Claims over Manipur’s territory or parts of it necessitate clarifying the special status of Manipur’s territorial boundary. The treaty signed on April 18, 1833, between Maharaja Gumbheer Singh of Manipur and British Commissioner F.J. Grant, establishes and protects Manipur’s boundaries under international law. This treaty officially recognizes Manipur’s territorial demarcations: Article 1 defines the eastern bank of the Jeeree River as Manipur’s westernmost boundary with Assam which was then under British influence, while Article 6 designates the Ningthee or Khyenween River (now the Chindwin River) as Manipur’s easternmost boundary of Manipur.
The principle known as the “objectivization of boundary treaties” states that once boundaries are established through an international agreement, they become an objective reality, persisting beyond the treaty itself. The 1833 treaty solidified Manipur’s boundaries with British India on one side and Burma on the other. Manipur’s international boundaries were thus recognized by the 1833 treaty. By the 1826 Treaty of Yandaboo, both British and Burmese authorities acknowledged Manipur’s independence and committed to non-interference in its affairs. Although Kabaw Valley was later ceded to Burma under the 1834 Agreement regarding Compensation for the Kubo Valley, Manipur was compensated by the Burmese government with an annual sum of 6,000 rupees until 1948. As of October 18, 1948, Manipur’s total area stood at 8,650 square miles, plus 7,000 square miles of the Kabaw Valley, which included 7,900 square miles of hills within Manipur.
The 1833 treaty established Manipur’s boundary along the foothills west of the Kabaw Valley, which, with further refinement, came to be known as the Pemberton Line. However, due Burmese objections to the line, led to the appointment of a Boundary Commission who re-drew the boundary along the foot of the Murring Hills on the western most portion of the Kabaw valley. In 1894, the boundary between Manipur and the Chin Hills was marked, and in 1896, Colonel Maxwell further defined the Pemberton-Johnstone line by erecting 38 boundary pillars which came to be known as the Pemberton-Johnstone-Maxwell line. These markers were referred to in the Boundary Agreement between the Government of India and the Government of the Union of Burma (Myanmar) signed on March 10, 1967, in Rangoon, where Article 1 recognized regions within Manipur that delineate the borders of both countries using various boundary pillars (“Burma-India Boundary, International Boundary Study No. 80,” 1968, by the U.S. Bureau of Intelligence and Research).
According to the 1950 White Paper on Indian States, Government of India, Manipur’s total area at the time of the contested Merger Agreement was 8,620 square miles. This aligns with the area specified by Manipur’s Maharaja on October 18, 1948. Currently, the Government of Manipur states the territory comprises 22,327 square kilometres. Though boundary disputes along the Indo-Myanmar border persist, Manipur’s present borders remain protected under international law by virtue of the 1833 treaty, which has remained valid for 193 years.
Under Article 62(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 a fundamental change of circumstances cannot be used to annul treaties which establishes or recognises territorial boundaries. Section 7(1)(b) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, indicates that treaties between the British and princely states lapsed with the termination of British rule. However, boundary treaties are an exception to this rule. The principle of rebus sic stantibus does not apply to boundaries established by a treaty. This position was reiterated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a dispute concerning the boundary established by a treaty between Libya and Chad where the Court ruled that “the establishment of […] boundary is a fact which, from the outset, has had a legal life of its own, independently of the fate of the 1955 Treaty. Once agreed the boundary stands, for any other approach would vitiate the fundamental principle of the stability of boundaries … A boundary established by treaty thus achieves a permanence which the treaty itself does not necessary enjoy. The treaty can cease to be in force without in any way affecting the continuance of the boundary … but when a boundary has been the subject of agreement, the continued existence of that boundary is not dependent upon the continued life of the treaty under which the boundary is agreed”.
The Indian Government, as the successor to the British, cannot ignore the boundaries of Manipur established by the 1833 treaty. The Government of India cannot treat Manipur’s territory based on the principle of clean slate. The “clean slate” principle incorporated in Article 16 of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties (1978), does not apply to boundary treaties. Thus, the 1833 treaty boundaries of Manipur are definite and inviolable, and Article 51 (c) of India’s constitution obliges the GOI to respect Manipur’s territorial boundary. The International Law Commission has reinforced this position, stating that boundaries established by treaties should be permanent to prevent potential international conflicts (Yearbook of International Law Commission, 1966, Vol. 2, p. 259). Article 11 of the Vienna Convention (1978) confirms that boundaries established by treaties are unaffected by state succession.
International jurists and numerous ICJ rulings, such as those in the Tunisia-Libya (Case concerning the Continental Shelf, ICJ Reports, 1982) and the Arbitration Commission established by the International Conference on Yugoslavia (Opinion No. 3) reaffirmed this principle of the continuity of boundaries established by treaty. Upholding this rule in a number of cases such as Argentina-Chile Frontier case, the ICJ in Libya-Chad (Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute, ICJ Reports, 1994) case stated “once agreed, the boundary stands.” Boundaries established by treaties are permanent and not subject to the clean slate principle. In fact, disturbing established boundaries can destabilize peace and security, making continuity essential. This permanence supports international peace by preserving stability and finality in boundary agreements.
Manipur’s boundary, as established by the 1833 treaty, has thus achieved permanence and is protected by international law. This position combined with the international law principle of uti possidetis juris, makes Manipur’s territorial borders inviolable. India’s commitment to UN Charter and international law attracts its historical responsibility to protect Manipur’s inviolable territorial boundary. International law safeguards the territorial integrity of Manipur against alterations under India’s constitutional provisions, notably Article 3. Manipur’s territorial boundary is sacrosanct under international law.
Assistant Professor, Symbiosis Law School, Pune and can be reached at [email protected]. The views expressed herein are author’s own
