![]() | 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. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manipur 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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yangwikip,
reinstated the edit of a blocked sockpuppet, without explanation. Can you please provide page numbers and quotations from the sources that establish the veracity of the statement, "The recorded history of Manipur can be traced back to 33 A.D
"? --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
15:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is the content: -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The recorded history of Manipur can be traced back to 33 A.D. [1] [2] [3] [4] As S.S. Hanjabam writes in his article in Asia Europe Journal, "The Manipuris had established a sophisticated kingdom at a time when state formation was unknown to most parts of the region" [5].
References
- ^ Arambarn Parratt, Saroj Nalini (2009). The Court Chronicle of the Kings of Manipur. Foundation Books. ISBN 978-81-7596-638-3.
- ^ Chelliah, Shobhana L. (2005). "Asserting Nationhood through Personal Name Choice: The Case of the Meithei of Northeast India". Anthropological Linguistics. 47 (2): 169–216. ISSN 0003-5483. JSTOR 25132326.
- ^ Sanajaoba, Naorem (1988). Manipur, Past and Present: The Heritage and Ordeals of a Civilization. Mittal Publications. ISBN 978-81-7099-853-2.
- ^ Devi, Khwairakpam Renuka (2011). "Representation of the Pre-Vaishnavite Culture of the Meiteis: "Cheitharol Kumpapa" of Manipur". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 72: 501–508. ISSN 2249-1937. JSTOR 44146744.
- ^ Hanjabam, Shukhdeba Sharma (2008-04-01). "The Meitei upsurge in Manipur". Asia Europe Journal. 6 (1): 157–169. doi: 10.1007/s10308-007-0167-6. ISSN 1612-1031. S2CID 154797592.
The page is meant for projecting the demography, culture, language, economy, people, history, etc, of the state. Adding a paragraph about the ongoing violence is not doing justice to the ethos and all the communities residing in the state.
None of the other pages have a paragraph on violence - Gujarat, Kerela, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, etc.
@ Kautilya3 @ Arjayay @ DreamRimmer @ Haoreima @Prarambh20 Cherry.pick.wiki ( talk) 18:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
It is a WP:POV section and not a high-level summary. I cut it down a bit, but a proper summary still needs to be constructed. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to add some data on the Notables part of the page Rangets ( talk) 11:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Legality of Instrument of accession and Merger Agreement of Manipur is argued by many scholars, how is it NPOV if those view are ignored.
[1]. [2] [3]First, Manipur was not a sovereign entity as on 11 August 1947. It regained its independence and sovereignty only on 15 August 1947 like all the princely states and the two Dominions, namely India and Pakistan. Hence, Manipur could not enter into such an Instrument, which assumed the form of an international treaty transacted between two sovereign states. Only a sovereign state can execute such an Instrument. Second, as on 11 August 1947, the ruler of Manipur was not a sovereign ruler. Even after Independence, the Maharaja had become a mere constitutional head of the state with all the powers and responsibilities transferred to the Manipur State Council since 1 July 1947.
[4]Signing of Instrument of Accession is like signing of a Treaty between two sovereign countries and the procedure should follow the International laws.It is a fact that signing of the Instrument of Accession was executed before the Dominion of India came into existence. On 11th August, 1947 India had not yet become independent and the Dominion of India did not come into existence. Thus the two documents of the Standstill Agreement and the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharajah should not be taken as valid since these were signed before creation of dominion of India.The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Bodhchandra of Manipur on 11 August was never approved by the Manipur State Council in 1947 or ratified by the Manipur State Legislative Assembly in 1948 and therefore not valid since he had already become the constitutional ruler since 26 July 1947. In case of Jammu and Kashmir , the Instrument of Accession was ratified on 15 February, 1954 According to the Government of India Act-1935 (6-9), immediately the Instrument of Accession has been accepted by Governor General, copies of the Instrument and His Majesty's acceptance thereof shall be laid before the Parliament and all courts shall take judicial notice of every such instrument and acceptance. But there are no records of the accepted copies of the Instrument of Accession of Manipur having laid down before the Parliament and all courts of India The signing of the Instrument of Accession by Maharaja Bodhchandra and acceptance by the Governor General were illegal and invalid in the eyes of international law.
If the native states were not independent or were not separate political entities, the necessity for executing the instrument would not have arisen.
as on 11 August 1947, the ruler of Manipur was not a sovereign ruler. Even after Independence, the Maharaja had become a mere constitutional head of the state with all the powers and responsibilities transferred to the Manipur State Council since 1 July 1947. The Maharaja of Manipur, in his inaugural address of the first Manipur State Assembly session held on 18 September 1948, had said the following words:
"I now bring to the notice of the people that I had transferred my powers and responsibilities other than those of a Constitutional Ruler of the State Council since 1st July, 1947 before the lapse of British paramountcy and since then, I have already remained as a Constitutional Ruler."
