This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anglo-Manipur War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Luwanglinux, that is too huge of an addition to the Background section. Several problems with it:
I suggest that you write your content in your Sandbox (look for it at the top menu in your talk page or user page). Make sure that it is of sufficiently good quality before you think of inserting it here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Pradip Phanjoubam writes:
After comprehensively defeating the Burmese in 1826 in Assam and Manipur, and the signing of the Treaty of Yandabo, the British annexed Assam, but allowed Manipur to remain a protectorate state. [1]
Whether it is a protectorate or not becomes clear only much later when historians look at an entire sequence of developments. The British rarely made it clear what relationship they envisaged. Nor were they consistent everywhere. [2] If there are differing views among scholars, we have to state all of them as per WP:NPOV. But this is not the place to do it. That should be discussed in Manipur (princely state). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
succession law of the state was settled by the GoI in the form of primogeniture. If the succession issues were being decided by the British, full sovereignty did not exist. Moroever, it is over a successioon issue that this conflict has occurred. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, my very first objection was to the size of expansion. And, also the fact that views are not attributed. You need to focus carefully on the objections that are raised, and think about how to address them.
In the Background section itself, no more than 3-4 sentences can be given to Guite. However, given that this seems to be a lot more controversial than I had imagined, a later Commentaries section might be warranted. But once again, we can't give too much space to a single source. All sources need to be summarised in an WP:NPOV way. The fact that you find something "interesting" is not justification for giving it enormous WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
<list elided>
🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The new policy which become fruitful after the annexation of upper Burma was to make the British Political Agent in Manipur the de facto power in Manipur and if possible to annex Manipur too. British government were merely waiting for an occasion to end Manipur's independence. British saw Tikendrajit as a possible threat to British influence in Manipur administration and wanted to remove this possible threat.
It will be clear from the above circumstances that the entry of the British forces to the state of Manipur was due to the feuds and dissensions between the rival princes in their lust for power. [3]
He was first accused of taking the administration of the state into his hands making the ‘lawful’ Maharaja a mere ‘puppet’; this is in a way was a war against the Queen Empress of India under colonial law. Second, he was accused of brutally torturing the people of Manipur. ‘His cruelties were’, the Viceroy latter remarked, ‘notorious’. In 1888, the Maharaja was advised to remove him from Manipur, which was however declined.
Third, his character was painted to be a man of ‘infamous character’, ‘notoriously turbulent’, ‘disloyal ruffian’ and ‘a man who had always been hostile to the British influence’If these defamation of Tikendrajit (who was a military commander) were only Guite personal you are right,But as far as Back in 1855 British wanted strong influence more like a ruler was an undeniable fact based on their conversation words 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Also these lines again emphasize the term alliance
According to historian Katherine Prior, the British influence depended on the military aid they had provided to the ruling family, which had dried up in the 1880s, leading Tikendrajit to doubt the value of British alliance.
🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Austronesier You stated your revert was good faith,ok I won't revert or edit unless consensus is reached.I was trying to improve the article based on the current findings of the journal one event two states...the current background(causes) of Anglo Manipur war is very vague and different in a sense,now explain the part you want to improve or disagree with since this is from a reputable institution we need a consensus here .my edits contains detail of the five british officer executed in Manipur in 24 March 1891 and other vital parts ,is it the tone (notable tone) or other thing 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Some newish editors started contesting whether it was a "war" or a "rebellion". It is not easy to make a decision. The Manipuri sources are pretty much unanimous in calling it "Anglo-Manipur War", a term that they made up themselves, while the British sources have used terms like "expedition" or "punitive expedition". I have only one independent source, pretty good one:
which has a chapter titled "War against Manipur". But the majority of the chapter is devoted to the rebellion that preceded the "war", and the trial that followed the "war". Regarding the "war" itself, what it says is uninspiring.
Punitive military expeditions were immediately sent by the British Government to avenge the foul murder. Three columns of troops advanced simultaneously from Kohima on the north, Silchar on the west, and Tammu on the south-east. There was little resistance and the three columns met at Manipur on April 27 after two or three engagements in which the enemy suffered heavily. The palace was found deserted and Kula-chandra, Tikendrajit, their brothers, and Tongol General had all fled. A price was set upon their heads and by May 23 all of them, with many other persons accused of murdering the British Officers or taking part in the assault, were arrested, though some of them, including Tikendrajit, are said to have voluntarily surrendered.
This doesn't sound much like a war, but I see Majumdar using the term "War" in a general sense to cover the whole episode.
The page itself has a section on "Coup and rebellion" and another section on "War", but the content on the latter seems at least partly dubious. This sentence has been there from
the beginning of the page, written by
Catlemur: On 31 March 1891, the British Raj declared war on Kangeilpak, expeditionary forces were assembled in Kohima and Silchar.
Two sources are given at the end of the paragraph. Ahmad, which I don't have access to, but the same pages are cited on
C. J. W. Grant page, and there is no mention of declaring a war. The London Gazette doesn't have a mention of declaring a war either. So, I am going to put a citation needed tag on this. If
Catlemur can provide a quotation from the source, that would be helpful.--
Kautilya3 (
talk)
13:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The accompanying General Order and Despatches, describing the operations of the Manipur Field Force, which resulted in the occupation of Manipur on the 27th April Last, have been received from the Government of India
Luwanglinux, it does not look like you have processed what I had said in August. There are two separate sections called "Coup and rebellion" and "War" in the article. The coup and rebellion were not part of the "war".
