Manipur’s status during 1947-49

Contd from previous issue
Article 51 of VCLT states that use of threats or coercion to procure consent of a State representative to sign a treaty is without any legal effect. Article 52 continues to stipulate that a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. Detention of the Maharajah under Regulation III, the use of threats or force against him and not allowing him to consult with his Council of Ministers attracts Articles 51 and 52 of the VCLT.
For any treaty concluded to have legal effect, it must be ratified by the Legislature of the signatory State. Article 14 (1) (c) and (d) of VCLT provides this requirement. The fact that Manipur Parliament had never ratified the agreement proves this deficiency. This is equally true of the Instrument of Accession thus rendering it without any legality. The Manipur Parliament in a session held on 28th September, 1949 denounced Merger Agreement as illegal and unconstitutional and without any legal consequences to the State of Manipur. We also recall that the whole of people of Manipur had renounced the Merger Agreement and annexation of Manipur as illegal and unconstitutional by the National Convention on Manipur Merger issue dated 28-29 October, 1993. Thus Manipur’s politico-legal status varied from time and space. However, from the standards of international law Manipur’s situation after October 15, 1949 resemble that of the illegally occupied Palestinian Territories with India assuming the role of an administering State. Legitimacy of India’s administration of Manipur since 1949 is an area of further research.
[email protected]