Kabaw Valley: A forgotten betrayal or a closed chapter ?
|
Dr Raj Singh
Contd from previous issue
There is no global Court that would void an 1834 treaty today absent both India and Myanmar agreeing to litigate – an unlikely scenario. Moreover, Myanmar could point to the principle of territorial integrity under the UN Charter, arguing that its internationally recognized borders cannot be forcibly altered.
The only conceivable legal angle for Manipur’s claim would be if one argued that the compensation agreement created a conditional cession–meaning Burma’s right to Kabaw was tied to continued payments, and cessation of payments (in 1953) nullified the arrangement.
However, this is a tenuous argument. In reality, the 1834 agreement gave Burma full ownership of Kabaw Valley; the compensation was not a lease but an indemnity. When India (as successor to Manipur’s interests) agreed to stop the payment, it was effectively waiving any remaining moral claim, not voiding the original transfer.
Myanmar did not “breach” the treaty – it was relieved of payment by India’s own decision. Thus, under legal and normative criteria, the claim for returning Kabaw Valley has little standing. It conflicts with the long-established boundary and India’s past accep- tance of that boundary.
As one Burma expert dryly observed, “the fact remains that the Kabaw Valley has been within the boundaries of Burma for nearly 190 years”, and “Nehru never handed over the Kabaw Valley or any other Indian territory to Burma” in the 1950s – because it was already Burma’s by treaty.
In summary, international law favors the stability of borders and respect for historical agree- ments in this case. Unless Myanmar were willing to discuss ceding the land (which it is not), India pressing the issue would mean contradicting its own commitments and international norms. The more realistic legal approach–if any–would be discussion of compensation or symbolic redress for Manipur, rather than altering sovereignty. But even that would require Myanmar’s agreement and is not mandated by any current law.
Indo-Burmese Political Relations and Strategic Realities
Any analysis of Kabaw Valley must be placed in the context of India-Myanmar relations, because geopolitics heavily influence how the issue is handled. India and Myanmar share a 1,643-km-long border running through mountains and dense forests.
Four Indian States (Arunachal Pradesh, Naga-land, Manipur, Mizoram) border Myanmar, and on Myanmar’s side, the regions are largely inhabited by ethnic minorities (Chin, Kachin, Naga, etc.) with cross-border ties. This frontier has historically been porous and restive, with insurgencies and irregular movement of people and goods.
Border Security and Insurgency: Since independence, both Govern- ments have grappled with insurgent groups using the border as cover. North Eastern Indian rebels (Naga, Manipuri, Assamese insurgents) have often taken sanctuary in Myanmar, and similarly, some Burmese ethnic rebels have had links on the Indian side. This has necessitated cooperation between India and Myanmar’s security forces. As early as the 1950s, the two countries coordinated against insurgents–for example, Myan- mar helped restrain Naga insurgents in border areas, while India provided limited military aid to Myanmar.
A formal Counter-Insurgency Cooperation Agree- ment was part of the 1967 boundary negotiations.
To this day, joint operations and intelligence- sharing occur; in 2019, the Indian and Myanmar armies conducted “Operation Sunrise” to target insurgent camps across the border.
India has “long relied on the Myanmar military to keep the border clear of anti-India insurgents and the drug trade,” as one analysis notes.
In return, India has, at times, allowed Myanmar’s forces to act against insurgents who slip into Indian territory. This symbiotic security relationship is crucial for stability in India’s sensitive North East. Were India to pursue a territorial claim like Kabaw aggressively, Myanmar’s cooperation could evaporate, compromising border security and emboldening insurgencies on both sides.
Diplomatic and Economic Ties : Beyond security, Myanmar is India’s gateway to Southeast Asia. Under its “Look East” (now “Act East”) policy, India views connectivity with Myanmar as vital. Ambitious infrastructure projects–the India–Myan-mar–Thailand Trilateral Highway, the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project linking India’s North East to Myanmar’s Rakhine coast, and plans for cross-border rail links – all underscore Myanmar’s strategic importance for India’s trade and integration with ASEAN. Border trade points like Moreh–Tamu (Manipur–Sagaing) are being developed to boost legal commerce. Culturally, there is also a Free Movement Regime that permits certain tribal communities to travel 16 km across the border without visas, acknowledging historical ties.
In essence, India-Myanmar relations are multifaceted, covering everything from energy cooperation (Indian oil companies in Myanmar), development aid (India has funded schools, roads, and capacity-building in Myan-mar), and strong people-to- people connections.