Secondly, I still don't see a source for the claim that the "British Raj declared a war". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
References
There was a recent attempt to remove the term "Manipur Rebellion" from the lead. As Google Ngram Viewer shows, the term has been used often, even though its use seems to be decreasing.
Logically speaking there were two "rebellions"
There are arguments made about how Manipur was an "independent kingdom" and so could not possibly "rebel" against another power. That is wrong reading. Several leading scholars accept that Manipur was a British protectorate after the Anglo-Burmese War (including Pradip Phanjoubam, Phanjoubam Tarapot, Pum Khan Pau, etc.) -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I have added and revised the content with reference to two peer reviewed journal article which is WP:RS written by established historians that can be verified for WP:HIST
which is supported by London gazette published in 14 August 1891
Indid Office, August 11, 1891.THE accompanying General Order and Des- patches, describing the operations of the Manipur Field Force, which resulted in the occupation of Manipur on the 27th April last, have been received from the Government of India :-MILITARY DEPARTMENT. GENERAL ORDER. FIELD OPERATIONS. MANIPUR. Simla, the 19th June, 1891. HIS Excellency the Viceroy and Governor- General in Council is pleased to direct the pub- lication of the subjoined letter from the Adjutant- General in India, submitting, under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief in India, despatches from Major-General H. Collett, C.B., commanding the Manipur Field Force, and from Major- General T. Graham, C.B., and Lieutenant-Colonel R. H. F. Rennick, commanding respectively the Tamu and Silchar Columns of the force. These despatches report the particulars of the simul- taneous advance on Manipur of the three columns from Kohima, Tamu, and Silchar, which were sent to restore order in Manipur and to exact retribution for the murder of the Chief Com- missioner of Assam and other British officers in March last.[2]
You need to recognize that there is a British POV and a Manipuri POV as explained in the Background section, and we are bound by WP:NPOV. You cannot state either POV as fact, no matter what kind of source you bring. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Chandrakirti was recognized by the (British) Government of India in 1851 as the Raja of Manipur, and the public declaration was made by the political Agent in Manipur to the effect that the Government of India would uphold Chandrakirti and any attempt to dispossess him would be resisted and the [concerned] persons making such attempts would be accordingly punished.[24: Foreign Department secret (E) October, 1891 NO. 133. (Cf. dated 16th July, 1891 by the Chief Commissioner of Assam on the Annexation of Manipur. Para 6)] [4]
Under the new circumstances the erstwhile free supply of arms, ammunition and other accoutrements to Manipur had been gradually reduced and removed; the reduction of Manipuri troops had been gradually affected in phases; a report against the state administration had gradually grown so that the state could be annexed under the colonial logic of ‘misrule’ and so on.
[5]In early times occasional communications passed between relations with British Government and the the Manipur State, but our present relations may be said to have originated in the first Burma War. Manipur had been devastated by the Burmese, and its ruling family had fled to Cachar. In 1823 the British Govern- ment opened communications with Gumbheer Sing, one of the members of the Manipur family; upon which 500 Manipuris under his command were taken into the pay of the British Government, and co-operated with the British troops in driving the Burmese out of Cachar. In 1825 this force was increased to 2,000 men, and placed under the command of Captain Grant; it was denominated the Manipur Levy, and was paid, accoutred, and supplied with ammunition by the British Government. Subsequently by the Ava Treaty of 1826, Gumbheer Sing was recognized as the Rajah of Manipur, though without any corresponding obligation so far as the British Government was concerned. The language of the Treaty was as follows:-"With regard to Manipur, it is stipulated that, should "Gumbheer Sing desire to return to that country, he shall be recog- "nized by the King of Ava as Rajah thereof." Shortly afterwards the British Government discontinued the payment of the Manipur Levy, but still furnished ammunition for the reduction of refractory hill tribes; and further supplied 3,000 muskets and sets of accoutre- ments, on the condition that the Rajah should raise the Manipur Levy to the same number. The condition of affairs may be, perhaps, best understood from the following extract from a Minute by Lord William Bentinck dated the 25th March 1833:- Previous to the late war with Ava wo possessed no knowledge of the Passes connect- ing Manipur with our Territories of its resources we were equally ignorant, and the panic occasioned by the simultaneous appearance of two divisions of the Burmese Army, one from Manipur and the other from Assain, led to a very general flight of the inhabitants of Cachar and those occupying the northern and eastern borders of our District of Sylhet. Under such an emergency it was natural that every resource, how- ever trifling, should be sought after, and the re-establishment of the Manipur dynasty seems to have been a schemo peculiarly favoured by our late Agent, Mr. Scott, as afford- ing, in his estimation, a well-founded prospect of defence of our frontier in that direction by the interposition of a race of people known to entertain a rooted antipathy to the only enemy against whose aggressions it was necessary to guard, and of the fertility of whose country highly-coloured descriptions had been given. Whether the policy of identifying our interests with those of this petty State,- separated from our Territories by an extremely difficult tract of country, and from those of Ava by one of great comparative facility, has ever been made a question I have not learned; the advantages, however, to us of a connection with Manipur appear to me very problematical, and this is the consideration to which I would now more particularly direct attention, The result of our late enquiries have clearly shown that, after an uninterrupted tranquillity of seven years, this small State is still considered as totally incompetent to defend itself against a Burmese invasion. Its entire population is supposed not to amount to more than 30 or 40,000 souls and its available revenue to 4 or 5,000 rupees
Even Parratt and Zak Leonard noted that Manipur was not a British territory before 1891
[6] [7]When the Anglo Burmese war ended in 1826 the treaty of Yandabo declared Manipur an independent kingdom, with Gambhir Singh as its Rajah. Cachar became a British protectorate.....During this period in 1835, British found it expedient to extablish a Political Agency in Manipur; it was in the nature of an embassy in a friendly foreign indpependent country.
