The political boundaries of Manipur were solidified through historical documents and maps, such as Henry Yule’s Map of 1500 AD, James Johnstone’s Map of the 19th century, and the Surveyor General of India’s Map of 1984.
TFM Desk
Manipur International Youth Centre (MIYC) strongly condemned “India’s Persistent Plans to Divide Manipur on Ethnic Lines” and at the same time stresses on the Inviolability of the Territorial Integrity of Manipur under international law and other state practices.
A press release issued by MC Meete, coordinator, MIYC on October 15, stated that the people of Manipur have always stood firm in their resolve to protect the territorial integrity and historical identity of their motherland. “For over two millennia, Manipur has existed as an independent state with well-defined borders, a rich cultural heritage, and a unified people. However, recent political operations by the Government of India, invoking Article 3 of the Indian Constitution to alter the boundaries of Manipur along ethnic lines, pose a grave threat to the integrity of this ancient land. Such actions, if carried out, will not only violate the historic rights of the people of Manipur but also breach well-established principles of international law, including the Uti Possidetis Juris, a doctrine safeguarding the territorial boundaries of former colonies or states at the moment of their independence”.
The MIYC stated that it underlines the inviolability of Manipur’s territorial integrity and expresses the unequivocal condemnation of any attempts by the Government of India to divide the state on ethnic lines. The organisation called for action and awareness among all stakeholders—national and international—who respect human rights, international law, and the sovereignty of nations.
“Manipur’s territorial integrity has been established through a long history of diplomacy, war, and statehood, dating back to the 1st century AD. British colonisation, which began in the 19th century, did not erase the sovereignty of the Manipuri people. The political boundaries of Manipur were solidified through historical documents and maps, such as Henry Yule’s Map of 1500 AD, James Johnstone’s Map of the 19th century, and the Surveyor General of India’s Map of 1984. These documents provide indisputable evidence that Manipur’s territorial boundaries have been well-defined for over half a millennium”, said MIYC.
The organisation said that upon India’s independence from British rule in 1947, the principle of Uti Possidetis Juris automatically applied to Manipur. This principle, universally recognised by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and applied in numerous international border disputes, establishes that the territorial boundaries of a state at the time of its independence must be preserved. Manipur, as an independent entity prior to its disputed annexation by India in 1949, had its boundaries fixed, and those boundaries remain inviolable under international law, said MIYC.
MIYC opined that the Government of India’s persistent plan to invoke Article 3 of the Indian Constitution to alter the boundaries of Manipur along ethnic lines is a direct violation of both Indian and international legal frameworks. Article 3 grants the Indian Parliament the power to alter the boundaries of states after seeking the views of the concerned state legislature. However, this provision applies to states that were integrated into India through legitimate constitutional means, said MIYC.
MIYC asserted that Manipur, having been annexed through controversial and coercive circumstances in 1949, does not fall under the same legal category as other Indian states. Therefore, Article 3 is not applicable to Manipur’s territorial boundaries, added MIYC.
The organisation further elaborated that India is a signatory to the United Nations Charter, specifically Article 2(4), which prohibits the use of force or coercion to alter the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. “By attempting to alter Manipur’s boundaries, India would be in direct violation of its obligations under UN Charter and the international law. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly emphasised that once boundaries are established, they must be respected to maintain peace and prevent conflict”, said MIYC.
The “Libya-Chad Case, 1994” and the “El Salvador-Honduras Case, 1992” are prime examples where the ICJ upheld the principle of boundary stability, it added. “India’s plan to divide Manipur along ethnic lines—based on the demands of non-state actors and illegal immigrants—is not only illegal but also deeply irresponsible. History has shown that redrawing boundaries based on ethnic affiliations leads to long-standing conflicts and fratricidal wars, as witnessed in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Sudan”, stated MIYC.
“Any attempt to alter the boundaries of Manipur based on ethnic divisions will lead to social unrest, economic strangulation, and a further erosion of the trust between the various multi-ethnic communities that have coexisted peacefully for centuries. If India uses the ethnic lines as a tool for division, it would be nothing else other than a Pandora’s Box of Conflict”, warned MIYC.
“The Naga and some Kuki communities, along with the Meitei minority (reduced to 43% of the the people” in their rightful struggle to preserve the territorial integrity of their land. The world must not remain silent as India violently attempts to rewrite history and redraw borders of Manipur in a manner that disregards international law and human rights that would put Manipur as another Palestine in this Western South East Asian Region in the borderland of China-Myanmar-India”, explained MIYC.