Furthermore, Section 9(b) of the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, would certainly dispel any doubt about the titular status of the Maharaja, which was expressedly stated thus: ‘The Maharaja means His Highness, the Maharaja of Manipur, the constitutional head of the state.’ The Maharaja in his capacity as the constitutional ruler could not execute the Instrument without proper authorisation and constitutional endorsement. This was simply on account of the fact that he was not a sovereign ruler and that Manipur was not a sovereign state then. Therefore, the act of signing the Instrument of Accession on 11 August 1947 by the Maharaja could not be considered an Act of the State. Hence, the Instrument was deemed null and void right from the moment it was executed. Now, another question that requires due attention is: could Manipur enter into the Instrument of Accession with the ‘Dominion of India’ on ’11 July 1947’? The answer is an absolute ‘No’. The Dominion of India came into existence only on 15 August 1947 with the adoption of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Section 1 Clause (1) of the Independence Act states thus: ‘As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.’ The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on 11 August 1947, four days before the Dominion of India was set up. It is highly inconceivable that the Maharaja should accede to something that was yet to be born. For example, the Indian Dominion had never existed on or before 11 August 1947. Being so, it can be aptly said that the Maharaja acceded to a political non-entity. Therefore, it can be claimed that the Instrument was never executed in actuality. It was simply pre-judicial to execute the Instrument between two political entities which were yet to be born. The story of the Instrument of Accession was a mere political fiction scripted and enacted by the Indian leaders to secure the integration of the native states.
Moreover, Manipur was still under British suzerainty at the time of signing of the said Agreement and the Dominion of India was yet to be born. It is, therefore, highly inconceivable that Manipur had agreed to transfer British paramountcy over to the Dominion of India without the knowledge and consent of the British parliament. The transfer of paramountcy, if any, could only be effected by a special imperial legislation enacted by the British Parliament. It is also pertinent to point out that the Agreement was merely a temporary arrangement and did not possess any permanent binding character. The Standstill Agreement is neither a Treaty of Accession nor a Merger Agreement. In case Manipur failed to accede to the Dominion of India within a reasonable timeframe, the Standstill Agreement naturally became redundant. And since the signing of the Instrument of Accession has been a failed exercise, as explained above, the Standstill
Agreement has no implications on the political status of Manipur
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
![]() | 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. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Manipur 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 |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Yangwikip,
reinstated the edit of a blocked sockpuppet, without explanation. Can you please provide page numbers and quotations from the sources that establish the veracity of the statement, "The recorded history of Manipur can be traced back to 33 A.D
"? --
Kautilya3 (
talk)
15:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is the content: -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The recorded history of Manipur can be traced back to 33 A.D. [1] [2] [3] [4] As S.S. Hanjabam writes in his article in Asia Europe Journal, "The Manipuris had established a sophisticated kingdom at a time when state formation was unknown to most parts of the region" [5].
References
- ^ Arambarn Parratt, Saroj Nalini (2009). The Court Chronicle of the Kings of Manipur. Foundation Books. ISBN 978-81-7596-638-3.
- ^ Chelliah, Shobhana L. (2005). "Asserting Nationhood through Personal Name Choice: The Case of the Meithei of Northeast India". Anthropological Linguistics. 47 (2): 169–216. ISSN 0003-5483. JSTOR 25132326.
- ^ Sanajaoba, Naorem (1988). Manipur, Past and Present: The Heritage and Ordeals of a Civilization. Mittal Publications. ISBN 978-81-7099-853-2.
- ^ Devi, Khwairakpam Renuka (2011). "Representation of the Pre-Vaishnavite Culture of the Meiteis: "Cheitharol Kumpapa" of Manipur". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 72: 501–508. ISSN 2249-1937. JSTOR 44146744.
- ^ Hanjabam, Shukhdeba Sharma (2008-04-01). "The Meitei upsurge in Manipur". Asia Europe Journal. 6 (1): 157–169. doi: 10.1007/s10308-007-0167-6. ISSN 1612-1031. S2CID 154797592.
The page is meant for projecting the demography, culture, language, economy, people, history, etc, of the state. Adding a paragraph about the ongoing violence is not doing justice to the ethos and all the communities residing in the state.
None of the other pages have a paragraph on violence - Gujarat, Kerela, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, etc.
@ Kautilya3 @ Arjayay @ DreamRimmer @ Haoreima @Prarambh20 Cherry.pick.wiki ( talk) 18:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
It is a WP:POV section and not a high-level summary. I cut it down a bit, but a proper summary still needs to be constructed. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 15:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to add some data on the Notables part of the page Rangets ( talk) 11:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Kautilya3 Legality of Instrument of accession and Merger Agreement of Manipur is argued by many scholars, how is it NPOV if those view are ignored.
