Talk:Manipur

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reinstated sock edit[edit]

Yangwikip, reinstated the edit of a blocked sockpuppet, without explanation. Can you please provide page numbers and quotations from the sources that establish the veracity of the statement, "The recorded history of Manipur can be traced back to 33 A.D"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the content: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recorded history of Manipur can be traced back to 33 A.D.[1][2][3][4] As S.S. Hanjabam writes in his article in Asia Europe Journal, "The Manipuris had established a sophisticated kingdom at a time when state formation was unknown to most parts of the region"[5].

References

  1. ^ Arambarn Parratt, Saroj Nalini (2009). The Court Chronicle of the Kings of Manipur. Foundation Books. ISBN 978-81-7596-638-3.
  2. ^ Chelliah, Shobhana L. (2005). "Asserting Nationhood through Personal Name Choice: The Case of the Meithei of Northeast India". Anthropological Linguistics. 47 (2): 169–216. ISSN 0003-5483. JSTOR 25132326.
  3. ^ Sanajaoba, Naorem (1988). Manipur, Past and Present: The Heritage and Ordeals of a Civilization. Mittal Publications. ISBN 978-81-7099-853-2.
  4. ^ Devi, Khwairakpam Renuka (2011). "Representation of the Pre-Vaishnavite Culture of the Meiteis: "Cheitharol Kumpapa" of Manipur". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 72: 501–508. ISSN 2249-1937. JSTOR 44146744.
  5. ^ Hanjabam, Shukhdeba Sharma (2008-04-01). "The Meitei upsurge in Manipur". Asia Europe Journal. 6 (1): 157–169. doi:10.1007/s10308-007-0167-6. ISSN 1612-1031. S2CID 154797592.


Please remove paragraph about "Manipur violence 2023 related to external aggression " and add a link to "Manipur violence 2023" instead.[edit]

The page is meant for projecting the demography, culture, language, economy, people, history, etc, of the state. Adding a paragraph about the ongoing violence is not doing justice to the ethos and all the communities residing in the state.

None of the other pages have a paragraph on violence - Gujarat, Kerela, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, etc.

@Kautilya3 @Arjayay @DreamRimmer @Haoreima @Prarambh20 Cherry.pick.wiki (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving permission. The paragraph is removed. So also wanted to highlight to the team that there is separate page for "2023 Israel–Hamas war" which is separate from the main "Israel" page. Cherry.pick.wiki (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry.pick.wiki No one has "given permission" You appear to be trying to whitewash the article by removing all reference to the Manipur violence 2023 - Arjayay (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HI @Arjayay , there is a separate page for "2023 Israel–Hamas war". is that a white wash? Cherry.pick.wiki (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cherry.pick.wiki - What happens on other pages is not a valid argument, please see WP:OTHERCONTENT - Arjayay (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ok, got it Cherry.pick.wiki (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a WP:POV section and not a high-level summary. I cut it down a bit, but a proper summary still needs to be constructed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This line below needs to be removed as this is not neutral. It highlights only one atrocity out of a series of crimes committed. There are other incidents that attracted international attention. If we need to mention incidents, then we need to include all major ones. Or, not mention any at all.
"International outrage resulted from a report that two Kuki women had been paraded naked and allegedly gang-raped by a mob of Meitei men." Lairencha (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ꯃꯅꯤꯄꯨꯔ (ꯀꯪꯂꯩꯄꯥꯛ)

ꯃꯅꯤꯄꯨꯔ ꯑꯋꯥꯡ ꯅꯣꯡꯄꯣꯛ ꯆꯤꯗꯥꯏꯗ ꯂꯩꯕ ꯚꯥꯔꯠꯀꯤ ꯁ꯭ꯇꯦꯠ ꯑꯃꯅꯤ꯫ ꯃꯅꯤꯄꯨꯔꯒꯤ ꯄꯥꯛ ꯆꯥꯎꯕ ꯑꯁꯤ ꯁ꯭ꯀ꯭ꯋꯥꯔ ꯀꯤꯂꯣꯃꯤꯇꯔ ꯲꯲,꯳꯲꯷ ꯅꯤ꯫ ꯐꯨꯔꯨꯞ ꯳꯵ ꯔꯣꯝꯅ ꯈꯨꯟꯗꯥꯕ ꯂꯝꯗꯝꯅꯤ꯫ ꯃHayumshidaba (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ꯃꯅꯤꯄꯨꯔ (ꯀꯪꯂꯩꯄꯥꯛ)[edit]

