Jump to content

Talk:Manipur State Constitution Act 1947: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Reply
Line 127: Line 127:
:As for administering "in the name of the Maharaja", it was mentioned right in the beginning that the Maharaja was the "nominal head of state". You understand what is meant by "nominal", right?
:As for administering "in the name of the Maharaja", it was mentioned right in the beginning that the Maharaja was the "nominal head of state". You understand what is meant by "nominal", right?
:Finally, you have been here long enough to know that, when an edit is contested, [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is required before you can reinstate it. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 18:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:Finally, you have been here long enough to know that, when an edit is contested, [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is required before you can reinstate it. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 18:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

:: ''' The hill regions, populated by Naga and Kuki tribes, were taken out of the jurisdiction of the Maharaja and administered by the President using Assam regulations''' this statement show POV that hill region were under administrative rule of Assam not Manipur, this is the part where this contestation come.

::*{{tq|After a long debate in the British Parliament, it was decided that Manipur should not be annexed by the colonial power but be maintained as a Princely State under the indirect rule which allowed minimum investment in material and human resource by the British. Manipur was one of the last small kingdoms to join the list of Princely states under British Raj}} <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mutuwa |first=Miranda Bembem |date=2018 |title=Colonialism and the Princely State of Manipur: Creation of Modern Urban Space in North East India |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26906278 |journal=Proceedings of the Indian History Congress |volume=79 |pages=448–456 |issn=2249-1937}}</ref>

:: British continued to indirectly rule Manipur as a state for a long time and it did not change after 1891 also. This is the reason Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 was enacted in 1947. So, mixing up with Assam regulation as if part of Manipur territory (hill regions) were under administrative rule of Assam state without any relation with Manipur need [[WP:CONSENSUS]] before it is reinstated.

:: Also, full administrative the power of the Mahajara can't be exercised not only in the hills ,restriction of rules of Maharaja is in the valley as well, as per some scholar like Gangmumei, British felt a need to protect the hill tribes from slavery tradition enforced by Maharaja and colonial divide and rule policy, British did frame rules for management of hill tribes without slavery system of the Maharaja in 1935 which policy is reflected in Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 [[User:Luwanglinux|<span style="color:red">&#x1f432;</span> <span style="color: blue">ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Luwanglinux|<span style="color:green">ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) </span>]]</sup> 03:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}
{{reflist-talk}}

Revision as of 03:10, 25 September 2024

Added proper references

Hello @Luwanglinux:, I have added proper references as you had asked. Also added proper title in the cited reference.ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC) @ChunnuBhai: the link you provided shows nothing about this constitution being obsolete from the King signing Merger Agreement.By the year 1949.the legal right of the state was already transfered to Council of ministers appointed under the dejure constitution.also stop removing content from citation.Beside there is high debate of Manipur merger agreement as forceful annnexation.India did not have a legal constitution in 1949.So read the constitution properly first before trying to vandalise it.Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 was legally in practise since 1947 itself ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have used the phrase "effectively obsolete" not "obsolete".
  • I have included the sentence "However various separatist groups have disputed the Merger Agreement." which covers what you are saying.
  • I have added the correct title in the citation. If you are adding whole text in the title, it makes the page ugly and citation unreadable.ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is only about the Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 not Manipur Merger Agreement,what you added is totally in contrast with the article.
You yourself have reffered to Merger of Manipur into India in the earlier edit. My edit is in continuation of the same. ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChunnuBhai: Read the article properly this article is about law and constitution,not seperatism or manipur merger agreement.you can add those in Manipur merger agreement article.Thanks

"(PDF) Annexation of Manipur as the 19th State of India: The Status of the Territory of Manipur in International Law since 1949". ResearchGate. Retrieved 2020-10-29.

RfC on the edit disagreement between User:Luwanglinux and me

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

User:Luwanglinux has been reverting my edits on the article for reasons I do not agree with. also threatening me on my talk page, while I have tried to engage constructively. Request for other editors to comment and resolve the edit disagreements.ChunnuBhai (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChunnuBhai (talk) let others editors come in but seriously why do you want to keep adding Manipur Merger Agreement which was already removed giving proper reason from the content as it is totally unrelated with this constitution.On the contrary Merger agreement is said to be a violation of this dejure law as claimed by expertsꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 17:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pushing POV by claiming "Experts say" something without giving references. Also there are many examples on wikipedia where, the successor legal instrument is mentioned in respective articles. e.g. Indian_Independence_Act_1947 mentions Article 395 of the Constitution of India and in Article 221 of the Constitution of Pakistan of 1956, Article 370 of the Constitution of India has sections on 2019 Actions. What I added is not unrelated to the current article. ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#ResearchGate, ResearchGate is not considered a reliable source. Reason, it is self published and not peer reviewed research.ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously that content has been reviewed also the author[1] is not any layman dude it really is line with Wp:RS.just google it if you wanna see.As for your info I never added that link in the main article but just on this talkpage to come to a consensus with this conflictꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 17:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The conclict is only about you reverting my legitimate edit.ChunnuBhai (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The conflict is about you adding unrelated topic categories even removing quote from content.I have explained in detail.since the edit was revised by an admin.I hope you understand.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 18:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChunnuBhai: Please see WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Your RfC statement, whilst fairly brief, is decidedly not neutral. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redrose64, Thank for the reply. i will close this RfC and open a new RfC with precise question in neutral voice.ChunnuBhai (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ "Laishram Malem Mangal". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2020-10-29.

