Kabaw Valley : A forgotten betrayal or a closed chapter ?
|
Dr Raj Singh
Contd from previous issue
Expert views on the matter underscore a dichotomy : Emotional appeals vs. real politik.
Manipuri scholars and some Indian commentators decry the historical injustice and keep the flame of the claim alive.
Yet, seasoned diplomats and historians generally acknowledge that the clock cannot be turned back without causing greater harm. The “Kabaw question” thus persists largely as a symbolic issue–a reminder of colonial exploitation and perceived betrayal, which feeds local Nationalism in Manipur. In practical terms, calls to restore the valley serve as a poignant bargaining chip for local leaders seeking New Delhi’s attention or compensation for Manipur’s development. They are unlikely to translate into actual territorial change.
As of today, official positions remain firm, India and Myanmar consider the boundary settled, and there is no active dispute on the diplomatic table. Manipur’s representatives continue to voice their people’s sentiments, but India’s Central Government has shown no inclination to alter course. Should the issue be pressed, it would face not only legal obstacles but also the question of how to manage the on-ground realities (the current inhabitants of Kabaw, the logistical challenge of re-drawing a border through populated areas, etc.). All these factors make the prospect of Kabaw Valley “returning” to Manipur extremely remote.
In conclusion, the demand for returning Kabaw Valley is rich in historical legitimacy from a Manipuri point of view but poor in legal merit and practical achievability. The valley’s story is an important chapter in Manipur’s history and Indo-Burmese relations– one that evokes empathy for Manipur’s loss and understanding of post-colonial statecraft. While the claim resonates emotionally, especially in Manipur, any real movement on it would require a radical shift in political will that is nowhere in sight, given contemporary realities. Barring such a shift, the Kabaw Valley will remain Myanmar’s land – and a tale of “lost glory” for Manipur to be remembered in history books and discussions rather than in future boundary maps.
Some introspective questions that will ceaselessly haunt Manipuris are:
1. Did the British trick the king with an indemnity fund for the real tribute or lease ?
2. Why did the king accept the compensation from the British, not from Burma who took the land ?
3. Why did not Manipur ask the British to return Kabaw in 1886 when they annexed Burma?
* This article contains in-formation from AI-assisted research. Readers are advised to use their means to confirm information accuracy. The writer is a Manipuri expat settled in Canada. He can be reached at [email protected].
Contd from previous issue
Expert views on the matter underscore a dichotomy : Emotional appeals vs. real politik.
Manipuri scholars and some Indian commentators decry the historical injustice and keep the flame of the claim alive.
Yet, seasoned diplomats and historians generally acknowledge that the clock cannot be turned back without causing greater harm. The “Kabaw question” thus persists largely as a symbolic issue–a reminder of colonial exploitation and perceived betrayal, which feeds local Nationalism in Manipur. In practical terms, calls to restore the valley serve as a poignant bargaining chip for local leaders seeking New Delhi’s attention or compensation for Manipur’s development. They are unlikely to translate into actual territorial change.
As of today, official positions remain firm, India and Myanmar consider the boundary settled, and there is no active dispute on the diplomatic table. Manipur’s representatives continue to voice their people’s sentiments, but India’s Central Government has shown no inclination to alter course. Should the issue be pressed, it would face not only legal obstacles but also the question of how to manage the on-ground realities (the current inhabitants of Kabaw, the logistical challenge of re-drawing a border through populated areas, etc.). All these factors make the prospect of Kabaw Valley “returning” to Manipur extremely remote.
In conclusion, the demand for returning Kabaw Valley is rich in historical legitimacy from a Manipuri point of view but poor in legal merit and practical achievability. The valley’s story is an important chapter in Manipur’s history and Indo-Burmese relations– one that evokes empathy for Manipur’s loss and understanding of post-colonial statecraft. While the claim resonates emotionally, especially in Manipur, any real movement on it would require a radical shift in political will that is nowhere in sight, given contemporary realities. Barring such a shift, the Kabaw Valley will remain Myanmar’s land – and a tale of “lost glory” for Manipur to be remembered in history books and discussions rather than in future boundary maps.
Some introspective questions that will ceaselessly haunt Manipuris are:
1. Did the British trick the king with an indemnity fund for the real tribute or lease ?
2. Why did the king accept the compensation from the British, not from Burma who took the land ?
3. Why did not Manipur ask the British to return Kabaw in 1886 when they annexed Burma?
* This article contains in-formation from AI-assisted research. Readers are advised to use their means to confirm information accuracy. The writer is a Manipuri expat settled in Canada. He can be reached at [email protected].