Kabaw Valley: A forgotten betrayal or a closed chapter ?
|
Dr Raj Singh
Contd from previous issue
In the immediate aftermath, this lack of consultation did spark protests across Manipur, Nagaland, Assam (and later Mizoram), feeding narratives of India’s “colonial” attitude toward the North East.
Nonetheless, the agreement held-India and Burma demarcated the border on the ground by 1975, placing boundary pillars largely along the Pemberton Line. Despite local resentment, the Indo-Myanmar boundary became an accepted reality, allowing the two Nations to move forward on other fronts.
Summary of Political Considerations : In light of the above, the Indian Government has strong incen- tives not to reopen the Kabaw question. Doing so could destabilize border areas, undermine counter- insurgency efforts, and harm major strategic initiatives. For Myanmar, any territorial concession is out of the question – with an active civil war at home and a watchful China, Myan-mar’s leadership would view any sign of territorial weakness as dangerous. In fact, Myanmar’s narrative is that “the Coco Islands and the Kabaw Valley have been Burmese since the 19th century, and remain so today” to them, there is no dispute. Good neighborly relations have generally prevailed between India and Burma/Myanmar; even during Burma’s military isolation (1962–2010), India maintained either neutral or constructive ties (aside from a brief period in late 1980s). Today, both countries work together on issues like border management, connectivity, and regional forums (Myanmar is an observer in SAARC, and a member of BIMSTEC alongside India). Introducing a contentious territorial claim would be a radical departure from India’s policy, likely harming India’s interests in the North East and Southeast Asia. Thus, political realism strongly dictates against pursuing Kabaw’s return, which explains why the issue remains largely dormant at the official level despite its recurrence in Manipuri discourse.
Expert Opinions and Legal Interpretations
The Kabaw Valley question has drawn commentary from historians, legal experts, and political analysts, resulting in a spectrum of opinions:
Manipuri Historians and Activists: Scholars and writers from Manipur often emphasize the historical injustice of the Kabaw Valley’s loss. They recount how the British “treacherously” transferred the valley in 1834 and how Manipur was “used as bait” in imperial negotiations.?
Many highlight that Kabaw was the traditional breadbasket and a cultural extension of Manipur, and argue that sovereignty was unfairly taken away. For example, an article in the Imphal Review calls the Kabaw cession a “190-year-old colonial-era case” that India is morally obliged to revisit. It urges the Government of India to “open the 190 years old ... Kabaw Valley transfer case and sincerely act to fulfill the return of Kabaw Valley to Manipur”, calling it “a long- cherished dream of every patriotic Manipuri.”?
This view sees the issue not just as a local matter but as an international one, where India should champion Manipur’s rights. Similarly, Manipur’s current Rajya Sabha MP (and titular king) Sanajaoba contends that the 1834 agreement and Treaty of Yandabo were ignored by Nehru, and he demands either restoration of the land or resumption of compensation.
These voices often frame the claim in terms of historic entitlement and justice – that a wrong done by colonial machinations (and later exacerbated by Nehru’s decision) should be corrected by independent India.
Indian National Analysts: Some Indian strategic commentators have echoed the sentiment that New Delhi mishandled the Kabaw matter. Brahma Chellaney, a well-known foreign policy analyst, pointed to Kabaw Valley as an example of Jawaharlal Nehru’s excessive generosity.
Writing in The Asian Age, Chellaney noted: “A sore point in Manipur remains the way Nehru unilaterally accepted Burmese sovereignty over the 18,000-square-kilometre Kabaw Valley in 1953.”
He characterizes it as Nehru’s “territorial big-heartedness toward Burma”, implying that India got nothing in return for this concession.
Such critiques are usually made in the context of larger discussions about India’s border policies.
However, it’s worth noting that while Chellaney highlights Manipuri resentment, he stops short of advocating that India actually stake a claim now– rather, he uses it to illustrate a historical policy choice. On the other hand, Avinash Paliwal, an academic specializing in Indian foreign policy, provides a nuanced view in a 2020 research piece. He explains that Indian leaders deliberately overrode local opposition regarding Kabaw to achieve a finalized border with Burma.
Indira Gandhi’s Government, for instance, felt that involving Manipur’s sentiments could jeopardize National security objectives, so they pushed through the boundary agreement Centrally. Paliwal notes that this “post colonial” approach (invoking the Indian Constitution’s assignment of Foreign Affairs to the Union) did secure an agreement, but it left lasting bitterness and a narrative of betrayal in the Northeast.
Essentially, his analysis recognizes the legitimacy of local grievances but also lays bare the realpolitik that guided India’s actions.
Burmese and International Scholars : Experts on Myanmar’s history largely consider the Manipuri claim to be unfounded in legal terms. They point out that Kabaw changed hands multiple times in pre-colonial days, but the final settlement in 1834 placed it in Burma – and that status has been affirmed ever since.
