View source for Manipur State Constitution Act 1947

{{Short description|Act in Manipur state for a de jure constitution}}
{{use dmy dates|date=October 2020}}
{{Infobox legislation
| short_title = Manipur State Constitution Act
| legislature = Constitution-making Committee
| image =
| imagesize =
| image_upright =
| imagealt =
| caption =
| long_title =
| citation =
| territorial_extent = [[Manipur (princely state)|Manipur]]
| enacted_by = [[Manipur (princely state)]]
| date_enacted = 1947<ref>
{{Cite book |last=Manchanda |first=Rita |title=Making war, making peace : conflict resolution in South Asia |date=2015 |others=Tapan K. Bose |isbn=978-93-5150-098-8 |location=New Delhi, India |pages=100 |oclc=897946353}}
</ref>
|date_passed            = 26 July 1947<ref>
{{harvp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|loc=p. 120: "The Constitution Drafting Committee submitted its draft to the State Council on 15 May 1947. The State Council passed it on 26 July 1947 and presented the same to the Maharaja for his assent. After duly approved by the Maharaja, the report became the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947."}}
</ref>
| royal_assent = <!-- Pick none or one of date_assented, royal_assent or date_signed as appropriate in jurisdiction. -->
| signed_by    = Maharaja [[Bodhchandra Singh]]
| date_commenced = <!-- Pick one of date commenced or date effective as appropriate in jurisdiction. -->
| date_effective = <!-- Pick one of date commenced or date effective as appropriate in jurisdiction. -->
|date_of_expiry         = 15 October 1949<ref>{{harvp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|loc=pp. 146–147: "Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 lapsed, coalition ministry in the state ceased to function, the legislature dissolved and the post of Dewan abolished with effect from 15 October 1949."}}</ref>
| date_repealed =
| administered_by =
| white_paper =
| amends = <!-- Citations of other notable legislation that this legislation amends; wikilink or external link where possible. -->
| repeals = <!-- Citations of other notable legislation that this legislation repeals; wikilink or external link where possible. -->
| amended_by = <!-- Citations of other notable legislation that amends this legislation; wikilink or external link where possible.  -->
| repealed_by = <!-- Citation of the legislation that repealed this legislation; wikilink or external link if possible. -->
| related_legislation = <!-- Names and citations of any other related legislation; wikilink name and external link citation where possible. -->
| summary =
| keywords =
| status = Unknown
}}
'''Manipur State Constitution Act 1947''' is an act which enabled the [[princely state]] of [[Manipur (princely state)|Manipur]] to have a ''de jure'' written constitution enacted by the last Maharajah of Manipur, [[Bodhchandra Singh]].<ref name=Banerjee>
{{Cite journal |last=Banerjee |first=S. K. |title=Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 |date=1958 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42748891 |journal=The Indian Journal of Political Science |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=35–38 |jstor=42748891}}
</ref> Under the constitution, a Legislative Assembly was elected in mid-1948 and a ministry was formed, which was responsible to the Maharaja. The constitution is deemed to have lapsed on 15 October 1949, when the Maharaja signed a merger agreement with the Indian Union. The validity of the act in present time is debated.<ref>{{harvp|Das|2010|loc=p. 123: "The Manipur State Constitution did not lose its validity with the signing of the merger agreement"}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Banerjee |first=S. K. |date=1958 |title=Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42748891 |journal=The Indian Journal of Political Science |volume=19 |issue=1 |pages=35–38|jstor=42748891 |quote=We come to the interesting question of whether the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 is still in force or not. At page 239 para 456 of Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 11 (1933 edition) we read, "in conquered or ceded countries which at the time of their acquisition, had already laws of their own, the Crown has power to alter and change those laws, but until this is actually done the ancient laws of the countries remain in force" From this we may conclude that if the Manipur State Constitution Act, has not been specifically repealed it is to be taken as being still in force |issn=0019-5510}}</ref>
== Background ==
After the [[Anglo-Manipur War|1891 rebellion]] in Manipur, the British took direct control of the state's administration. While the Maharaja was retained as a nominal head of state, the real power rested with the British Political Agent and a British official appointed as the President of the Durbar. The other members of the Durbar served as ministers and advisors. The hill regions, populated by [[Naga people|Naga]] and [[Kuki people|Kuki]] tribes, were administered by the British official without the involvement of the Durbar.