As far as back in 1855, the Chief Commissioner of Assam asked the government of British India for its opinion for reforms in Manipur administration. He stated the Political agent of British Government in Manipur exercised very little interference in internal matters of Manipur and he wanted to change this. He particularly recommended the abolition of slavery system prevailed in Manipur, reform in trade system , a system of passes and the administration of jails and law courts with immediate effect. The Viceroy repliedAnd cautioned not to proceed too fast and advised considering opinion of local officers and then submitting an official representation so that the attentive consideration of Government of India could be taken up.The GoI in general, felt that it would not be justified to carry out any sweeping reforms in the 'Native States in India' but set the 'exceptional' case for Manipur. It recommended that the reform being advocated 'may be possible and expedient' as Manipur was 'not a State in India. [8]
No Kangleicha will agree that Kangleipak (Manipur) is a Sovereign Country at this moment of signing this agreement in 1834.[9] But the "Kanleicha", it seems, love to endlessly argue. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The conflict between Manipur and the British Raj of 1891 has never been documented, and it is fitting that John and Saroj Parratt's account and analysis of the event should appear in the centenary year of the event. It is an extraordinary narrative in which multiple British diplomatic and military blunders led to the decisive defeat of a force of crack Gurkha troops at the hands of the tiny state of Manipur, and to the public execution of five high-ranking British officers. Following the inevitable crushing of Manipur by the might of the Raj, the leading figure on the Manipuri side, the young and popular Crown Prince Koireng Tikendrajit, was arraigned before a military tribunal in a trial which violated a good many of the tenets of British justice, and con- demned to be hanged.
The Manipuri affair of 1891 symbolised a tragic struggle for national identity. It is a story of the complex tangle of the relationship between British power and an independent state, and of the personal tragedies of Koireng Tikendrajit, Political Officer Grimwood and his beautiful and resourceful wife.
This book is based on detailed archival research in London, Delhi, Calcutta and Imphal, and on field research in Manipur. This gripping narrative is recounted here with great vividness and elegance.
The Viceroy's claims respecting the subordinate status of Manipur and the right of British intervention were gratuitous assumptions, assumptions moreover quite at variance with Manipur's own apprehension of its relationship to British India and with its status of independence explicitly agreed at the Treaty of Yandabo. The Manipur conflict was not a "revolt" or a "rebellion"; rather was it an act of spontaneous self-defence on the part of a tiny state to maintain its sovereignty and integrity. Koireng Jubraj Tikendrajit Bir Singh, the tragic hero of the drama, and Manomohana Ghose, the defender of those wrongly condemned to death, were perhaps the only ones to put the Manipur affair in its true perspective. "So far as your petitioner is aware," wrote Tikendrajit in his appeal, "there never was any such reservation or declaration of allegiance on the part of any Ruler of Manipur to Her Majesty .... on the 24th March, last, Manipur was a Sovereign State."
Here, it may be recalled that the Treaty of Yandaboo, 1826 had extended recognition to the sovereign status of Manipur. This treaty still remained in force at the time when the British intervened into the internal affairs of Manipur in 1891. Though Manipur was not a signatory to the treaty, the same had never been abrogated by the British or the Burmese. Rather, the treaty was reaffirmed by the Government of India Act, 1858, which stipulated that all the treaties made by the Government of the English East India Company should be binding on the British Crown (M. I. Singh 1986: 30).
This indicated that the sovereignty of Manipur had remained intact till its defeat in the Anglo-Manipuri War of 1891. Therefore, the British did not have the legitimate authority to entertain the application of Surchandra for regaining the throne of Manipur and to secure the arrest of Tikendrajit. The change of rulers in Manipur either through peaceful means or violent revolt was purely an internal affair of Manipur. The British Government had no right to exercise its jurisdiction over Manipur as no state can claim jurisdiction over another under the Law of Nations Two more treaties were signed between the British and Manipur in 1833 and 1834, respectively. While the former dealt with the boundary of Manipur, the latter dealt with the Kabaw Valley. Both the treaties did not affect the sovereign status of Manipur. A careful examination of the wording of these two agreements shows that there is nothing in them that affects any condition of ‘owing allegiance’ to the British or which prejudices the State of Manipur as an independent kingdom’ (Parratt and Parratt 1992: 187). Besides, there was no evidence at all that Manipur ever entered into a formal agreement which gave it the status of a protected state (ibid.: 188). No doubt, the presence of a political agent in Manipur after 1835, as a representative of the GoI, was a factor of discouraging external aggression as well as preserving the internal stability of Manipur to a certain degree. However, the incidental rendering of the claim of Manipur to be a protected state is highly contentious as the protection that the British had extended to Chandrakirti was not extended to Surchandra when the latter was forced to abdicate the throne. John Parratt and Saroj Parratt thus opined that the protection given by the British to Manipur was not in perpetuity on account of the fact that the British did not agree to protect all Manipuri rajas therefrom (ibid.: 189). Manomohon Ghose, the Bengali barrister who defended Kulachandra and Tikendrajit in their trials, made a brilliant contribution to the debate relating to whether or not Manipur was a sovereign independent kingdom in 1891. According to him, the royal dignitaries of Manipur could not be guilty of waging war against the British Government since they did not owe allegiance to the British Government by residing in its territory (Sanajaoba 1993: 262). Therefore, Manipur being an ‘alien’ country, neither the English laws nor the Indian Penal Code could be invoked. Ghose further pointed out that there was no express reservation, by treaty or ‘compact of allegiance’ due to the sovereign of England from the ruler of Manipur (ibid.: 264). Since there was no such declaration of allegiance on the part of any ruler of Manipur to Her Majesty, occasional interference into the management of the internal affairs of Manipur by the British did not create such allegiance to make Manipur liable to be tried for treason. Manipur was not a British territory but an Asiatic power in alliance. The way the British dealt with Manipur was on a footing of its being a sovereign power in alliance and not as owing any allegiance to the Queen, such as might be due from some of the native states in India (ibid.: 266).....That Manipur was an independent state as on 24 March 1891 was fairly demonstrated by the official conduct of the British authorities when they tried to secure the arrest of the Manipur prince. J. W. Quinton, the Chief Commissioner of Assam, having failed to arrest the prince through holding a durbar approached the king and asked him to either surrender the prince or give a written authority to arrest him.