[1]. [2] [3]First, Manipur was not a sovereign entity as on 11 August 1947. It regained its independence and sovereignty only on 15 August 1947 like all the princely states and the two Dominions, namely India and Pakistan. Hence, Manipur could not enter into such an Instrument, which assumed the form of an international treaty transacted between two sovereign states. Only a sovereign state can execute such an Instrument. Second, as on 11 August 1947, the ruler of Manipur was not a sovereign ruler. Even after Independence, the Maharaja had become a mere constitutional head of the state with all the powers and responsibilities transferred to the Manipur State Council since 1 July 1947.
[4]Signing of Instrument of Accession is like signing of a Treaty between two sovereign countries and the procedure should follow the International laws.It is a fact that signing of the Instrument of Accession was executed before the Dominion of India came into existence. On 11th August, 1947 India had not yet become independent and the Dominion of India did not come into existence. Thus the two documents of the Standstill Agreement and the Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharajah should not be taken as valid since these were signed before creation of dominion of India.The Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Bodhchandra of Manipur on 11 August was never approved by the Manipur State Council in 1947 or ratified by the Manipur State Legislative Assembly in 1948 and therefore not valid since he had already become the constitutional ruler since 26 July 1947. In case of Jammu and Kashmir , the Instrument of Accession was ratified on 15 February, 1954 According to the Government of India Act-1935 (6-9), immediately the Instrument of Accession has been accepted by Governor General, copies of the Instrument and His Majesty's acceptance thereof shall be laid before the Parliament and all courts shall take judicial notice of every such instrument and acceptance. But there are no records of the accepted copies of the Instrument of Accession of Manipur having laid down before the Parliament and all courts of India The signing of the Instrument of Accession by Maharaja Bodhchandra and acceptance by the Governor General were illegal and invalid in the eyes of international law.
If the native states were not independent or were not separate political entities, the necessity for executing the instrument would not have arisen.
as on 11 August 1947, the ruler of Manipur was not a sovereign ruler. Even after Independence, the Maharaja had become a mere constitutional head of the state with all the powers and responsibilities transferred to the Manipur State Council since 1 July 1947. The Maharaja of Manipur, in his inaugural address of the first Manipur State Assembly session held on 18 September 1948, had said the following words:
"I now bring to the notice of the people that I had transferred my powers and responsibilities other than those of a Constitutional Ruler of the State Council since 1st July, 1947 before the lapse of British paramountcy and since then, I have already remained as a Constitutional Ruler."
Furthermore, Section 9(b) of the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947, would certainly dispel any doubt about the titular status of the Maharaja, which was expressedly stated thus: ‘The Maharaja means His Highness, the Maharaja of Manipur, the constitutional head of the state.’ The Maharaja in his capacity as the constitutional ruler could not execute the Instrument without proper authorisation and constitutional endorsement. This was simply on account of the fact that he was not a sovereign ruler and that Manipur was not a sovereign state then. Therefore, the act of signing the Instrument of Accession on 11 August 1947 by the Maharaja could not be considered an Act of the State. Hence, the Instrument was deemed null and void right from the moment it was executed. Now, another question that requires due attention is: could Manipur enter into the Instrument of Accession with the ‘Dominion of India’ on ’11 July 1947’? The answer is an absolute ‘No’. The Dominion of India came into existence only on 15 August 1947 with the adoption of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. Section 1 Clause (1) of the Independence Act states thus: ‘As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan.’ The Maharaja signed the Instrument of Accession on 11 August 1947, four days before the Dominion of India was set up. It is highly inconceivable that the Maharaja should accede to something that was yet to be born. For example, the Indian Dominion had never existed on or before 11 August 1947. Being so, it can be aptly said that the Maharaja acceded to a political non-entity. Therefore, it can be claimed that the Instrument was never executed in actuality. It was simply pre-judicial to execute the Instrument between two political entities which were yet to be born. The story of the Instrument of Accession was a mere political fiction scripted and enacted by the Indian leaders to secure the integration of the native states.
Moreover, Manipur was still under British suzerainty at the time of signing of the said Agreement and the Dominion of India was yet to be born. It is, therefore, highly inconceivable that Manipur had agreed to transfer British paramountcy over to the Dominion of India without the knowledge and consent of the British parliament. The transfer of paramountcy, if any, could only be effected by a special imperial legislation enacted by the British Parliament. It is also pertinent to point out that the Agreement was merely a temporary arrangement and did not possess any permanent binding character. The Standstill Agreement is neither a Treaty of Accession nor a Merger Agreement. In case Manipur failed to accede to the Dominion of India within a reasonable timeframe, the Standstill Agreement naturally became redundant. And since the signing of the Instrument of Accession has been a failed exercise, as explained above, the Standstill
Agreement has no implications on the political status of Manipur
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)