<ref>{{harvp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|loc=pp. 48–49: "The rules of administration were framed by the Assam Governor and approved by the Government of India. Under the administrative scheme, the Durbar was the highest executive body to administer the state affairs. Even during his presidentship, the Maharaja could do nothing without consulting the Durbar."}}
</ref><ref>
{{citation |last=Verghese |first=B. G. |title=India's Northeast Resurgent: Ethnicity, Insurgency, Governance, Development |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=STBuAAAAMAAJ |year=1996 |publisher=Konark Publishers |page=115 |isbn=9788122004557 |quote=Rules for the Management of the State of Manipur enforced in 1933. The supreme authority was the political agent acting on behalf of the Government of Assam and the Maharaja was to be assisted by a Durbar headed by a President, an officer specially selected by the Government of Assam. The budget was also to be approved by the Government of Assam and the hill tribes were to be administered by the President in accordance with rules framed by the Government of Assam.}}
</ref><ref>
{{citation |editor-first=C. U. |editor-last=Aitchison |title=A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries |volume=XII |location=Calcutta |publisher=Government of India, Central Publication Branch |year=1931 |url=https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.235895 |via=archive.org |pages=106–108}}
</ref>
In 1934, [[Nikhil Manipuri Mahasabha|Nikhil Manipuri Mahsabha]] (NMM) was established by [[Hijam Irabot]] with the-then Maharajah [[Churachand Singh]] as President.{{sfnp|Parratt|Parratt|2000}} By 1938 it had become a prominent political front advocating the democratization of the powers held by the Durbar and an overhaul of the corrupt colonial administration.{{sfnp|Parratt|Parratt|2000}}<ref name="Thoiba Singh">
{{Cite thesis |last=Thoiba Singh |first=Wakambam |title=Meetei Polity – A study of the socio-economic and political changes among the Meeteis from 1750 to 1950 |date=1984 |publisher=Guwahati University/Shodhganga  |hdl=10603/69732 |hdl-access=free  |at=p.&nbsp;228-232 (Chapter 5)}}
</ref>{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}}
Proposals for reforms were twice submitted to the Durbar in 1938 and 1939.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/>{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}} They called for abolition of exploitative taxes, reunification of the hills with the valley, establishment of self-rule, installation of a [[Panchayati raj|Panchayat]] system, and the establishment of a unicameral legislature based on suffrage.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/>{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}}{{sfnp|Parratt|Parratt|2000}}
Fissures between the royal house and NMM were also prominent; NMM was declared a political party whereby no state government employee could participate in it and Irabot had to resign from the Sadar Court.{{sfnp|Parratt|Parratt|2000}} In the ensuing deliberations, Churachand and the President of the Durbar [[Francis Pearson|F. F. Pearson]] declined the demands of NMM, claiming that Manipur was not "ripe for democracy".<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/>{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}} Popular resistance continued — the [[Nupi Lan|Second Nupi Lan]] would play a significant role in mobilizing anti-feudal sentiments in the masses.{{sfnp|Parratt|Parratt|2000}}{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}}<ref>
{{Cite journal |last1=Parratt |first1=Saroj N. Arambam |last2=Parratt |first2=John |date=October 2001 |title=The Second 'Women's War' and the Emergence of Democratic Government in Manipur |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-asian-studies/article/abs/second-womens-war-and-the-emergence-of-democratic-government-in-manipur/7AC773BD926D35695A381F9DB2326B74 |journal=Modern Asian Studies |volume=35 |issue=4 |pages=905–919 |doi=10.1017/S0026749X0100405X |doi-broken-date=3 November 2024 |s2cid=145449486 |issn=1469-8099}}
</ref>
Maharaja [[Bodhchandra Singh]] succeeded Churachand Singh in November 1941.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/> Whilst the political scene was quiet during [[World War II]], after the war, he was subject to a protracted and vigorous resistance from multiple political parties — Irabot's [[Manipur Krishak Sabha]] (MKS), Manipur Praja Sangha and [[Manipur State Congress]] etc.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/>{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}} In August 1946, NMM passed a resolution urging the immediate establishment of constitution-drafting machinery.{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}} Krishak Sabha and Praja Sangha demanded a "responsible" government in multiple meetings, throughout the year.{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}} By 21 September, Bodhchandra Singh seems to have conceded the demand for a (legislative) assembly and asked the British government for permission.{{sfnp|Parratt, Wounded Land|2005|pp=95–96}} Finally, on the advice of [[1946 Cabinet Mission to India|Cabinet Mission]], he consented to the formation of a Constitution Making Committee in December 1946.<ref name="Ibochou Singh">{{Cite thesis |last=Ibochou Singh |first=Khwairakpam |title=British administration in Manipur 1891–1947 |date=1985 |publisher=Guwahati University/Shodhganga |hdl-access=free |page=v |hdl=10603/66697 }}</ref>{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}}