Removing quote from Wp:Rs reference

User:ChunnuBhai has been repeatedly adding unrelated topic and also repeatedly removing quote from reference.

Whereas it is expedient to enact a law for the governance of the Manipur State, His Highness the Maharajah of Manipur is pleased to enact as follows: Chapter 11. Title: This Act shall be called the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947. 2. Extent and Application: This Act shall extend to the whole of the Manipur State inclusive of the Hill Areas saving that it shall not apply in any matter where a specific reservation of powers is made to any Authority in the Hills under the provisions of the Manipur State Hill (Administration) Regulation, 1947. 3. Government of the State by His Highness the Maharajah: The territories for the time being and hereafter vested in the Maharajah are governed by and in the name of the Maharajah. All right, authority and jurisdiction, which appertain or are incidental to the Government of such territories, are exercisable by the Maharajah subject to the provision of this Act. 4. Succession: Succession to the throne shall be governed by the law of Primogeniture provided that the heir must be the legitimate son of a marriage recognized by the Council of Ministers. In the event of failure of heirs in the direct male line, His Highness the Maharajah shall, after consultation with the Council of Ministers and the Assembly, designate his heir. 5. Attainment of Majority: The Maharajah or his heir shall be taken to attain majority at the age of 21 years. 6. Council or Regency:a. Where by reason of the Maharajah being a minor or where by reason of any mental defect or grave bodily sickness as a result of which the Maharaja becomes permanently incapable of exercising his powers, the Council of Ministers shall take steps to set up a Council of Regency which shall exercise those powers in the State and shall continue in office for such time as the Council may determine. b. Notwithstanding the provision of Sub-Section (a) above, the Maharajah in consultation with the Council of Ministers may, at any time or for any reason, which may appear suitable, set up Council of Regency to exercise his functions. c. A Council of Regency set up under Sub-Section (a) and (b) above, may comprise of one or more persons as may seem desirable. The Regent or Council of Regency shall before taking office be required to take an Oath before the State Assembly to be loyal to the State and to observe faithfully the Constitution and Laws

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Luwanglinux (talk • contribs) 17:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect you have added a LOT of text as quote. If any user wants to read this much text, he will click on the link itself and read it for himself. ChunnuBhai (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ChunnuBhai Still you should not remove the whole quoteꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 17:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation disagreement

Kautilya3 is telling citation from an archive.org is unreliable source.an admin help is requested,I have not found any wikirules which state archive.org is unreliable source.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

archive.org is an archiving source site. It is not a publisher. Whether you state archive.org or not makes no difference to the reliability of the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lol seriously do wikipedia not accept any sources without publisher as reliable source,what made you consider this a reliable source[1]ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 14:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you quit making snarky comments. If you do not like Wikipedia policies, you are welcome to leave. Nobody is forcing you to edit Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Archive.org is not a source of any description. If you include archive.org links, the source is the website it is a copy of. noq (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wangam Somorjit

I will put down another comment here for the record.

For this citation that Luwanglinux added, claiming it to be published by "Waba Publications & Advanced Research Consortium", and the author claimed to be a "notable google scholar", Google Scholar knows nothing about the book or any citations to it. There are no publications of the author listed there. The "Advanced Research Consortium", which gave it web address as "arecom.org" is apparently that of a Mexican organisation. There is indeed an "Advanced Research Consortium" in Manipur, but its record in research is entirely unreported. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are too much this book is published under ISBN,published in Imphal,printed at Assam and the author[2] is a Master degree holder in Manipur history from Manipur University,are you the one who will decide the validity of a publishihg house?.So what if it is Mexican organisation.?.read the book if you want its not written by some mediocre...ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 04:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you are back to making snarky comments. You can also decide whether sources are reliable when you read and understand Wikipedia policies. If you don't like my decisions, you are welcome to take it to WP:RSN.
Master's degrees don't make any one a reliable source. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The credentials of the publisher need to be checked. And this particular publisher, which has the pretensions of a research organisation but seems to be no more than an NGO, gave a fake web address. So it is all the more dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haorongbam Sudhirkumar Singh

