Colonial policy and practice in Manipur

Gangmumei Kamei
Contd from prev issue
Therefore, the Government of India took a special care in arriving at a policy towards Manipur. The policy was put in practice during their rule of 56 years. The first policy decision made by the British Indian Government, after the conquest of Manipur was the future of the state of Manipur; annexation of the state in to British India as a punishment for Anglo-Manipur war or restoration of the kingdom to a prince belonging to the family of the ex-Maharaja or a collateral line of the ruling family. In an answer to a discussion in British Parliament, Lord Viscount Cross, the Secretary of State for India announced that the Government was not in favour of annexation of Manipur and the introduction of British rule in the state. Viceroy Lord Lansdowne was an imperialist par excellence. He was aware of the impact of  such a policy of annexation on the princely states. He knew that Queen Victoria was not in favour of further annexation of a princely state to the Indian Empire. In a minute, Lord Lansdowne raised two pertinent questions, (i) whether the kingdom of Manipur revolted against the Queen, and if so the kingdom was liable to penalty which might be in form of payment of indemnity, payment of tribute or annexation of the territory, (ii) did the British Government have the moral right to annex such a conquered territory in the light of the Queen’s proclamation of 1858 in respect of recognition of the princely states in India? These issues were discussed by the Governor General in Council.
Legal opinions were expressed that the government of a princely state did not have the right to revolt against the Government of India. If there was a revolt against the Queen, the British Government had the right to punish the princely state. The Governor General in Council decided that Manipur had waged a war against the Queen and so she ought to be punished. The Governor General decided that the Government of India had the moral right to annex a conquered territory of the princely State that had revolted.
However, Lord Lansdowne was not in favour of annexation by way of punishment. The opinion among the Anglo-Indian Bureaucracy in India was in favour of annexation, which would lead to the obliteration of the state of Manipur as a political entity. Therefore, it was decided to elicit the opinion of the Chief Commissioner of Assam and the British Political Agent in Manipur with whom Lord Lansdowne was in communication. Sir William Ward, the new Chief Commissioner of Assam following him Major H.P. Maxwell the Political Agent of Manipur who represented the hard liner among the Indian Civil Service towards Manipur affairs, were asked to submit their comments for a policy decision by the Government of India. William Ward in consultation with Major Maxwell recommended that the Government of India were justified in annexing the state (for the maintenance of the British prestige) and to teach a lesson and warning to other native States of India. The hill people being one third of the total population of Manipur would welcome the annexation. The British were obliged to protect the hill people of the state against oppression by the king. It was a moral duty imposed upon the British to annex Manipur. From financial point of view also, there were no grounds for thinking that the annexation would result in to financial loss.
This proposal of the Chief Commissioner, Ward was turned down and he was directed to make another proposal who would be the ruler in case of the restoration of the state. Chief Commissioner Ward directed Political Agent Maxwell to prepare three genealogical tables of (i) descendents of King Garibniwaz (1709-1748), (ii) successors of Maharaja Gambhir Singh (1825-1834) and (iii) descendents of Maharaja Nara Singh (1844-1850). In consultation with the local scholars, Major Maxwell submitted the tables.
(To be contd)