== Constitution-making ==
The Constitution-Making Committee had 15 members: five members were selected from a consultation with "educated men" of the Hills, five members were elected from the Valley, two members were nominated by the Maharaja and the Chairman of the Chief Court, and the remaining three members were nominated by the Durbar.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/> Overall, the committee was dominated by Congress men and their sympathizers.{{sfnp|Parratt|Parratt|2000}} The president of the Durbar, F. F. Pearson, became the chairman.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/> Krishak Sabha as well as Praja Sangha had criticized the composition of the Committee as undemocratic and boycotted the elections to the Committee.{{sfnp|Parratt|Parratt|2000}}<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/>{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}} The representatives of the hills proposed the right of secession after a period of five years, which were rejected by the remaining members.<ref>{{Cite news |author=Roluahpuia |title=Majoritarianism in Manipur |magazine=Himal Southasian |date=2016-04-04 |url=https://www.himalmag.com/majoritarianism-in-manipur/ |quote=In the Constitution Making Committee (CMC) in 1947, the representatives of the tribal leaders proposed the right of secession of the hill areas from Manipur after a period of five years. Two members of the CMC, A Daiho, a Mao Naga and Tiankham from the Zo community made it clear that they could not be members of the committee unless such clauses were incorporated. Regardless of this, their proposal was rejected following arrests of numerous tribal leaders in 1948.}}</ref>
The Committee was formally inaugurated on 3 March 1947.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/>{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}} On, 10 March, the Maharajah addressed it in a public ceremony.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/><ref>{{Cite book |last=Noni |first=Arambam |editor1-first=Arambam |editor1-last=Noni |editor2-first=Kangujam |editor2-last=Sanatomba |date=2015-10-16 |title=Colonialism and Resistance |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315638317 |page=68 |doi=10.4324/9781315638317 |isbn=978-1-317-27066-9 }}</ref> The first meeting was held on 24 March, and, on 29 March, broad resolutions were adopted on the central features of the would-be constitution.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/><ref name="Priyabrata Singh">{{Cite book |last=Priyabrata Singh |first=M. K. |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125403 |title=Administration Report Of The Manipur State For The Year 1946–47 |date=1948 |pages=2–5}}</ref> A constitution-drafting committee was formed under the chairmanship of Ibunghohal Singh, and a hill local self-government regulation sub-committee was formed under the chairmanship of Pearson.{{sfnp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|pp=119–120}}
The final version of the constitution was passed by the Committee in May 1947.{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}}<ref name="Priyabrata Singh"/> The draft was soon vetted by the Durbar and on receiving Maharaja's consent, was enacted as the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 on 27 July 1947.<ref name="Thoiba Singh"/> The report submitted by the hill local self-government regulation sub-committee was passed as the Manipur State Hill Peoples (Administration) Regulation 1947<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sinha |first=L. P. |date=1987 |title=The Politics and Government of Manipur |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/41855332 |journal=The Indian Journal of Political Science |volume=48 |issue=4 |pages=487–493 |jstor=41855332 |issn=0019-5510}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Datta-Ray |first1=B. |title=Reorganization of North-East India Since 1947 |last2=Agrawal |first2=S. P. |date=1996 |publisher=Concept Publishing Company|pages=240–252 |isbn=978-81-7022-577-5 |language=en}}</ref>.{{sfnp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|p=120}}<ref>
[https://www.independentmanipur.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Manipur-State-Hills-Peoples-Administration-Regulation-1947.pdf Manipur State Hill People's (Administration) Regulation 1947]
</ref>
== Implementation ==
In July 1947, the Maharaja replaced the Manipur State Darbar by a Manipur State Council, whose members were termed "ministers", and F. F. Pearson became the Chief Minister. On 14 August, this arrangement was replaced by an Interim Council, with M. K. Priyobrata Singh, the younger brother of the Maharaja as the Chief Minister, and eight other members as ministers, of which two were Manipur State Congress members, and two were Hill representatives. These moves were seen as an attempt by the Maharaja to take power into his own hands.{{sfnp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|pp=121–122}}{{Sfnp|Parratt, Wounded Land|2005|p=98-99}}
A Franchise Sub-committee was created on 14 October 1947, but elections were not held for at least a year. Manipur State Election Rules were formulated in 1948, with the following representation for 53 seats in the assembly:{{sfnp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|p=121}}
* 30 general constituencies in the Valley. [[Moirang]] was made a special constituency, which could elect two candidates, one from the Valley and one from the Hills.