The mode of arrest undertaken by the British officers did not demonstrate even the slightest procedure to indicate that Manipur was a Subordinate State. A formal request for a written authority from the king was absolutely unnecessary for securing the arrest of an objectionable person in a Protected State.
Manipur, to which colonel Johnstone was appointed in 1877, was called by one of the Indian secretaries the Cinderella among political agencies. "They'll never," he said, "get a good man to take it." "Well," was the reply, "a good man has taken it now." The loneliness, the surrounding savages, and the ill-feeling excited by the Kubo valley (which so late as 1852 is placed in Manipur, in maps published in Calcutta) having been made over to Burmah, were among the reasons of its unpopularity. Colonel Johnstone's predecessor, Captain Durand (now Sir Edward) draws a very glaring picture in his official report for 1877, of the Maharajah's misgovernment; the wretched condition of the people, and the most unpleasant position of the Political Agent, whom he described as "in fact a British officer under Manipur surveillance. He is surrounded by spies. If the Maharajah is not pleased with the Political Agent he cannot get anything he is ostracised.
Luwanglinux, please see WP:WALLOFTEXT and also WP:TENDENTIOUS.
As Wikipedia editor editing in a contentious topic, you are bound by WP:NPOV. Trying to argue one side of a debate while ignoring everything said about the other side would be considered Tendentious editing.
I am not prepared to discuss the Sanatomba article, because it is a light-weight source, with no book reviews and only one citation. (And overall he is not much of a scholar, more like newspaper columnist.)
The Parratt & Parratt book appears to be about the trial of Tikendrajit, which is not currently covered on the main page. It can be covered, and you can summarise the arguments made (without taking a position yourself). I don't see anything in the passages that you quote that are worthy of any attention. They are just tendentious arguments. The Treaty of Yandabo simply says that the KIng of Burma recognises Gambhir Singh as the Raja of Manipur. There is nothing in it about any "independence" or "sovereignty". See Mackenzie. More over, as Mackenzie points out, it only had an obligation for Burma, no obligation for the British.
It is possible that the British were happy to leave Manipur "independent" initially, but Manipur itself became dependent on the British by accepting money, troops and arms, and for controlling internal rebellions. Once the British started guaranteeing the Maharajas' security against rebellions, the dependence became complete.But even in the beginning, it is clear that the British regarded Manipur as a subsidiary state when they ceded Kabaw Valley and laid down the border. Paying compensation for the Kabaw Valley in no way implies any "independence". There were loads of such arrangements all over India. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
[13]Manipur was never acquired by the British either through conquest or by a treaty till 1891. Although certain amount of protection was promised to Manipur on certain conditions, Manipur paid no tribute to the British. The kingdom of Manipur was governed by its own laws with...That Manipur was an independent state as on 24 March 1891 was fairly demonstrated by the official conduct of the British authorities when they tried to secure the arrest of the Manipur prince. J. W. Quinton, the Chief Commissioner of Assam, having failed to arrest the prince through holding a durbar approached the king and asked him to either surrender the prince or give a written authority to arrest him. The mode of arrest undertaken by the British officers did not demonstrate even the slightest procedure to indicate that Manipur was a Subordinate State. A formal request for a written authority from the king was absolutely unnecessary for securing the arrest of an objectionable person in a Protected State.
References
{{
cite book}}
: Text "pp-192" ignored (
help)
Luwanglinux, Which of your new sources say the British declared a war? And why did you remove Wahengbam? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 03:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I have reverted because you removed a well cited source by saying its without citation. We can add Wahengbam, you also remove Shyam with your revert which is the source for war declaration.
[1]After the event of 24 March, the British declared war on 31st March, and sent British army via. Kohima, Tamu and Silchar.Famous battles were fought at Thoubal, Kakching and Khongjom in the eastern front of the war
[2]That Manipur was an independent kingdom state in 1891 is aptly proved by the mutual declaration of war by Manipur and the British Empire against each other. For example, the act of declaring war underscored the fact that Manipur was an independent kingdom state. The necessity of declaring war upon Manipur on the part of the British would not have arisen if Manipur were a British territory or if Manipur were under British control.