A key strategic factor is China’s influence in Myanmar. China is Myanmar’s largest trading partner and a major investor, and it wields considerable clout in Myanmar’s economy and even its peace processes. India, wary of being encircled by China’s “String of Pearls” strategy, has a strong interest in keeping Myanmar as a friendly neighbor and providing an alternative to total dependence on Beijing.
New Delhi has long sought a “stable Myanmar that keeps Indian interests in mind”, ideally reducing its reliance on China.
This strategic calculus became even more pronounced after Myanmar’s military coup in 2021, while Western Nations sanctioned the junta, India maintained engagement, partly to ensure that Myanmar’s Generals do not fall entirely into China’s lap. In this delicate dance, raising a historical territorial dispute would be extremely counterproductive for India. It could drive Myanmar’s regime closer to China for support and alienate the goodwill India has built over decades.
Historical Approach to the Border: It’s instructive to see how India handled the formal demarcation of the Indo-Burmese boundary in the 1960s. Despite having a live border dispute with China (which led to war in 1962), India took its time (two decades after independence) to finalize the Myanmar border.
When insurgencies in North East India worsened (Mizo uprising in 1966, ongoing Naga insurgency), India moved to settle the boundary with Burma swiftly–as a secure, agreed border would help manage rebel movements.
In 1967, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Government signed the India– Burma Boundary Agreement, delineating the entire boundary. Notably, Delhi did not entertain local demands to adjust the line in Manipur’s or Nagaland’s favor. Many in Manipur wanted Kabaw Valley (and some Naga groups wanted certain enclaves) to be included in India.
But Indira Gandhi explicitly avoided consulting the Manipur State authorities or the public, fearing that local objections would derail a critical international agreement.
She treated border settlement as a Central prero- gative (foreign affairs being Union-list) and continued “the colonial tradition of bypassing local demands for National needs”.
The boundary was thus formalized along the colonial alignment, ignoring Manipuri appeals for Kabaw. Indian negotiators were even prepared to make minor territorial concessions to Burma to get the deal done quickly if needed, underscoring that New Delhi prioritized a finalized border and good relations over historical claims.
(To be contd)
Contd from previous issue
There is no global Court that would void an 1834 treaty today absent both India and Myanmar agreeing to litigate – an unlikely scenario. Moreover, Myanmar could point to the principle of territorial integrity under the UN Charter, arguing that its internationally recognized borders cannot be forcibly altered.
The only conceivable legal angle for Manipur’s claim would be if one argued that the compensation agreement created a conditional cession–meaning Burma’s right to Kabaw was tied to continued payments, and cessation of payments (in 1953) nullified the arrangement.
However, this is a tenuous argument. In reality, the 1834 agreement gave Burma full ownership of Kabaw Valley; the compensation was not a lease but an indemnity. When India (as successor to Manipur’s interests) agreed to stop the payment, it was effectively waiving any remaining moral claim, not voiding the original transfer.
Myanmar did not “breach” the treaty – it was relieved of payment by India’s own decision. Thus, under legal and normative criteria, the claim for returning Kabaw Valley has little standing. It conflicts with the long-established boundary and India’s past accep- tance of that boundary.
As one Burma expert dryly observed, “the fact remains that the Kabaw Valley has been within the boundaries of Burma for nearly 190 years”, and “Nehru never handed over the Kabaw Valley or any other Indian territory to Burma” in the 1950s – because it was already Burma’s by treaty.
In summary, international law favors the stability of borders and respect for historical agree- ments in this case. Unless Myanmar were willing to discuss ceding the land (which it is not), India pressing the issue would mean contradicting its own commitments and international norms. The more realistic legal approach–if any–would be discussion of compensation or symbolic redress for Manipur, rather than altering sovereignty. But even that would require Myanmar’s agreement and is not mandated by any current law.
Indo-Burmese Political Relations and Strategic Realities
Any analysis of Kabaw Valley must be placed in the context of India-Myanmar relations, because geopolitics heavily influence how the issue is handled. India and Myanmar share a 1,643-km-long border running through mountains and dense forests.
Four Indian States (Arunachal Pradesh, Naga-land, Manipur, Mizoram) border Myanmar, and on Myanmar’s side, the regions are largely inhabited by ethnic minorities (Chin, Kachin, Naga, etc.) with cross-border ties. This frontier has historically been porous and restive, with insurgencies and irregular movement of people and goods.