* 3 reserved constituencies in the Valley, [[Lilong]], [[Mayang Imphal]] and [[Yairipok]], which were reserved for [[Meitei Pangals]] (Muslims).
* 18 hill constituencies where only hill people could contest the election.
* 2 special constituenceis: educational constituency and commercial & industrial constituency.
Election to the Manipur State Assembly was held between 11 June and 27 July 1948. It produced a hung assembly with no single party carrying the majority. Manipur State Congress won 14 seats, Manipur Krishak Sabha won 6 seats, a new party called Praja Shanti Party, believed to have been floated by the Maharaja, won 12 seats, and the hill representatives, dubbed "independents", won 18 seats.{{efn|The hill representatives are often described as belonging 'Hill Independents Union'.<ref>
Lal Dena, [https://imphalreviews.in/revisiting-the-issue-of-manipur-merger-1949/ Revisiting the Issue of Manipur Merger, 1949], Imphal Review of Arts and Politics, 21 November 2020.
</ref> But as matter of fact, they belonged to several ethnic political parties, such as Tangkhul Long, Kabui Association, Kuki National Assembly, Mizo Union, and Khulmi National Union etc.{{sfnp|Parratt, Wounded Land|2005|pp=102–103}}{{sfnp|Kipgen, Ethnic Conflict in India|2011|p=1049}}<ref>Priyadarshni M. Gangte, [https://e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=manipur.History_of_Manipur.Political_climate_of_Manipur_during_the_transitionary_period_1946-52_Part_2 Political climate of Manipur during the transitionary period, 1946-52 - Some reflections - Part 2], The Sangai Express, via e-pao.net, 14 March 2014.</ref>}} The Praja Shanti Party formed the government in alliance with the Krishak Sabha and the hill representatives. Maharaja's brother Priyobrata Singh was reappointed as the Chief Minister, despite not being a member of the Assembly.{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015|p=70}}{{sfnp|Parratt, Wounded Land|2005|p=103}}
== Assessment ==
The election held under the state constitution in 1948 has been touted as the first democratic election in India on full adult franchise.{{sfnp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015|pp=68–69}} However, the claim has been disputed. Phanjoubam Tarapot notes, "all people were not allowed to cast votes to elect their representatives. Only the rich, landowners and educated persons could exercise their franchise."{{sfnp|Tarapot, Bleeding Manipur|2003|p=172}}
With an elected assembly and appointment of ministers, Manipur was claimed to have become a "constitutional monarchy",<ref>Selected comments:
* {{harvp|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015|loc=pp. 68–69: "The Manipur State Constitution Act (MCA), 1947, in the words of Parratt, 'was a remarkably enlightened and liberal piece of legislation. It provided, for the first time on the Indian sub-continent, for a legislature to be elected by full adult franchise under a constitutional monarchy'."}}
* {{citation |first=M. Sajjad |last=Hassan |title=Explaining Manipur's Breakdown and Mizoram's Peace: the State and Identities in North East India |publisher=London School of Economics |date=February 2006 |url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/28150/ |page=7 |quote=In the meantime, popular pressure for constitutional reforms had pushed the Manipuri ruler to agree to the establishment of a constitutional monarchy.}}
* Gangmumei Kamei, [http://e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=%20news_section.opinions.Politics_and_Governance.Hill_Area_Committee_of_Manipur_Legislative_Assembly_An_assessment_Part_2 Hill Area Committee (HAC) of Manipur Legislative Assembly: An assessment, Part 2], ''Huiyen Lanpao'', via e-pao.net, 17 December 2012. "The Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 provide[s] for a democratic constitutional monarchy."
