Changing Pattern of Policies: British Relation with the State of Manipur

International Journal of Humanities and Social Science

© 2018 by SSRG - IJHSS Journal

Volume 5 Issue 6

Year of Publication : 2018

Authors : Suhail Ahmin Mir

10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V5I6P105

How to Cite?

Suhail Ahmin Mir, "Changing Pattern of Policies: British Relation with the State of Manipur," SSRG International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, vol. 5,  no. 6, pp. 25-28, 2018. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23942703/IJHSS-V5I6P105

Abstract:

British policies towards the princely states of India has changed from time to time, beginning from the policy of “Non-intervention” in all matters outside its own “Ring-fence” to the policy of “subordinate isolation” commenced by Lord Hastings; which transformed the approach of relation between the princes and the British. Within a span of less than one hundred years, the East India Company progressed from the position of “Primus Inter Pares” to an affirmation of supremacy. This political domination was acquired either through wars or diplomacy. The British conquered Manipur in 1891; and the colonial era in the history of Manipur was started but Manipur had more than a century of relation with the British since 1762. The set put of political agency in 1835 opened a new chapter in the body politic of Manipur and the later period witnessed the establishment of direct administrative control over the entire Naga Hills.After some theoretical and historical background, the paper looks at different kinds of interferences of British observed during princely India. The aim of this paper is to give readers an overview of the British policies and their relations with the state of Manipur.

Keywords:

British, Princes, Manipur, Treaties, Policies.

References:

[1] Jyotirmoy Roy, History of Manipur, Calcutta, Eastlight Book House, 1958, p.1 
[2] Sir William Lee-Warner, The Protected Princes of India, London, Macmillan and Co. 1894, P. 86 
[3] Till 1840, the Board of Directors disapproved the political entanglements of the company on the plea that it affected their economic interests. However, after the passing of Pitts India Act and the formation of Board of control, two members of which were of cabinet rank, to supervise and control the” Board of Directors”. It was evident that the opposition of the Board of Directors to territorial aggrandizement of the Company did not carry much weight…H.H. Dodwell, The Cambridge History of India, Ed.Vol. v, Delhi, S. Chand & Co. 1956, PP. 200-201. 
[4] M.Ruthnaswamy, British Administrative System in India, London, Luzac&Co. 1939, P. 486. 
[5] Treaty is a consensual agreement between two or more states and necessarily presupposes the separate and independent existence of all the contracting parties. Engagements, although unilateral, are contractual in character. The term Sanad, however raises several important questions. The government of India as well as some well-known authorities have interpreted Sanad as a grant and, on the basis of this interpretation; have made a distinction between the states which have entered into treaties with the British government and those which found on Sanads their authority vis-à-vis the protecting power. Sir William Lee Warner defines Sanad “as a diploma, patent, or deed of grant by a sovereign of an office, privilege, or right.” According to Sirdar D.K Sen the word Sanad is used as a synonym for documentary evidence in the security bound under the ICPC (Indian Civil Procedure Code) which contains the following words in Urdu version, “therefore these few words have been recorded by way of security bond to remain as Sanad”… see, Sirdar D.K Sen, The Indian States, London, Sweet and Maxwell, 1930, p 2. Whether Sanad is a grant or not depends entirely on its contents. In political parlance the term Sanad is applicable to an agreement concluded between the two sovereigns. According to Ramusack N Barbara, Sanads were certificates or testimonials of protection or recognition that the British unilaterally extended, much as Mughal emperors had earlier dispensed Farmans…see..Ramusack N. Barbara Indian Princes and their States, London, Cambridge University Press, 2004, P. 52. 
[6] Ibid p. 29 
[7] K.R.R Sastry, Treaties, Engagements, and Sanads of Indian States, Allahabad, Allahabad Law Journal Press, 1942, p. 18 
[8] Ian Copland, The British Raj and The Indian Princes, Bombay, Orient Longman, 1982, p.43 
[9] Sir James Johnstone, My Experiences in Manipur and Naga Hills, London, S. Low, Marston and company, limited, 1896,p.81 
[10] Major W. McCulloch, Account of the Valley of Manipur, Calcutta, Bengal Printing Company Ltd. 1859, p. l 
[11] Capt. E.W. Dun, Gazetteer of Manipur, Delhi, Manas Publications, 1992, p.6 
[12] Sir Arthur P. Phayre, History of Burma, London, Trubner& Co. 1883, p.3 
[13] Bubrabahan, the son of Arjuna and Chittrangada, the princess of Manipur, see…T.C.Hodson, The Meitheis, London, David Nutt, 1908, p.7 
[14] LeishangthemChandramani Singh, British Relation with Manipur, thesis submitted at department of History, university of Guwahati, 1969, p. 11 
[15] Garib Nawaz had three sons, named Sham Shah, Aogut Shah and Bharat Shah. Aogut Shah murdered his father and elder brother but was expelled by younger brother Bharat shah, who reigned for two years and was succeeded by Guru Sham, son of Sham Shah. He associated himself with his brother Jai Singh and ruled alternately till his death in 1764 and the sole authority fell to Jai Singh.Aitchison, C.U, Treaties, Engagements, and Sunnuds, vol. I, Calcutta,Savielle&Cranenburgh, 1862, p. 121 
[16] Ibid, p. 121 
[17] Capt., R.B Pemberton, Report on the Eastern Frontier of British India, Calcutta, Baptist Mission Press, 1835, p.188 
[18] D.L.Haokip, "The Role of North-East India in the Indian National Movement 1857-1947: With special reference to the contribution of the Kukis" in the Research Update - An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Manipur University Research Club, Vol. II, June-November, 2007,p.75 
[19] Major General Sir James Johnstone, Manipur and the Naga Hill. New Delhi, Vivek Publishing House,1971, p.73 
[20] Political Consultations, 30 May 1833* No. 109, (Minute on 25 March 1833) 
[21] Captain William White, A Political History of the Extra Ordinary Events Which Led to the Burmese War, London, W. Sams, St. James‟s Street, 1827p.116 
[22] Ibid. p. 113 
[23] Ibid. p 150 
[24] J.B Bhattacharjee, Trade and Colony: The British Colonisation of North East India.Shillong, North East India History Association, 2000, p. 1