We are discussing here the "declaration of war" issue. What does Lee-Warner say about that issue? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anglo-Manipur War article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
India,
Pakistan, and
Afghanistan, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Luwanglinux, that is too huge of an addition to the Background section. Several problems with it:
I suggest that you write your content in your Sandbox (look for it at the top menu in your talk page or user page). Make sure that it is of sufficiently good quality before you think of inserting it here. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Pradip Phanjoubam writes:
After comprehensively defeating the Burmese in 1826 in Assam and Manipur, and the signing of the Treaty of Yandabo, the British annexed Assam, but allowed Manipur to remain a protectorate state. [1]
Whether it is a protectorate or not becomes clear only much later when historians look at an entire sequence of developments. The British rarely made it clear what relationship they envisaged. Nor were they consistent everywhere. [2] If there are differing views among scholars, we have to state all of them as per WP:NPOV. But this is not the place to do it. That should be discussed in Manipur (princely state). -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
succession law of the state was settled by the GoI in the form of primogeniture. If the succession issues were being decided by the British, full sovereignty did not exist. Moroever, it is over a successioon issue that this conflict has occurred. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, my very first objection was to the size of expansion. And, also the fact that views are not attributed. You need to focus carefully on the objections that are raised, and think about how to address them.
In the Background section itself, no more than 3-4 sentences can be given to Guite. However, given that this seems to be a lot more controversial than I had imagined, a later Commentaries section might be warranted. But once again, we can't give too much space to a single source. All sources need to be summarised in an WP:NPOV way. The fact that you find something "interesting" is not justification for giving it enormous WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 18:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
<list elided>
🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
The new policy which become fruitful after the annexation of upper Burma was to make the British Political Agent in Manipur the de facto power in Manipur and if possible to annex Manipur too. British government were merely waiting for an occasion to end Manipur's independence. British saw Tikendrajit as a possible threat to British influence in Manipur administration and wanted to remove this possible threat.
It will be clear from the above circumstances that the entry of the British forces to the state of Manipur was due to the feuds and dissensions between the rival princes in their lust for power. [3]
He was first accused of taking the administration of the state into his hands making the ‘lawful’ Maharaja a mere ‘puppet’; this is in a way was a war against the Queen Empress of India under colonial law. Second, he was accused of brutally torturing the people of Manipur. ‘His cruelties were’, the Viceroy latter remarked, ‘notorious’. In 1888, the Maharaja was advised to remove him from Manipur, which was however declined.
Third, his character was painted to be a man of ‘infamous character’, ‘notoriously turbulent’, ‘disloyal ruffian’ and ‘a man who had always been hostile to the British influence’If these defamation of Tikendrajit (who was a military commander) were only Guite personal you are right,But as far as Back in 1855 British wanted strong influence more like a ruler was an undeniable fact based on their conversation words 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Also these lines again emphasize the term alliance
According to historian Katherine Prior, the British influence depended on the military aid they had provided to the ruling family, which had dried up in the 1880s, leading Tikendrajit to doubt the value of British alliance.
🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Austronesier You stated your revert was good faith,ok I won't revert or edit unless consensus is reached.I was trying to improve the article based on the current findings of the journal one event two states...the current background(causes) of Anglo Manipur war is very vague and different in a sense,now explain the part you want to improve or disagree with since this is from a reputable institution we need a consensus here .my edits contains detail of the five british officer executed in Manipur in 24 March 1891 and other vital parts ,is it the tone (notable tone) or other thing 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Some newish editors started contesting whether it was a "war" or a "rebellion". It is not easy to make a decision. The Manipuri sources are pretty much unanimous in calling it "Anglo-Manipur War", a term that they made up themselves, while the British sources have used terms like "expedition" or "punitive expedition". I have only one independent source, pretty good one:
which has a chapter titled "War against Manipur". But the majority of the chapter is devoted to the rebellion that preceded the "war", and the trial that followed the "war". Regarding the "war" itself, what it says is uninspiring.
Punitive military expeditions were immediately sent by the British Government to avenge the foul murder. Three columns of troops advanced simultaneously from Kohima on the north, Silchar on the west, and Tammu on the south-east. There was little resistance and the three columns met at Manipur on April 27 after two or three engagements in which the enemy suffered heavily. The palace was found deserted and Kula-chandra, Tikendrajit, their brothers, and Tongol General had all fled. A price was set upon their heads and by May 23 all of them, with many other persons accused of murdering the British Officers or taking part in the assault, were arrested, though some of them, including Tikendrajit, are said to have voluntarily surrendered.
This doesn't sound much like a war, but I see Majumdar using the term "War" in a general sense to cover the whole episode.
The page itself has a section on "Coup and rebellion" and another section on "War", but the content on the latter seems at least partly dubious. This sentence has been there from
the beginning of the page, written by
Catlemur: On 31 March 1891, the British Raj declared war on Kangeilpak, expeditionary forces were assembled in Kohima and Silchar.
Two sources are given at the end of the paragraph. Ahmad, which I don't have access to, but the same pages are cited on
C. J. W. Grant page, and there is no mention of declaring a war. The London Gazette doesn't have a mention of declaring a war either. So, I am going to put a citation needed tag on this. If
Catlemur can provide a quotation from the source, that would be helpful.--
Kautilya3 (
talk)
13:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The accompanying General Order and Despatches, describing the operations of the Manipur Field Force, which resulted in the occupation of Manipur on the 27th April Last, have been received from the Government of India
Luwanglinux, it does not look like you have processed what I had said in August. There are two separate sections called "Coup and rebellion" and "War" in the article. The coup and rebellion were not part of the "war".