* {{citation |first=A. Bimol |last=Akoijam |title=How History Repeats Itself |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |volume=36 |number=30 |date=28 July 2001 |pages=2807–2812 |jstor=4410908 |quote=Soon after independence, unlike the other 'princely states' in the Indian subcontinent, this kingdom marked by a citizenry with a sense of their being as a 'people', adopted a constitution of its own which envisaged a democratic setup under a constitutional monarchy.}}
* {{citation |first=Govind |last=Bhattacharjee |chapter=Other Northeastern States: Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh |title=Special Category States of India |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2016 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199460830.003.0005 |isbn=9780199460830 |quote=Under the new constitution, Manipur became a constitutional monarchy in July, 1947, with the responsibility of administration vested in the Maharaja-in-Council.}}
</ref>
sometimes prefixed with the label "independent".<ref>Selected comments:
* {{Citation |last=Meetei |first=A. Noni |chapter=Narrating the Nation in Manipur: Reproduction of a historical question |editor1=Bhagat Oinam |editor2=Dhiren A. Sadokpam |title=Northeast India: A Reader  |publisher=Routledge India |year=2018 |id={{isbn|978-0-429-48987-7}} |url=https://archive.org/details/northeast-india-a-reader |via=archive.org |pages=116–117 |isbn=978-0-429-95320-0 |quote=In 1948, Manipur became an independent constitutional monarchy with a legislative assembly consisting of fifty-three members including eighteen from the hill areas.}}
* M. S. Prabhakara, [https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/Insurgencies-in-Manipur-politics-amp-ideology/article16839929.ece Insurgencies in Manipur: politics &amp; ideology], The Hindu, 28 January 2010. "The Constitution was adopted in July 1947. Thus when the transfer of power took place in Delhi, Manipur became an independent country under a constitutional monarchy, with a Constitution of its own that provided for universal adult franchise."
</ref>
However, scholar Sudhirkumar Singh notes that the chief minister was appointed by the Maharaja, without any requirement of being an elected member of the assembly. Further, according the constitution, "the ministry was responsible to the Maharaja and not to the assembly".{{sfnp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements |2011|pp=130–131}}{{sfnp|Tarapot, Bleeding Manipur|2003|loc=p. 172: "However, the Chief Minister was to be nominated by the Maharaja from outside the assembly."}}
According to Sanghamitra Choudhury, the new government "was not responsible to the legislature; instead, it was only responsive to the legislature, which was a technicality devised by the constitutional experts of Maharaja".<ref>
{{citation |last=Choudhury |first=Sanghamitra |title=Women and Conflict in India |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=72yFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35 |year=2016 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-55362-5 |ref={{sfnref|Choudhury, Women and Conflict in India|2016}}}}
</ref>
Hijam Irabot, the seniormost democratic leader in the state, opposed the constitution saying there was no article guaranteeing "independence of Manipur and democracy".{{sfnp|Tarapot, Bleeding Manipur|2003|p=172}} Nevertheless, he participated in the Assembly election and won the seat from the Utlou constituency. However, before the Assembly met, he was outlawed for holding a protest meeting against the positions of Manipur State Congress. He was forced to go underground and his seat was declared vacant.{{sfnp|Parratt, Wounded Land|2005|pp=103–104}}
The state constitution was short-lived. In October 1949, the Maharaja was invited to a meeting in Shillong, and asked to sign a merger agreement with the Indian Union. When he asked for consultation with his ministry, he was told that the Government of India did not recognise the Assembly and the Ministry formed under the state constitution.{{sfnp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|loc=p. 145: "As informed to the Maharaja, the Government of India did not recognize the legislative assembly and the Ministry constituted under the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947."}}<ref>