Bertil Lintner, a veteran journalist on Myanmar (writing in The Irrawaddy magazine), debunked the notion of a 1950s “handover” of Kabaw. He explains that “no such handover occurred in 1952, 1953 or 1954”–the valley had been Burmese for ~190 years already.
The so-called “Nehru gifted Kabaw” story, while popular in Manipur, is viewed by such scholars as a myth or misunderstanding. They stress that Nehru could not cede what India did not possess; all he did was stop the annual token payment.
From an international law perspective, many would agree with the Burmese stance that colonial- era boundaries are final. For instance, no serious legal scholar has proposed that India take the Kabaw issue to the International Court of Justice or any such body – indicating a consensus that the claim lacks legal merit. The Congress Party’s spokesperson in Manipur, in a recent rebuttal, echoed this by stating “Kabaw Valley was not a part of Manipur when Manipur was merged into the Indian Union in 1949” ? and hence implying that India never had a legal title to it. He also cited historical records (like RB Pemberton’s 19th-century report) to remind that it was Manipur’s King Marjit, not Nehru, who originally “gave away” Kabaw to the Burmese, thereby challenging the narrative that independent India is to blame for the loss.
This reflects a view among many Indian historians and politicians (especially those defending Nehru’s legacy) that the Kabaw issue was settled long before India’s independence and cannot be undone.
Feasibility and Legitimacy: When it comes to the feasibility of reclaiming Kabaw, most experts are pessimistic. Strategists note that trying to redraw the boundary would likely cause a diplomatic rupture and possibly conflict–an outcome India would not risk for a territory that, while historically significant to Manipur, is remote and inhabited by foreign citizens now. Legal experts would point out there is no international appetite for revi- siting 19th-century treaties unless it’s a mutual negotiation. Even Manipur’s own political class is divided: while the current Rajya Sabha MP (a royal scion) campaigns for Kabaw, others, such as the Manipur Congress leaders, call this misleading and assert that historical reality must be accepted.
There is also the question of what the people living in Kabaw Valley today desire –an angle rarely discussed. The valley’s population consists of communities like the Shans (Tai), Kuki-Chin, and Burmese, who have been under Burmese administration for generations. Any transfer of sovereignty would raise complex issues of citizenship, identity, and consent of those residents, in addition to bilateral complications.
In summary, expert opinion is split between emotional-historical arguments and realpolitik legal arguments. Manipuri historians and Indian critics highlight the illegitimacy of how Kabaw was taken from Manipur, feeding the moral claim for its return.
(To be contd)
Contd from previous issue
In the immediate aftermath, this lack of consultation did spark protests across Manipur, Nagaland, Assam (and later Mizoram), feeding narratives of India’s “colonial” attitude toward the North East.
Nonetheless, the agreement held-India and Burma demarcated the border on the ground by 1975, placing boundary pillars largely along the Pemberton Line. Despite local resentment, the Indo-Myanmar boundary became an accepted reality, allowing the two Nations to move forward on other fronts.
Summary of Political Considerations : In light of the above, the Indian Government has strong incen- tives not to reopen the Kabaw question. Doing so could destabilize border areas, undermine counter- insurgency efforts, and harm major strategic initiatives. For Myanmar, any territorial concession is out of the question – with an active civil war at home and a watchful China, Myan-mar’s leadership would view any sign of territorial weakness as dangerous. In fact, Myanmar’s narrative is that “the Coco Islands and the Kabaw Valley have been Burmese since the 19th century, and remain so today” to them, there is no dispute. Good neighborly relations have generally prevailed between India and Burma/Myanmar; even during Burma’s military isolation (1962–2010), India maintained either neutral or constructive ties (aside from a brief period in late 1980s). Today, both countries work together on issues like border management, connectivity, and regional forums (Myanmar is an observer in SAARC, and a member of BIMSTEC alongside India). Introducing a contentious territorial claim would be a radical departure from India’s policy, likely harming India’s interests in the North East and Southeast Asia. Thus, political realism strongly dictates against pursuing Kabaw’s return, which explains why the issue remains largely dormant at the official level despite its recurrence in Manipuri discourse.
Expert Opinions and Legal Interpretations
The Kabaw Valley question has drawn commentary from historians, legal experts, and political analysts, resulting in a spectrum of opinions:
Manipuri Historians and Activists: Scholars and writers from Manipur often emphasize the historical injustice of the Kabaw Valley’s loss. They recount how the British “treacherously” transferred the valley in 1834 and how Manipur was “used as bait” in imperial negotiations.?
Many highlight that Kabaw was the traditional breadbasket and a cultural extension of Manipur, and argue that sovereignty was unfairly taken away. For example, an article in the Imphal Review calls the Kabaw cession a “190-year-old colonial-era case” that India is morally obliged to revisit. It urges the Government of India to “open the 190 years old ... Kabaw Valley transfer case and sincerely act to fulfill the return of Kabaw Valley to Manipur”, calling it “a long- cherished dream of every patriotic Manipuri.”?