Secondly, I still don't see a source for the claim that the "British Raj declared a war". -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 07:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
References
There was a recent attempt to remove the term "Manipur Rebellion" from the lead. As Google Ngram Viewer shows, the term has been used often, even though its use seems to be decreasing.
Logically speaking there were two "rebellions"
There are arguments made about how Manipur was an "independent kingdom" and so could not possibly "rebel" against another power. That is wrong reading. Several leading scholars accept that Manipur was a British protectorate after the Anglo-Burmese War (including Pradip Phanjoubam, Phanjoubam Tarapot, Pum Khan Pau, etc.) -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I have added and revised the content with reference to two peer reviewed journal article which is WP:RS written by established historians that can be verified for WP:HIST
which is supported by London gazette published in 14 August 1891
Indid Office, August 11, 1891.THE accompanying General Order and Des- patches, describing the operations of the Manipur Field Force, which resulted in the occupation of Manipur on the 27th April last, have been received from the Government of India :-MILITARY DEPARTMENT. GENERAL ORDER. FIELD OPERATIONS. MANIPUR. Simla, the 19th June, 1891. HIS Excellency the Viceroy and Governor- General in Council is pleased to direct the pub- lication of the subjoined letter from the Adjutant- General in India, submitting, under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief in India, despatches from Major-General H. Collett, C.B., commanding the Manipur Field Force, and from Major- General T. Graham, C.B., and Lieutenant-Colonel R. H. F. Rennick, commanding respectively the Tamu and Silchar Columns of the force. These despatches report the particulars of the simul- taneous advance on Manipur of the three columns from Kohima, Tamu, and Silchar, which were sent to restore order in Manipur and to exact retribution for the murder of the Chief Com- missioner of Assam and other British officers in March last.[2]
You need to recognize that there is a British POV and a Manipuri POV as explained in the Background section, and we are bound by WP:NPOV. You cannot state either POV as fact, no matter what kind of source you bring. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Chandrakirti was recognized by the (British) Government of India in 1851 as the Raja of Manipur, and the public declaration was made by the political Agent in Manipur to the effect that the Government of India would uphold Chandrakirti and any attempt to dispossess him would be resisted and the [concerned] persons making such attempts would be accordingly punished.[24: Foreign Department secret (E) October, 1891 NO. 133. (Cf. dated 16th July, 1891 by the Chief Commissioner of Assam on the Annexation of Manipur. Para 6)] [4]
Under the new circumstances the erstwhile free supply of arms, ammunition and other accoutrements to Manipur had been gradually reduced and removed; the reduction of Manipuri troops had been gradually affected in phases; a report against the state administration had gradually grown so that the state could be annexed under the colonial logic of ‘misrule’ and so on.
[5]In early times occasional communications passed between relations with British Government and the the Manipur State, but our present relations may be said to have originated in the first Burma War. Manipur had been devastated by the Burmese, and its ruling family had fled to Cachar. In 1823 the British Govern- ment opened communications with Gumbheer Sing, one of the members of the Manipur family; upon which 500 Manipuris under his command were taken into the pay of the British Government, and co-operated with the British troops in driving the Burmese out of Cachar. In 1825 this force was increased to 2,000 men, and placed under the command of Captain Grant; it was denominated the Manipur Levy, and was paid, accoutred, and supplied with ammunition by the British Government. Subsequently by the Ava Treaty of 1826, Gumbheer Sing was recognized as the Rajah of Manipur, though without any corresponding obligation so far as the British Government was concerned. The language of the Treaty was as follows:-"With regard to Manipur, it is stipulated that, should "Gumbheer Sing desire to return to that country, he shall be recog- "nized by the King of Ava as Rajah thereof." Shortly afterwards the British Government discontinued the payment of the Manipur Levy, but still furnished ammunition for the reduction of refractory hill tribes; and further supplied 3,000 muskets and sets of accoutre- ments, on the condition that the Rajah should raise the Manipur Levy to the same number. The condition of affairs may be, perhaps, best understood from the following extract from a Minute by Lord William Bentinck dated the 25th March 1833:- Previous to the late war with Ava wo possessed no knowledge of the Passes connect- ing Manipur with our Territories of its resources we were equally ignorant, and the panic occasioned by the simultaneous appearance of two divisions of the Burmese Army, one from Manipur and the other from Assain, led to a very general flight of the inhabitants of Cachar and those occupying the northern and eastern borders of our District of Sylhet. Under such an emergency it was natural that every resource, how- ever trifling, should be sought after, and the re-establishment of the Manipur dynasty seems to have been a schemo peculiarly favoured by our late Agent, Mr. Scott, as afford- ing, in his estimation, a well-founded prospect of defence of our frontier in that direction by the interposition of a race of people known to entertain a rooted antipathy to the only enemy against whose aggressions it was necessary to guard, and of the fertility of whose country highly-coloured descriptions had been given. Whether the policy of identifying our interests with those of this petty State,- separated from our Territories by an extremely difficult tract of country, and from those of Ava by one of great comparative facility, has ever been made a question I have not learned; the advantages, however, to us of a connection with Manipur appear to me very problematical, and this is the consideration to which I would now more particularly direct attention, The result of our late enquiries have clearly shown that, after an uninterrupted tranquillity of seven years, this small State is still considered as totally incompetent to defend itself against a Burmese invasion. Its entire population is supposed not to amount to more than 30 or 40,000 souls and its available revenue to 4 or 5,000 rupees
Even Parratt and Zak Leonard noted that Manipur was not a British territory before 1891
[6] [7]When the Anglo Burmese war ended in 1826 the treaty of Yandabo declared Manipur an independent kingdom, with Gambhir Singh as its Rajah. Cachar became a British protectorate.....During this period in 1835, British found it expedient to extablish a Political Agency in Manipur; it was in the nature of an embassy in a friendly foreign indpependent country.
