Instrument of Accession during 26-27 October 1947, and it became part of the Indian Union, and India represented it in the United Nations. J&K never signed any merger agreeement. Hyderabad and Mysore also never signed any merger agreements. Merger agreements had only to do with the princely authority. They did not affect the status of the territory. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Manipur, British protectorate state and princely state of Indian Empire since 1891 should have difference. As already discussed above , IOA for Manipur with Union of India is a debated topic of its legality....and ..this clause from IOA or standstill agreement, "Nothing in this Agreement includes the exercise of any paramountcy functions" rule out any form of paramountcy by either side until the controversial merger agreement of 1949 .J&K did not have a constitution enacted before its IOA is signed and it was signed after both entity ( J&K and India Union) become sovereign i.e after August 1947. ( no question of legal dispute unless under duress)🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"Debatable" doesn't mean it didn't happen. Pakistan even deabted Jammu and Kashmir's accession in the United Nations. POV claims may exist for a number of reasons. They don't deny the realities.

... in July and August 1947 all of the princely states within the geographical orbit of India as distinct from that of Pakistan (except Hyderabad, Kashmir and Junagadh) "acceded" to India in accordance with the procedure laid down in the [Government of] India Act of 1935 as adapted and amended by the Government of the new Dominion of India.

That is all that matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

On 15 August 1947, with the lapse of the British India, Manipur became briefly independent, but later Manipur was annexed to India in 1949

Something that happened does not mean its valid or genuine, for example a student who cheated during exam is liable to be given fail by authority. The Maharajah's power to enter into treaty as sovereign entity ( as per IOA) is dubious as he ( a constitutional nominal head ) is under British paramount and legally binded by MSCA 1947, which is enacted before signing both IOA and SA. Also as per Indian Independence Act 1947, Section 7 (1) (b) "the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date towards Indian States or the rulers there of, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, grant, usage, sufferance or otherwise" , i.e any treaties or agreement signed between British and Manipur state also ended or untenable, as for Dominion of India, it was not born legally until 15 August 1947. Merger agreement of 1949 itself is a debated topic, but it is indeed an annexation ( by using force) so, the date of joining or admission to Union of India which existed after 15 August 1947 should be the date of merger as corroborated by many scholars 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 06:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire literature on Manipur is rife with misinformation, most of which has been generated by the Manipuris themselves seemingly in collaboration with the propagandistic insurgent groups. Please pay attention to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Holden Furber, citation given above, is an authoritative source for these matters.

We don't get to decide whether something is "valid" or "genuine". This was the procedure adopted as per the Indian Independence Act 1947 and was supervised by the British Governor General/Viceroy, who was responsible for implementing it. None of the 560 odd princely states that acceded to India before 15 August 1947 are considered to have become "independent" with the lapse of the Paramountcy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Manipur became a princely state under British Raj only after 1891, following the defeat of Manipur in Anglo-Manipur War. How is one scholar's POV superior over many other scholars POV!?, specially when contested with WP:RS, people get enlightened with education over time, where is this tendency to label even scholars as collaboration with insurgents coming from?...Non manipuri Indian scholar like Subramanian do writes that Manipur revert to its status of pre 1891 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Please focus on what Kautilya wrote: 'None of the 560-odd princely states that acceded to India in 1947 were considered "independent" due to the lapse of Paramountcy.'

The transfer of sovereignty to India was a legal and political process that applied to all princely states. While scholars like Subramanian may argue that Manipur reverted to its pre-1891 status after British rule, they are certainly entitled to their opinion. You can debate it endlessly and even rally people behind that cause, but it won't change the legal and historical reality of post-1947 integration, though scholars can continue debating the specifics. Once the view you're trying to push becomes a widely acknowledged consensus (which I don't see ever happening), then maybe you can demand such a thing on Wikipedia DangalOh (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya or my POV are not something we can use of wikipedia, we are discussing based on WP:RS Also, no one is arguing about the transfer of sovereignty to India by British by virtue of Indian Independence Act 1947 which came in effect on 15 August 1947, the context regarding Manipur and Indian Union itself is also legal and political process involving a constitution which precede the Indian Independence Act 1947, as well as the Indian Constitution, please see above discussions also 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not arguing about any "validity" or "genuineness". So, the question of my "POV" doesn't arise. My point is simply that Luwanglinux is trying to deny established history of the accession of princely states based on WP:FRINGE Manipuri sources, which are (a) historically invalid (ignore the historical sources or misstate the facts), (b) narrowly focussed (concentrate solely on Manipur to the exclusion of the rest of India). Most of this POV was generated by UNLF between 1964 and 1968, which has since become mainstream Manipuri POV. Polemics after polemics keep getting piled on by a plethora of CSOs such as CIRCA, UCM, COCOMI etc. just as all the separatist insurgent groups of Manipur are also based on the same POV. 14 August is celebrated as "Manipur Independence Day", 15 August is observed through a shut-down, 15 October is observed as a "National Black Day" and so on. But none of these polemics can undo the history, which is what we are trying to document here based on authentic historical sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I also don't see the point of citing K. S. Subramaniam, who is stating that Manipur regained "pre-1891 autonomy". But that kind of autonomy has always been enjoyed by the other princely states. And, they all acceded to India just as Manipur. So how does this impact the accession issue? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Damn, I didn’t know that. It’s fascinating how narratives can shape public perception and identity—not entirely equivalent, but it kind of reminds me of how Pakistan celebrates its Independence Day on August 14 to emphasize its existence before India. Some people really cling to specific interpretations of history, creating delusions that can become problematic. While it’s crucial to acknowledge different viewpoints, when these views turn into an infection and poison for society—especially without solid justification—they need to be shown a mirror. We should remind everyone of the objective realities of our shared history. DangalOh (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The GoI in general, felt that it would not be justified to carry out any sweeping reforms in the 'Native States in India' but set the 'exceptional' case for Manipur. It recommended that the reform being advocated 'may be possible and expedient' as Manipur was 'not a State in India