Border Security and Insurgency: Since independence, both Govern- ments have grappled with insurgent groups using the border as cover. North Eastern Indian rebels (Naga, Manipuri, Assamese insurgents) have often taken sanctuary in Myanmar, and similarly, some Burmese ethnic rebels have had links on the Indian side. This has necessitated cooperation between India and Myanmar’s security forces. As early as the 1950s, the two countries coordinated against insurgents–for example, Myan- mar helped restrain Naga insurgents in border areas, while India provided limited military aid to Myanmar.
A formal Counter-Insurgency Cooperation Agree- ment was part of the 1967 boundary negotiations.
To this day, joint operations and intelligence- sharing occur; in 2019, the Indian and Myanmar armies conducted “Operation Sunrise” to target insurgent camps across the border.
India has “long relied on the Myanmar military to keep the border clear of anti-India insurgents and the drug trade,” as one analysis notes.
In return, India has, at times, allowed Myanmar’s forces to act against insurgents who slip into Indian territory. This symbiotic security relationship is crucial for stability in India’s sensitive North East. Were India to pursue a territorial claim like Kabaw aggressively, Myanmar’s cooperation could evaporate, compromising border security and emboldening insurgencies on both sides.
Diplomatic and Economic Ties : Beyond security, Myanmar is India’s gateway to Southeast Asia. Under its “Look East” (now “Act East”) policy, India views connectivity with Myanmar as vital. Ambitious infrastructure projects–the India–Myan-mar–Thailand Trilateral Highway, the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project linking India’s North East to Myanmar’s Rakhine coast, and plans for cross-border rail links – all underscore Myanmar’s strategic importance for India’s trade and integration with ASEAN. Border trade points like Moreh–Tamu (Manipur–Sagaing) are being developed to boost legal commerce. Culturally, there is also a Free Movement Regime that permits certain tribal communities to travel 16 km across the border without visas, acknowledging historical ties.
In essence, India-Myanmar relations are multifaceted, covering everything from energy cooperation (Indian oil companies in Myanmar), development aid (India has funded schools, roads, and capacity-building in Myan-mar), and strong people-to- people connections.
A key strategic factor is China’s influence in Myanmar. China is Myanmar’s largest trading partner and a major investor, and it wields considerable clout in Myanmar’s economy and even its peace processes. India, wary of being encircled by China’s “String of Pearls” strategy, has a strong interest in keeping Myanmar as a friendly neighbor and providing an alternative to total dependence on Beijing.
New Delhi has long sought a “stable Myanmar that keeps Indian interests in mind”, ideally reducing its reliance on China.
This strategic calculus became even more pronounced after Myanmar’s military coup in 2021, while Western Nations sanctioned the junta, India maintained engagement, partly to ensure that Myanmar’s Generals do not fall entirely into China’s lap. In this delicate dance, raising a historical territorial dispute would be extremely counterproductive for India. It could drive Myanmar’s regime closer to China for support and alienate the goodwill India has built over decades.
Historical Approach to the Border: It’s instructive to see how India handled the formal demarcation of the Indo-Burmese boundary in the 1960s. Despite having a live border dispute with China (which led to war in 1962), India took its time (two decades after independence) to finalize the Myanmar border.
When insurgencies in North East India worsened (Mizo uprising in 1966, ongoing Naga insurgency), India moved to settle the boundary with Burma swiftly–as a secure, agreed border would help manage rebel movements.
In 1967, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s Government signed the India– Burma Boundary Agreement, delineating the entire boundary. Notably, Delhi did not entertain local demands to adjust the line in Manipur’s or Nagaland’s favor. Many in Manipur wanted Kabaw Valley (and some Naga groups wanted certain enclaves) to be included in India.
But Indira Gandhi explicitly avoided consulting the Manipur State authorities or the public, fearing that local objections would derail a critical international agreement.
She treated border settlement as a Central prero- gative (foreign affairs being Union-list) and continued “the colonial tradition of bypassing local demands for National needs”.
The boundary was thus formalized along the colonial alignment, ignoring Manipuri appeals for Kabaw. Indian negotiators were even prepared to make minor territorial concessions to Burma to get the deal done quickly if needed, underscoring that New Delhi prioritized a finalized border and good relations over historical claims.
(To be contd)