As far as back in 1855, the Chief Commissioner of Assam asked the government of British India for its opinion for reforms in Manipur administration. He stated the Political agent of British Government in Manipur exercised very little interference in internal matters of Manipur and he wanted to change this. He particularly recommended the abolition of slavery system prevailed in Manipur, reform in trade system , a system of passes and the administration of jails and law courts with immediate effect. The Viceroy repliedAnd cautioned not to proceed too fast and advised considering opinion of local officers and then submitting an official representation so that the attentive consideration of Government of India could be taken up.The GoI in general, felt that it would not be justified to carry out any sweeping reforms in the 'Native States in India' but set the 'exceptional' case for Manipur. It recommended that the reform being advocated 'may be possible and expedient' as Manipur was 'not a State in India. [8]
No Kangleicha will agree that Kangleipak (Manipur) is a Sovereign Country at this moment of signing this agreement in 1834.[9] But the "Kanleicha", it seems, love to endlessly argue. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The conflict between Manipur and the British Raj of 1891 has never been documented, and it is fitting that John and Saroj Parratt's account and analysis of the event should appear in the centenary year of the event. It is an extraordinary narrative in which multiple British diplomatic and military blunders led to the decisive defeat of a force of crack Gurkha troops at the hands of the tiny state of Manipur, and to the public execution of five high-ranking British officers. Following the inevitable crushing of Manipur by the might of the Raj, the leading figure on the Manipuri side, the young and popular Crown Prince Koireng Tikendrajit, was arraigned before a military tribunal in a trial which violated a good many of the tenets of British justice, and con- demned to be hanged.
The Manipuri affair of 1891 symbolised a tragic struggle for national identity. It is a story of the complex tangle of the relationship between British power and an independent state, and of the personal tragedies of Koireng Tikendrajit, Political Officer Grimwood and his beautiful and resourceful wife.
This book is based on detailed archival research in London, Delhi, Calcutta and Imphal, and on field research in Manipur. This gripping narrative is recounted here with great vividness and elegance.
The Viceroy's claims respecting the subordinate status of Manipur and the right of British intervention were gratuitous assumptions, assumptions moreover quite at variance with Manipur's own apprehension of its relationship to British India and with its status of independence explicitly agreed at the Treaty of Yandabo. The Manipur conflict was not a "revolt" or a "rebellion"; rather was it an act of spontaneous self-defence on the part of a tiny state to maintain its sovereignty and integrity. Koireng Jubraj Tikendrajit Bir Singh, the tragic hero of the drama, and Manomohana Ghose, the defender of those wrongly condemned to death, were perhaps the only ones to put the Manipur affair in its true perspective. "So far as your petitioner is aware," wrote Tikendrajit in his appeal, "there never was any such reservation or declaration of allegiance on the part of any Ruler of Manipur to Her Majesty .... on the 24th March, last, Manipur was a Sovereign State."
Here, it may be recalled that the Treaty of Yandaboo, 1826 had extended recognition to the sovereign status of Manipur. This treaty still remained in force at the time when the British intervened into the internal affairs of Manipur in 1891. Though Manipur was not a signatory to the treaty, the same had never been abrogated by the British or the Burmese. Rather, the treaty was reaffirmed by the Government of India Act, 1858, which stipulated that all the treaties made by the Government of the English East India Company should be binding on the British Crown (M. I. Singh 1986: 30).
This indicated that the sovereignty of Manipur had remained intact till its defeat in the Anglo-Manipuri War of 1891. Therefore, the British did not have the legitimate authority to entertain the application of Surchandra for regaining the throne of Manipur and to secure the arrest of Tikendrajit. The change of rulers in Manipur either through peaceful means or violent revolt was purely an internal affair of Manipur. The British Government had no right to exercise its jurisdiction over Manipur as no state can claim jurisdiction over another under the Law of Nations Two more treaties were signed between the British and Manipur in 1833 and 1834, respectively. While the former dealt with the boundary of Manipur, the latter dealt with the Kabaw Valley. Both the treaties did not affect the sovereign status of Manipur. A careful examination of the wording of these two agreements shows that there is nothing in them that affects any condition of ‘owing allegiance’ to the British or which prejudices the State of Manipur as an independent kingdom’ (Parratt and Parratt 1992: 187). Besides, there was no evidence at all that Manipur ever entered into a formal agreement which gave it the status of a protected state (ibid.: 188). No doubt, the presence of a political agent in Manipur after 1835, as a representative of the GoI, was a factor of discouraging external aggression as well as preserving the internal stability of Manipur to a certain degree. However, the incidental rendering of the claim of Manipur to be a protected state is highly contentious as the protection that the British had extended to Chandrakirti was not extended to Surchandra when the latter was forced to abdicate the throne. John Parratt and Saroj Parratt thus opined that the protection given by the British to Manipur was not in perpetuity on account of the fact that the British did not agree to protect all Manipuri rajas therefrom (ibid.: 189). Manomohon Ghose, the Bengali barrister who defended Kulachandra and Tikendrajit in their trials, made a brilliant contribution to the debate relating to whether or not Manipur was a sovereign independent kingdom in 1891. According to him, the royal dignitaries of Manipur could not be guilty of waging war against the British Government since they did not owe allegiance to the British Government by residing in its territory (Sanajaoba 1993: 262). Therefore, Manipur being an ‘alien’ country, neither the English laws nor the Indian Penal Code could be invoked. Ghose further pointed out that there was no express reservation, by treaty or ‘compact of allegiance’ due to the sovereign of England from the ruler of Manipur (ibid.: 264). Since there was no such declaration of allegiance on the part of any ruler of Manipur to Her Majesty, occasional interference into the management of the internal affairs of Manipur by the British did not create such allegiance to make Manipur liable to be tried for treason. Manipur was not a British territory but an Asiatic power in alliance. The way the British dealt with Manipur was on a footing of its being a sovereign power in alliance and not as owing any allegiance to the Queen, such as might be due from some of the native states in India (ibid.: 266).....That Manipur was an independent state as on 24 March 1891 was fairly demonstrated by the official conduct of the British authorities when they tried to secure the arrest of the Manipur prince. J. W. Quinton, the Chief Commissioner of Assam, having failed to arrest the prince through holding a durbar approached the king and asked him to either surrender the prince or give a written authority to arrest him.