We had discussed about the issue of Instrument of Accession of Manipur to the Union in above discussions. Manipur's exclusion from the rest of British India is not by propaganda but by historical sources. None of the other princely state had a constitution enacted like Manipur before Indian Independence Act. Also, Manipur was not a historical part of Indian Empire before the advent of British. Many scholarly source presented the difference between Manipur ( British treated Manipur as a buffer state between India and Myanmar) and other princely state , scholars are also of the view, Manipur was annexed by India after Indian independence. Subramanian is also of the view Manipur reverts to pre 1891 status after August 1947. I am not trying to deny accession of other princely states which circumstances or behaviour are quite different from Manipur context, which is followed by a forced merger agreement i.e keeping the Maharajah of Manipur under house arrest (by force) in 1949, which shillong times described the event as annexation. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Look, I get that Manipur has a unique history, especially regarding how the British handled things and its status as a princely state. However, saying Manipur was never connected to the Indian subcontinent or is completely distinct culturally doesn’t hold up when you look at the bigger picture. Yes, the Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession under complicated circumstances, but that doesn’t make the integration into India any less legitimate. Also, it's worth mentioning that "Maharaja" is a Sanskrit term used to denote Indian princes and rulers, so perhaps it's better to refer to him simply as the "ruler of Manipur." The whole idea of an 'Indian empire' before the British, in the European sense, doesn’t exist, but the Indian subcontinent has always been tied together through culture, spirituality, and history. Manipur is part of that shared heritage, whether you like it or not. Plus, genetically, more than half of the Manipuri population belongs to the male lineage Y-DNA haplogroup R1a1a—that’s the so-called 'Aryan' gene, which is one of the most common in India. Even if we set aside the mythological connections, like Nongdā Lāiren Pākhangbā being from Arjuna’s lineage, the genetics speak for themselves. Manipuris are much more connected to the rest of India than separatists would have you believe. Now, about those sources you keep bringing up—they’ve already been debunked by Kautilya. So, relying on these discredited references to support separatist claims? Honestly, it’s just misinformation at this point. And if you’re upset about Manipur being part of India, there are plenty of people who believe in ideas like Akhand Bharat or even 'Greater India,' which go far beyond this whole separatist narrative. Their vision is a lot bigger than yours, but the reality is that both radical unification and separatism are equally out of touch with today's world. Neither makes sense in the context of modern nation-states. Everyone should be proud of their heritage, no doubt. But when that pride turns into exclusion and threatens the sovereignty of a nation—which belongs to all of us—it becomes a problem. India’s strength lies in its diversity and unity, not in dividing ourselves. And just so you know, if this keeps going, don’t be surprised if, in the future, the rest of society starts calling that land Kukisthana. You really don’t want to make enemies where you can’t afford to. I’m done with this nonsense. Let those with a broader perspective handle it, or I’ll just start dropping more facts that could sting. Good day. DangalOh (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

That quotation from Jankhomang Guite is not relevant, because it is talking about the British view of Manipur before 1891. We have already accepted that they regarded it as a "protectorate" rather than a "princely state". But after 1891, it was regarded as a princely state as witnessed for example through the exercise of Praamountcy. The buffer state idea also applies to the pre-1891 situation. Neither of these says anything about what accession means or doesn't mean. They are totally irrelevant.

