Colonial policy and practice in Manipur

Gangmumei Kamei
A colonial policy was the general principle followed by a colonizing power to regulate the relationship between her and her dependency. A colonial policy would have clear cut objectives for the attainment of which administrative machinery was created to work in the colony. The British conquered Manipur in 1891 and ruled the state till 1947. The British imposed their paramountcy on Manipur state. They imposed an Indirect Rule which was a mixture of colonialism and feudalism. Manipur was not annexed to British India but was restored to a young prince of a former ruling family. The British paramountcy was represented by the Political Agent. The British retained the feudal rule of the king given a title of Raja who ruled over the valley of Manipur with the help of Manipur State Durbar under the Rule for the management of the state of Manipur to guide the Raja and his Durbar. The hill tribes were administered by the Political Agent assisted by a subordinate officer known as the President of the Manipur State Durbar. There were several social movements during the colonial period directed against feudalism and colonialism. When India became independent in 1947 the British transferred power to the Maharaja of Manipur which marked the end of colonial rule.
The British Colonial Rule
The British conquered Manipur in 1891 and they ruled the state till 1947. The British imposed their supremacy and paramountcy on Manipur state. There were three aspects of British Colonial Rule; the first was that Manipur was not annexed to British India and was restored to a young prince of a former ruling family and a direct British rule for 16 years during which the British Indian pattern of administration was introduced. The second was that of a princely state over which was imposed the feudal rule of the Raja with the help of a Manipur State Durbar with its jurisdiction confined to the small valley of Manipur. The third was the administration of the hill tribes under the British Political Agents.
Colonialism or colonial rule was a historical phenomenon: conquest, emigration and subjugation happened in history. Colonialism is the establishment and maintenance for an extended term of rule over an alien people that is separate from and subordinate to the ruling power. Colonialism means domination of an alien minority, administrators, business men and soldiers asserting their racial and cultural superiority over the subjugated people. European colonialism had passed through three phases of historical development: Mercantilism, Laissez Faire and Protectionism. Mercantilism was the exploitation of the colonies for the benefit of mother countries; Laissez Faire or Free Trade meant free competition coupled with liberal ideas of utilitarianism and social Darwinism.
Protectionism meant the policy of protection of the economic and commercial interest of a colonial power facing rivalry from similar powers. The colonial powers including the British gave up free trade policy and was inclined more towards protectionism. The British imperial expansion in India was completed in the end of the 19th century. Protectionism and liberalism were behind this imperial expansion. It coincided with the British conquest of north eastern India including Manipur.
Colonial Policy
A colonial policy was the general principle followed by a colonizing power to regulate the colonial relationship between her and her dependency. A colonial policy would have political, economic, cultural, social and moral objectives for the attainment or maintenance of which administrative machinery was created to work in the colony. But a colonial relationship involved two social systems, two or more cultural patterns, two civilizations, two different levels of technology and economy, a colonial policy was designed with the deeper connotation and implications. Ideas, ideology, interest and social norms were built in to a colonial policy.
Therefore, “a colonial policy means the framing of a social order that provides for an acceptable modus vivendi in an oriental society wherein, the westerners have penetrated, have settled and are carrying on business”.
Colonial objectives
The objectives of the colonial policy were implemented through the administrative machinery which was created to administer the colonies. The art and practice of colonial administration was a highly specialized part of the government. During the mercantilist era, the great chartered companies built up administrative cadres to administer the colonies and the administration was geared at the exploitation of colonies for the benefit of the mother countries.
The primary concern of a colony, then, was to act as a source of raw materials and market for the finished products of the industries of the mother country. The functions of the colonial administration had become elaborate. The scope of the colonial administration was related to the objectives of the colonial policy. Since a colony was to be, a source of raw material, a market and in some as a place of industrial enterprise especially plantation industry, the administration aimed at obtaining three main objectives; to maintain law and order, to collect revenues through a well formulated taxation system to meet the cost of administration and to adjudicate judicial matters. Therefore, the administration’s function covered the army and police for defence, conquest and to keep internal order to ensure stability in the colony; then an elaborate system of fiscal administration. The civil service was to administer both the law of the colonizing power and law of the indigenous people. A well conceived judicial system was the primary step in the administration of a settled civil government.