{{citation |first=A. Bimol |last=Akoijam |title=How History Repeats Itself |journal=Economic and Political Weekly |volume=36 |number=30 |date=28 July 2001 |pages=2807–2812 |jstor=4410908 |quote=When maharaja Bodhchandra resisted the move to merge Manipur with the Indian union saying that he was only a constitutional monarch and he needed to consult his elected members of the state assembly, the representatives of the union government informed him that the GoI did not recognise the assembly and that they would like to deal with him like the British had done before independence.}}
</ref>
After the merger, the state assembly and the ministry were dissolved and Manipur became a Part 'C' State of India (akin to a Chief Commissioner's Province). There was not much public response to the development in Manipur, save for a single student protest under the banner of the Communist Party of Manipur. Sudhirkumar Singh remarks that no serious response could have been expected because the state was "characterised by low literacy and shallow political culture".{{sfnp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|loc=p. 147}}
== Notes ==
{{notelist}}
== References ==
{{reflist}}
== Bibliography ==
* {{Cite book |last=Das |first=Samir K. |chapter=India: Democracy, Nation, and the Spirals of Insecurity: State Response to Ethnic Separatism in India’s Northeast  |date=2010 |editor1=Robert G. Wirsing |editor2=Ehsan Ahrari |title=Fixing Fractured Nations |place=London |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |page=123 |isbn=978-1-349-31464-5 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=C9OGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA123}}
* {{Cite book |last=Indrakumar |first=Konthoujam |chapter=Colonialism and Movement for Democracy in Manipur |editor1=Arambam Noni |editor2=Kangujam Sanatomba |title=Colonialism and Resistance: Society and State in Manipur |publisher=Routledge |year=2015 |isbn=978-1-00-304589-2 |pages=61–69  |doi=10.4324/9781315638317 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OzjbCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA61 |ref={{sfnref|Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy|2015}}}}
* {{citation |first=Nehginpao |last=Kipgen |title=Ethnic Conflict in India: A Case Study of the Kukis and the Nagas in Manipur |journal=The Indian Journal of Political Science |date=October–December 2011 |volume=72 |number=4 |pages=1043–1060 |jstor=41856539 |ref={{sfnref|Kipgen, Ethnic Conflict in India|2011}}}}
* {{citation |first=John |last=Parratt |title=Wounded Land: Politics and Identity in Modern Manipur |publisher=Mittal Publications |year=2005 |isbn=9788183240536 |ref={{sfnref|Parratt, Wounded Land|2005}}}}
* {{Cite journal |last1=Parratt |first1=John |last2=Parratt |first2=Saroj Arambam |title=Hijam Irabot and the Radical Socialist Democratic Movement in Manipur |journal=Internationales Asienforum |language=de |volume=31 |issue=3–4 |date=2000 |pages=275–288 |doi=10.11588/iaf.2000.31.988 |url=https://crossasia-journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/iaf/article/view/988}}
* {{cite book |author=Sudhirkumar Singh |publisher=Jawaharlal Nehru University |year=2011 |hdl-access=free |title=Socio-religious and Political Movements in Modern Manipur |page=120 |hdl=10603/121665 |ref={{sfnref|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011}}}}
* {{citation |last=Tarapot |first=Phanjoubam |title=Bleeding Manipur |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FsUJ0E3BXkMC |year=2003 |publisher=Har-Anand Publications |isbn=978-81-241-0902-1 |ref={{sfnref|Tarapot, Bleeding Manipur|2003}}}}
== Further reading ==
* {{Cite web |title=Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947 |url=https://www.constitutionofindia.net/historical_constitutions/manipur_state_constitution_act__1947_1st%20January%201947 }}
* {{cite book |author=Niṃthaukhoṃjama Khelacandra Siṃha |year=1975 |publisher=N. Tombi Raj Singh |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EpAOAAAAMAAJ&q=Manipur+State+Constitution+Act+1947 |title=Manipuri Language: Status and Importance |pages=26–50}}
* {{Cite book |last=Government of Manipur |title=Manipur Gazette, 1949, January-June |pages=1–5 |date=1949 |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.125717}}
[[Category:Constitutional law]]
[[Category:Democracy]]
[[Category:History of Manipur]]
[[Category:1947 in law]]