John Parratt's comment that you relay is about the merger agreement, not about accession. So that is also irrelevant to the issue on hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is scholars corroborate that the territory of Manipur state was annexed to the Union of India ( Dominion of India) after the controversial merger agreement of 1949. As for issue of Instrument of Accession it was discussed in previous section of this talk. As for reversion of the state to its pre 1891 status after August 1947, and its relevance to the present discussion, a sane mind without any bias would know. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

I would not comment on the "sane mind" part, but "without any bias" certainly disqualifies you from any further discussion. I will not go further by commenting on who is more in denial about the past and present situations while only being concerned about some "controversial" mid-period of the past and present, which, when viewed objectively, also goes against them. Anyways, i will be enjoying some classical Manipuri dance on YouTube later—the poster boy national dance of our India. Regards. My contribution to this discussion ends here. DangalOh (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do notice that a lot of Manipuri scholars as well as scholars influenced by their views claim that Manipur was "annexed" through the merger agreement. But by the argument, all the princely states merged into India were also "annexed". And, also by the same argument, states like Jammu and Kashmir (state), Hyderabad State and Mysore State that never signed merger agreements are still supposedly "independent" even though they have vanished. This line of argument is quite myopic.

One can use the term "annexation" figuratively to mean that the internal sovereignty of the state was extinguished. Even I have used it in that sense occasionally. But we had a constituent assembly elected by the whole of India, which established rules for the division of powers between the states and the centre, which applied all over India uniformly. So everybody accepted that that is a good way to go.

It is also true that a large number of scholars (Manipuri as well as non-Manipuri) have claimed that Manipur became "independent" after the British departure. But most of these scholars don't even know that Manipur had signed the Instrument of Accession before 15 August 1947. And the ones that do, John Parratt being one example, don't even comment on what it means. In the meantime, scholars of international law do not regard even protectorates as being independent.

The effect of a protectorate treaty between two States is that the State under protectorate becomes partly subjected to the national legal order of another State and not exclusively to the international legal order. As a consequence, it loses its independence which is an essential element of a State in the sense of international law.

There are literally hundreds of sources that describe accession of princely states as "joining" either India or Pakistan. The third option was remaining independent.

When the British left India in 1947, the subcontinent...also cotnained some 572 princely states that owed their allegiance to the British and were free to join India or Pakistan or to remain independent. Had this recipe for disaster been followed, India would have been fragmented. In response, the Indian Constitution created a flexible federation able to absorb both the former British territories as well as accession by the princely states.

It behooves only the twisted minds of the Manipuris to claim that they have joined India but still remained "independent"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Indian Constitution came after Manipur Constitution of 1947, Instrument of Accession is invalid in case of Manipur as per some scholar with regard to international law as well. That may be the reason why forced Merger Agreement is needed unlike Kashmir, which signed IOA after regaining full independent status (not before 15 August 1947) . The clause of Indian Independence Act 1947 also corroborate that India means territory of British India and any previous agreement or treaty with Native state (princely state) involving British paramount lapse [ do correct me if this part is wrong]. It seems like owing to small size of Manipur many scholar did not know about Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 as well. Thanks 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 02:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

In case of Manipur Merger Agreement, there is ample evidence of using force or threaten by violating international law too by the Dominion, as independent India already a member of UN before 1949, the claim that Union of India did not know or recognize about Manipur Constitution 1947 seem to be flat lie. So the term annex comes from this forced agreement.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Constitutions may come and go, they are irrelevant to the issue of accession. The present day Indian constitution came after the Manipur constitution. But at that time, the Indian government was operating undre the Goverment of India Act, which was also a constitution. And, many princely states had constitutions too. Manipur wasn't the only one. People blabbering this kind of nonsense are simply ignorant of history.

The quotation I have given above from Rajeev Dhawan et al. [14] is crystal clear. The princely states had three options: to accede to India, to accede to Pakistan or to remain independent. Manipur acceded to India. Hence it became part of the Indian Union. End of story. I have no idea why you are writing reams and reams of text arguing something that is simply not arguable by any intelligent and well-informed person. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Article issues

I placed tags on the article because, although mentioned in the article, content on the strife in Manipur involves acts of violence, rape, persecution, human rights violations, etc.. and should be mentioned in the lead. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. WP:NOTNEWS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hindus and Christians

I am removing this line from the lead:

Between the 1961 and 2011 censuses of India, the share of Hindus in the state declined from 62% to 41%, while the share of Christians rose from 19% to 41%.

References

Only one newspaper reported it, and it looks rather like BJP propaganda of "Hindus in danger". (There was in fact a statement of a BJP minister in the article as well.)

The statement is extremely deceptive because it makes it look like Hindus have been converting to Christianity, whereas the reality is that the tribals have been adopting Christianity. If the proportion of tribals has increased, that is a separate problem and we would need scholarly sources analysing it.