The colonial administration was influenced by the liberal ideas of utilitarianism. And it adopted welfare programmes. The colonial administration in Manipur also utilized the services of the Christian missionaries to legitimize their rule over the conquered people and to facilitate the westernization of the indigenous tribal society.
The Policy of Indirect Rule
The British policy towards the native states of India during the rule of the British was described as a policy of indirect rule. India under the British was divided into two forms of administration. One was British India, the other group was native states of India subordinate to British paramountcy. The term “Indirect Rule” was mentioned by F.S. Furnivall in describing the British rule over the Shan States of Burma. He developed the concept of indirect rule to explain the relation between the British Indian Empire and the native states of the newly conquered province of Burma. This concept was further developed by John Hurd II2 to describe the nature of British rule and control over the kingdoms which were described as princely or native states.
According to John Hurd, in India a sizeable part of the country was governed under a system of indirect rule. The indirect rule was differentiated with British India which was ruled by the colonial government. The British India had a single ruler, the Viceroy and one bureaucracy named Indian Civil Service which was responsible to the Viceroy. The army controlled by the highest military command consisted of British officers and native soldiers. The indirect rule was imposed on the native states. Some salient features are elaborated by John Hurd.
(i) The so called native states, having no control over their external affairs which were conducted by the British had considerable autonomy in the internal affairs.
(ii) They passed and administered their own laws, levied their own taxes and maintained their own bureaucracy and police
(iii) The civil servants of such a state served the particular princely state and were responsible to the ruler. The state officials were locally educated. Rulers, officials and subjects alike were linked by marriage, caste and religious bonds. The social and educational ties made the ruling members of the state locally oriented.
(iv) The laws were mostly local and extended only to the state’s boundaries.
(v) Public borrowing capacity of a state was limited to its own credit rating. Public borrowing in British India and in Great Britain for the states was discouraged. John Hurd II further argued that the states were autonomous theoretically. The British sent representatives to the states. They were to observe scrupulously the tradition and customs of the state concerned. However, de facto, the position of a state was not so clear. He pointed out that
(i) The Government of India interfered in the internal affairs of the states in varying degrees of the particular state; its history, current condition and personality of the rulers.
(ii) British interference was carried out in many ways. When a prince abused his subjects, defaulted on his credit or violated the wishes of the government, the British could depose him
(iii) The succession to the throne was subject to the approval of the British Government. If a ruler was deposed or a prince was a minor, the British took over the administration of the state
(iv) The native states undertook no major reforms. And they were allowed to retain their distinctive political character which was different from that of British India.
The policy of indirect rule was introduced in the native state of Manipur with certain variation.
Churachand Singh as the Raja of Manipur
The British forces occupied Imphal on 27th April, 1891. The Government of India appointed Major H.P. Maxwell as the Political Officer during the expedition. He was also appointed as the Political Agent and Superintendent of the state of Manipur. Lord Lansdowne, the Viceroy and Governor General was deeply involved in the affairs of Manipur. He was concerned with the future of Manipur state. Her Majesty, Queen Victoria was concerned with the impact of the conquest of Manipur on princely states of India. She tried to intervene to rescue Prince Tikendrajit Bir Singh from death sentence.
The press in India and England publicized Quinton’s expedition to Manipur and the trial of the princes. The Amrita Bazar Patrika and other Bengali papers of Calcutta expressed sympathy with the Manipur king and his brothers. In England, the Times were critical of Government of India’s policy and action towards Manipur. Some of its editorials expressed the sane opinion of English public. The London Illustrated Weekly News published a number of paintings and photos of the officers, places and events of Manipur. The British Parliament also discussed the affairs of Manipur. The Government of United Kingdom particularly the Secretary of State was critical of action of Government of India, though they gave open support to the Viceroy on this affair. Queen Victoria, in her journal recorded her unhappiness towards the Indian Civil Service and impact of Manipur affairs on other princely states of India.
                                     To be contd