(Contd from previous issue)
(iv) Among the early princely states which joined India or Indian Union, Manipur was the only princely state, which was followed by an Independent state under the Manipur Constitution Act. But, even today, the concept of Independence is being questioned by many scholars and thinkers. This is because the King considered that the proprietory right of the Kingdom continued as an Independent country or nation rested on him and, therefore, he signed the Merger Agreement. Thus, the question is: Who is wrong? And why they are wrong? This requires serious debates among the intellectuals. The Maharajah singed the Merger Agreement (MA) for joining India because he considered that state formation extended over centuries or took along time and that he acted contrary to the succeeding Independent state in one sense. In another sense, those who were in the intermediate Independent state did not object to the decision of the Maharajah. And there are no proper records in this regard. But, the reality of the political transition revealed that those who framed and adopted the Manipur Constitution Act had to succumb to the decision of his highness, the Maharajah. And therefore, India had heartily welcomed the joining of Manipur in the Indian Union. This process is still seriously challenged by many reformers or revolutionaries. Therefore, some people claimed for autonomy or Manipur or right to self determination (without demand for a separate Independence). And some others (the present underground organisations) for the restoration of the earlier political status-quo of Manipur (i.e. the Independent Manipur).
(v) There are many intermediate states (i.e. Independent states) in the European countries in between the downfall of the Kingdoms and the emergence of new nation states (i.e. a strong Independent country). They can be conceptualised as intermediate states because they emerged from the earlier kingdoms or princely states till the emergence of full-fledged Independent nation states, and they existed for short period as intermediate class of governance in between the early kingdom and the new nations or nation states (i.e. a nation state later called country). They were later ceded to the large nations called the country. For example, with the downfall of the Roman Empire in the hands of the primitive tribes (by different names), it was difficult to consolidate the regional states or small states. There were also many other states in different parts of the world in the transition period without governance or state authority. Sometimes, the landlords or the Manorial Lords ruled the community in England and other parts of the European countries. It is found that by about the end of the 15th century and perhaps by about the beginning of the 16th century, feudal organisations that prevailed in different countries of Europe led to the emergence of Nation states or National states. And there were Nation states or National states like England, France, Spain, Portugal, etc. There were also rivalries among the national states or national rivalries which characterised the 16th and 17th centuries. Thus, there were national policies to make the National States strong to fight against the National wars. Coming to the context of Manipur where feudalism or feudal organisations prevailed in the earstwhile princely state, the Maharajah signed the Merger Agreement to make the Nation state more strong.
(vi) There were also many other countries, which extended their territories by including the neighbouring regional states, and the earlier kingdoms. Likewise, there were many compensated states in different parts of the world. And the democratic and citizenship rights of the people are highly valuable and they can avoid the notion of serfdom and servitude. Hence, a new political, economic, administrative and social reforms is highly necessary in order to build up a strong nation of India (i.e. a strong independent country) in the comity of nations. In the context of Manipur, what is required is to introduce a new development model of social institutions and social technologies for changing the mindset of the people through acquisition of new thinking and experiences that would promote a system of development in order to achieve the objectives of intergeneral equity (in development) without affecting the welfare interests of the people in the state.
The writer is an economist (Concluded)