I happen to have a copy of the 1961 census, and the data say this:

• Proportion of Meiteis: 68.9%
• Proportion of Kuki-Zo: 14.4%
• Proportion of Old Kuki/Naga: 3.56%
• Proportion of Nagas: 15.8%
• Total proportion of Manipur tribals: 33.8%

• Proportion of Hindus: 65.9%
• Proportion of Muslims: 6.65%
• Proportion of Christians: 20.76%

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Umm, how is your 1961 census data different from what was already stated? Also, please include the 2011 census data as well. Blind BJP hate won’t take you anywhere, nor will it enhance your credibility. What you describe as 'what it looks like' is purely your personal opinion. Nowhere was it stated that 'Hindus are in danger' or 'Hindus are being forcibly converted,' yet you went ahead and removed it as if it somehow bothered you. It’s better to leave it to the readers to infer their own conclusions rather than controlling the information like this. That said, I also know it’s pointless to argue with you. You delete genuine replies and queries that challenges your mindset as notforum. Meh! 2409:40C1:3D:60E2:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

You should comment on the content, not the contributors. Are you denying that the BJP propagates the "Hindus in danger" trope? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The outfit’s [Arambai Tenggol's] only motive, he said, was to bring Meiteis back to the fold of Sanamahism. “Most of the Meiteis are converting to Christianity so we just want to bring people back,” he said.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t take this as a "forum-style" discussion. Kautilya, you know I like you, and I’ve seen your evolution from being a complete leftist to a much more balanced individual, and I admire you for it.

Coming to your point—of course, the BJP does it. It’s a political party. Its main card today is the "Hindu in danger" narrative. But it’s also true that the BJP exists because of the combined opposition's neglect, deception, and relentless attempts to divide dharmic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) starting from 1947. This also includes continuing british policy of dividing Hindus on the basis of caste, creed, color, demographics, language, etc., while also simultaneously engaging in relentless Muslim and, to a lesser extent, Christian (as they are fewer in number) appeasement.

I would say this is vote-bank politics, but I actually listen to the speeches of almost all political parties in India. For example, Congress in the past used to blame only the RSS for Pakistani terrorist attacks in India. Today, they and their allies don’t even try to hide the hatred and contempt they have for Hindu society. It’s good that this is coming to light in the information age, where everyone has a smartphone and internet connection.

This is another reason why the BJP will likely remain in power for a considerable amount of time. If you have to blame anyone for the majoritarianism we see in India today, blame the Indian opposition, which is totally rotten, instead of blaming the majority. Sure, there may be supremacist elements within this majority, just like how US white supremacists find their home in the Republican Party. But that doesn’t mean everyone who votes for that party is divisive or supremacist.

If only Indian opposition parties were truly secular, there would have been no need for the BJP or even the RSS. My point of view is that Hindu society can never be too extreme—never. No matter if the right-wing comes to power or even some far-right, it’s not in the cultural ethos. Hindu society is inherently defensive rather than offensive or invasive. Indian philosophy has always been about pluralism. But that doesn’t mean we should turn a blind eye to everything (even if they are perceived—Gandhi’s bura mat dekho, bura mat bolo, bura mat suno is simplistic and stupid). Hinduism itself is a secular religion (unique case in major world religions). There’s no need for any pseudosecular party. I have seen what Congress has done to and for India/Indians and its image over multiple decades, and what the BJP has achieved in just 10 years. I’m sorry if I feel better as an Indian under BJP’s rule—very sorry for that. But that’s my understanding and point of view, which you might not agree with—and that’s fine.

The whole point of this discussion was that we shouldn’t care about what the BJP thinks or what its leaders propagate. We should just report the facts as they are and not care if they reinforce the BJP’s point of view or not. That’s not up to us to decide. Otherwise, what would be the difference between us, as providers of information, and political propagators who hide or distort information for their own benefit? We can have our differences of opinion, and we can debate many things for many days without any conclusion. But that’s not the point here. Hope you dont take me the wrong way. 2409:40C1:5E:BA34:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What BJP says does not concern us directly. It is not a reliable source and it will never become one. But when a newspaper reproduces the BJP propaganda as if it is coming from its own voice then it becomes a concern. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Umm, I think you are experienced enough to understand that all newspapers have ideological biases. Something completely neutral would be supernatural—humans are not there yet. Achieving that would require avatar or bodhisattva-level morality. But I understand that you dislike newspapers that reinforce right-wing ideas, and that’s okay. I understand godi media is popular comcept in wikipedia while no discussions for dalal media.

My point is, if the data is correct, what’s the harm in it being there? It’s basic information about demographics. I’m not asking you to mention that Congress, until the 2010s, fully supported missionary activities in the Northeast, or that people are being forcibly converted, or that foreign powers are also involved, etc. It’s just basic demographic information. There’s no need to hide it—but I’ll leave it to you.

I don’t want to argue or fight over little things. I can only preach a little (as I love to), but I can’t enforce my views on anyone. Have a good day! 2409:40C1:5E:BA34:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

References