This view sees the issue not just as a local matter but as an international one, where India should champion Manipur’s rights. Similarly, Manipur’s current Rajya Sabha MP (and titular king) Sanajaoba contends that the 1834 agreement and Treaty of Yandabo were ignored by Nehru, and he demands either restoration of the land or resumption of compensation.
These voices often frame the claim in terms of historic entitlement and justice – that a wrong done by colonial machinations (and later exacerbated by Nehru’s decision) should be corrected by independent India.
Indian National Analysts: Some Indian strategic commentators have echoed the sentiment that New Delhi mishandled the Kabaw matter. Brahma Chellaney, a well-known foreign policy analyst, pointed to Kabaw Valley as an example of Jawaharlal Nehru’s excessive generosity.
Writing in The Asian Age, Chellaney noted: “A sore point in Manipur remains the way Nehru unilaterally accepted Burmese sovereignty over the 18,000-square-kilometre Kabaw Valley in 1953.”
He characterizes it as Nehru’s “territorial big-heartedness toward Burma”, implying that India got nothing in return for this concession.
Such critiques are usually made in the context of larger discussions about India’s border policies.
However, it’s worth noting that while Chellaney highlights Manipuri resentment, he stops short of advocating that India actually stake a claim now– rather, he uses it to illustrate a historical policy choice. On the other hand, Avinash Paliwal, an academic specializing in Indian foreign policy, provides a nuanced view in a 2020 research piece. He explains that Indian leaders deliberately overrode local opposition regarding Kabaw to achieve a finalized border with Burma.
Indira Gandhi’s Government, for instance, felt that involving Manipur’s sentiments could jeopardize National security objectives, so they pushed through the boundary agreement Centrally. Paliwal notes that this “post colonial” approach (invoking the Indian Constitution’s assignment of Foreign Affairs to the Union) did secure an agreement, but it left lasting bitterness and a narrative of betrayal in the Northeast.
Essentially, his analysis recognizes the legitimacy of local grievances but also lays bare the realpolitik that guided India’s actions.
Burmese and International Scholars : Experts on Myanmar’s history largely consider the Manipuri claim to be unfounded in legal terms. They point out that Kabaw changed hands multiple times in pre-colonial days, but the final settlement in 1834 placed it in Burma – and that status has been affirmed ever since.
Bertil Lintner, a veteran journalist on Myanmar (writing in The Irrawaddy magazine), debunked the notion of a 1950s “handover” of Kabaw. He explains that “no such handover occurred in 1952, 1953 or 1954”–the valley had been Burmese for ~190 years already.
The so-called “Nehru gifted Kabaw” story, while popular in Manipur, is viewed by such scholars as a myth or misunderstanding. They stress that Nehru could not cede what India did not possess; all he did was stop the annual token payment.
From an international law perspective, many would agree with the Burmese stance that colonial- era boundaries are final. For instance, no serious legal scholar has proposed that India take the Kabaw issue to the International Court of Justice or any such body – indicating a consensus that the claim lacks legal merit. The Congress Party’s spokesperson in Manipur, in a recent rebuttal, echoed this by stating “Kabaw Valley was not a part of Manipur when Manipur was merged into the Indian Union in 1949” ? and hence implying that India never had a legal title to it. He also cited historical records (like RB Pemberton’s 19th-century report) to remind that it was Manipur’s King Marjit, not Nehru, who originally “gave away” Kabaw to the Burmese, thereby challenging the narrative that independent India is to blame for the loss.
This reflects a view among many Indian historians and politicians (especially those defending Nehru’s legacy) that the Kabaw issue was settled long before India’s independence and cannot be undone.
Feasibility and Legitimacy: When it comes to the feasibility of reclaiming Kabaw, most experts are pessimistic. Strategists note that trying to redraw the boundary would likely cause a diplomatic rupture and possibly conflict–an outcome India would not risk for a territory that, while historically significant to Manipur, is remote and inhabited by foreign citizens now. Legal experts would point out there is no international appetite for revi- siting 19th-century treaties unless it’s a mutual negotiation. Even Manipur’s own political class is divided: while the current Rajya Sabha MP (a royal scion) campaigns for Kabaw, others, such as the Manipur Congress leaders, call this misleading and assert that historical reality must be accepted.
There is also the question of what the people living in Kabaw Valley today desire –an angle rarely discussed. The valley’s population consists of communities like the Shans (Tai), Kuki-Chin, and Burmese, who have been under Burmese administration for generations. Any transfer of sovereignty would raise complex issues of citizenship, identity, and consent of those residents, in addition to bilateral complications.
In summary, expert opinion is split between emotional-historical arguments and realpolitik legal arguments. Manipuri historians and Indian critics highlight the illegitimacy of how Kabaw was taken from Manipur, feeding the moral claim for its return.
(To be contd)