The mode of arrest undertaken by the British officers did not demonstrate even the slightest procedure to indicate that Manipur was a Subordinate State. A formal request for a written authority from the king was absolutely unnecessary for securing the arrest of an objectionable person in a Protected State.
Manipur, to which colonel Johnstone was appointed in 1877, was called by one of the Indian secretaries the Cinderella among political agencies. "They'll never," he said, "get a good man to take it." "Well," was the reply, "a good man has taken it now." The loneliness, the surrounding savages, and the ill-feeling excited by the Kubo valley (which so late as 1852 is placed in Manipur, in maps published in Calcutta) having been made over to Burmah, were among the reasons of its unpopularity. Colonel Johnstone's predecessor, Captain Durand (now Sir Edward) draws a very glaring picture in his official report for 1877, of the Maharajah's misgovernment; the wretched condition of the people, and the most unpleasant position of the Political Agent, whom he described as "in fact a British officer under Manipur surveillance. He is surrounded by spies. If the Maharajah is not pleased with the Political Agent he cannot get anything he is ostracised.
Luwanglinux, please see WP:WALLOFTEXT and also WP:TENDENTIOUS.
As Wikipedia editor editing in a contentious topic, you are bound by WP:NPOV. Trying to argue one side of a debate while ignoring everything said about the other side would be considered Tendentious editing.
I am not prepared to discuss the Sanatomba article, because it is a light-weight source, with no book reviews and only one citation. (And overall he is not much of a scholar, more like newspaper columnist.)
The Parratt & Parratt book appears to be about the trial of Tikendrajit, which is not currently covered on the main page. It can be covered, and you can summarise the arguments made (without taking a position yourself). I don't see anything in the passages that you quote that are worthy of any attention. They are just tendentious arguments. The Treaty of Yandabo simply says that the KIng of Burma recognises Gambhir Singh as the Raja of Manipur. There is nothing in it about any "independence" or "sovereignty". See Mackenzie. More over, as Mackenzie points out, it only had an obligation for Burma, no obligation for the British.
It is possible that the British were happy to leave Manipur "independent" initially, but Manipur itself became dependent on the British by accepting money, troops and arms, and for controlling internal rebellions. Once the British started guaranteeing the Maharajas' security against rebellions, the dependence became complete.But even in the beginning, it is clear that the British regarded Manipur as a subsidiary state when they ceded Kabaw Valley and laid down the border. Paying compensation for the Kabaw Valley in no way implies any "independence". There were loads of such arrangements all over India. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
[13]Manipur was never acquired by the British either through conquest or by a treaty till 1891. Although certain amount of protection was promised to Manipur on certain conditions, Manipur paid no tribute to the British. The kingdom of Manipur was governed by its own laws with...That Manipur was an independent state as on 24 March 1891 was fairly demonstrated by the official conduct of the British authorities when they tried to secure the arrest of the Manipur prince. J. W. Quinton, the Chief Commissioner of Assam, having failed to arrest the prince through holding a durbar approached the king and asked him to either surrender the prince or give a written authority to arrest him. The mode of arrest undertaken by the British officers did not demonstrate even the slightest procedure to indicate that Manipur was a Subordinate State. A formal request for a written authority from the king was absolutely unnecessary for securing the arrest of an objectionable person in a Protected State.
References
{{
cite book}}
: Text "pp-192" ignored (
help)
Luwanglinux, Which of your new sources say the British declared a war? And why did you remove Wahengbam? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 03:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I have reverted because you removed a well cited source by saying its without citation. We can add Wahengbam, you also remove Shyam with your revert which is the source for war declaration.
[1]After the event of 24 March, the British declared war on 31st March, and sent British army via. Kohima, Tamu and Silchar.Famous battles were fought at Thoubal, Kakching and Khongjom in the eastern front of the war
[2]That Manipur was an independent kingdom state in 1891 is aptly proved by the mutual declaration of war by Manipur and the British Empire against each other. For example, the act of declaring war underscored the fact that Manipur was an independent kingdom state. The necessity of declaring war upon Manipur on the part of the British would not have arisen if Manipur were a British territory or if Manipur were under British control.
We are discussing here the "declaration of war" issue. What does Lee-Warner say about that issue? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 12:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
References