ꯃꯅꯤꯄꯨꯔ ꯚꯥꯔꯠꯀꯤ ꯑꯋꯥꯡ ꯅꯣꯡꯄꯣꯛ ꯆꯤꯗꯥꯏꯗ ꯂꯩꯕ ꯁ꯭ꯇꯦꯠ ꯑꯃꯅꯤ ꯫ ꯃꯅꯤꯄꯨꯔꯒꯤ ꯄꯥꯛ ꯆꯥꯎꯕ ꯑꯁꯤ ꯲꯲,꯳꯲꯷ ꯁ꯭ꯀ꯭ꯋꯥꯔ ꯀꯤꯂꯣꯃꯤꯇꯔ ꯅꯤ꯫ Hayumshidaba (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024[edit]

I need to add some data on the Notables part of the page Rangets (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instrument of Accession and Merger Agreement[edit]

Kautilya3 Legality of Instrument of accession and Merger Agreement of Manipur is argued by many scholars, how is it NPOV if those view are ignored.

  • First, Manipur was not a sovereign entity as on 11 August 1947. It regained its independence and sovereignty only on 15 August 1947 like all the princely states and the two Dominions, namely India and Pakistan. Hence, Manipur could not enter into such an Instrument, which assumed the form of an international treaty transacted between two sovereign states. Only a sovereign state can execute such an Instrument. Second, as on 11 August 1947, the ruler of Manipur was not a sovereign ruler. Even after Independence, the Maharaja had become a mere constitutional head of the state with all the powers and responsibilities transferred to the Manipur State Council since 1 July 1947.

    [1].[2][3]

  • Signing of Instrument of Accession is like signing of a Treaty between two sovereign countries and the procedure should follow the International laws.It is a fact that signing of the Instrument of Accession was executed before the Dominion of India came into existence. On 11th August, 1947 India had not yet become independent and the Dominion of India did not come into existence. Thus the two documents of the Standstill Agreement and the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharajah should not be taken as valid since these were signed before creation of dominion of India.The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Bodhchandra of Manipur on 11 August was never approved by the Manipur State Council in 1947 or ratified by the Manipur State Legislative Assembly in 1948 and therefore not valid since he had already become the constitutional ruler since 26 July 1947. In case of Jammu and Kashmir , the Instrument of Accession was ratified on 15 February, 1954 According to the Government of India Act-1935 (6-9), immediately the Instrument of Accession has been accepted by Governor General, copies of the Instrument and His Majesty's acceptance thereof shall be laid before the Parliament and all courts shall take judicial notice of every such instrument and acceptance. But there are no records of the accepted copies of the Instrument of Accession of Manipur having laid down before the Parliament and all courts of India The signing of the Instrument of Accession by Maharaja Bodhchandra and acceptance by the Governor General were illegal and invalid in the eyes of international law.

    [4]
Manipur was a princely state of India after 1891, but this state is quite different from the rest of other princely states with the dejure constitution and so on. The political status of Manipur after British handed over its adminstration to Manipur native after 14 August 1947 should not be ignored.
You said many scholar denied princely state were sovereign after 1947 but the instrument of accession itself stated in Clause (8) that nothing in the said Instrument affects the continuance of the Maharaja’s ‘sovereignty’ in and over the state[1] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 07:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sovereignty" is a confusing term and it is used in different ways in different contexts. The mention of "sovereignty" in the Instrument of Accession has to be understood as having full powers to exercise law and order within the state. Sometimes, this is called "internal sovereignty". Full sovereignty is taken to mean, in addition to internal sovereignty, the freedom to have external affairs, ability to wage wars etc. All the princely states that signed the Instrument of Accession surrendered external sovereignty to the Dominion of India (or Pakistan, as the case may be), and so were not fully sovereign. .
From 1891 to 1947, Manipur did not have even internal sovereignty, because the British exercised "Paramountcy" to the fullest extent and completely ran the state in the Maharaja's name. With the British departure, the Paramountcy was removed and the Maharaja gained internal sovereignty. No other princely state in India had this problem, only Manipur.
Now, if some scholars claim that the Maharaja did not have sovereignty to sign the Instrument of Accession, they are being too clever for their own good. Legally, the position would be that it is between the Maharaja and the British. If the British allowed him to sign it, then he had the power to do so. Paramountcy is a flexible device, it doesn't have a hard and fast definition. It should also be remembered that Instrument of Accession was prospective, which took effect only after the British departure on 15 August 1947. Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir were the only states in the Indian context that didn't sign the Instrument of Accession in advance. So they became fully sovereign on 15 August 1947, and both of them got invaded by India and Pakistan respectively. The ability to "wage war" also implies the ability to get invaded. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the native states were not independent or were not separate political entities, the necessity for executing the instrument would not have arisen.

as on 11 August 1947, the ruler of Manipur was not a sovereign ruler. Even after Independence, the Maharaja had become a mere constitutional head of the state with all the powers and responsibilities transferred to the Manipur State Council since 1 July 1947. The Maharaja of Manipur, in his inaugural address of the first Manipur State Assembly session held on 18 September 1948, had said the following words:

"I now bring to the notice of the people that I had transferred my powers and responsibilities other than those of a Constitutional Ruler of the State Council since 1st July, 1947 before the lapse of British paramountcy and since then, I have already remained as a Constitutional Ruler."

Furthermore, Section 9(b) of the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, would certainly dispel any doubt about the titular status of the Maharaja, which was expressedly stated thus: ‘The Maharaja means His Highness, the Maharaja of Manipur, the constitutional head of the state.’ The Maharaja in his capacity as the constitutional ruler could not execute the Instrument without proper authorisation and constitutional endorsement. This was simply on account of the fact that he was not a sovereign ruler and that Manipur was not a sovereign state then. Therefore, the act of signing the Instrument of Accession on 11 August 1947 by the Maharaja could not be considered an Act of the State. Hence, the Instrument was deemed null and void right from the moment it was executed. Now, another question that requires due attention is: could Manipur enter into the Instrument of Accession with the ‘Dominion of India’ on ’11 July 1947’? The answer is an absolute ‘No’. The Dominion of India came into existence only on 15 August 1947 with the adoption of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Section 1 Clause (1) of the Independence Act states thus: ‘As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.’ The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on 11 August 1947, four days before the Dominion of India was set up. It is highly inconceivable that the Maharaja should accede to something that was yet to be born. For example, the Indian Dominion had never existed on or before 11 August 1947. Being so, it can be aptly said that the Maharaja acceded to a political non-entity. Therefore, it can be claimed that the Instrument was never executed in actuality. It was simply pre-judicial to execute the Instrument between two political entities which were yet to be born. The story of the Instrument of Accession was a mere political fiction scripted and enacted by the Indian leaders to secure the integration of the native states.

Moreover, Manipur was still under British suzerainty at the time of signing of the said Agreement and the Dominion of India was yet to be born. It is, therefore, highly inconceivable that Manipur had agreed to transfer British paramountcy over to the Dominion of India without the knowledge and consent of the British parliament. The transfer of paramountcy, if any, could only be effected by a special imperial legislation enacted by the British Parliament. It is also pertinent to point out that the Agreement was merely a temporary arrangement and did not possess any permanent binding character. The Standstill Agreement is neither a Treaty of Accession nor a Merger Agreement. In case Manipur failed to accede to the Dominion of India within a reasonable timeframe, the Standstill Agreement naturally became redundant. And since the signing of the Instrument of Accession has been a failed exercise, as explained above, the Standstill

Agreement has no implications on the political status of Manipur

[5]

If IOA is an agreement that come into effect only after 15 August 1947, enactment of Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 surely precede this arrangement. Full reading of the Instrument of accession clearly shows Manipur is considered a sovereign entity in the agreement which is being argued by various scholars of the legality of IOA.
  • " Nothing in this Instrument shall be deemed to commit me in any way to acceptance of any future constitution of India or to fetter my discretion to enter into arrangements with the Government of India under any such future constitution........Nothing in this Agreement includes the exercise of any paramountcy functions. " [2] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Noni, Arambam; Sanatomba, Kangujam (2016). Colonialism and Resistance: Society and State in Manipur. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 170–172. ISBN 978-1-138-79553-2.
  2. ^ Das (2010), p. 123: "The Manipur State Constitution did not lose its validity with the signing of the merger agreement"
  3. ^ Mangal, Laishram Malem (2020). "Annexation of Manipur as the 19 State of India: The Status of the Territory of Manipur in International Law since 1949". Beijing Law Review. 11 (01): 328–357. doi:10.4236/blr.2020.111022. ISSN 2159-4627.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. ^ Khomdom, Lisam (5 July 2018). "Manipur State Constitution Act-1947 A Cure for all myriads of ailments in Manipur ?". E- Pao.
  5. ^ Noni, Arambam; Sanatomba, Kangujam (2015-10-16). Colonialism and Resistance: Society and State in Manipur. Routledge. pp. 169–175. ISBN 978-1-317-27065-2.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manipur&oldid=1221668537"