Luwanglinux, You have deleted information sourced Sudhirkumar Singh's PhD thesis to the effect that the MSCA had lapsed with the merger agreement. You offered no explanation for this. Even though we don't normally give high credibility to PhD theses in general, this thesis was carried out at Jawaharlal Nehru University, a top-rated institution of India for social sciences. The author is now a professor at Manipur University [3] [4] and a credible historian. So I am afraid you cannot simply delete it. This seems to be an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3,You are interpreting the thesis in the way you like also you should know that Dewan abolishment is not related with Manipur State Constitution Act 1947.Dewan is related with British Raj you seem to have little knowledge about this act better stop imposing your idea without solid reference,I removed it because you put it with the expiration date which contradict with the various sources found.Here is what you added
15 October 1949[1]
My "little knowledge", as it might be, is not your concern. You have deleted a well-sourced piece of information from the article, where a professor of history at Manipur University has stated that the act "lapsed" precisely 15 October 1949. You can only delete it by appealing to equal or better quality sources as per Wikipedia policies. Ranting about my knowledge is not going to be of any help to you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have given you the reason for deletion with many reference,I also pointed out dissolving Dewan post is not related with this act as you quoted the post of Dewan abolished with effect from 15 October 1949 this fail to prove your claim of the act being dissolved on 15th oct 1949.With due respect this act was enacted by the de jure supreme ruler of Manipur in 1947 ,there is a great difference between de jure and de facto rule in politics as stated by expertsꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 16:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements in Modern Manipur (2011), 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."

It may also be noted that British rule ended in Manipur in 14th August 1947

Luwanglinux, that is a ridiculous kind of sentence that does not belong in any kind of article. Trust me, the British rule ended all over the Indian subcontinent on that day. There is nothing to be especially "noted". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3,I don't trust you.Even Pakistan and Myanmar were included in British India.Indian subcontinent and the idea of India nation differ so greatly.Manipur got independence from British on 14th august 1947 but India got independence from British on 15th august 1947 its all fact.So give it a rest.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 16:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Luwanglinux, Ok, please provide WP:RS for these statements. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 I have given newspaper [ https://www.imphaltimes.com/news/itemlist/date/2019/8/14] link Manipur celebrate independence day on 14th august every year,what more proof do you need?.ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 16:36, 6 December 2020

(UTC)

Manipuris might celebrate it on 1 January for all I care. The statement is clear, and the RS for it should be equally clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ok here is another source[1] [5] see this [6]
The first link you give is a Google Book search. The first source that pops up is the CIRCA pamphlet, which states (p.23):

Under the Act, two independent Dominions known as India and Pakistan were set up with effect from August 15, 1947. Along with that, Manipur also became technically and legally independent from the British Crown by virtue of the Section 7(1)(b) of the Indian Independence Act, 1947.

This makes extremely clear that the independence of Manipur was part of the independence of India, not some separate event. This is quite the opposite if the special claims you are making. The source you picked is some propaganda booklet, hardly a reliable source. And the second link is also not a HISTRS, published in 2014 in a journal on "International Relations". For all you know, the author is just replicating the current Manipuri practice of celebrating it on the 14th August. The present day Maharaja critiqued this practice in the newspaper link you provided:

Addressing on the function as the Chief Guest titular king of Manipur Leishemba Sanajaoba reminded the history of how Manipur became Independent from the British on the intervening midnight of 14 and 15 August 1947 [which is exactly the time that India celebrated independence] and added that today's celebration of Independence Day will make the people aware about the history of Manipur. ... He further said that the intervening midnight of August 14 where Manipur became independent from the British empire doesn't have any hoisting of flag and added that the flag was hoisted on 15 August or 29th of Thawan of the Manipuri lunar calendar around 7.10 in the morning of 1947.

Finally, whether it is the 14th or 15th doesn't make a damn bit of difference. You are just chasing red herrings and wasting every one's time. What does this have to do with the Manipur State Constitution anyway? That sentence in the lead is still WP:UNDUE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm its you quite wasting time and energy on this,is the reference from book also a pamphlet..the line in the lead is quoted from two lead newspaper of Manipur and Nagaland.Also the fact that Manipur celebrate independence day every year on this said day..peaceꯂꯨꯋꯥꯡ (ꯆꯥ) 02:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the CIRCA booklet is a "pamphlet". It is arguing a position. But it is arguing it based on solid facts, which are thoroughly researched. Newspaper journalists don't have either time or energy to do any such research. They can only be depended on for "news", what they see and report. That is the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ Dr Th. Suresh Singh,The Endless Kabaw Valley British Created Visious Cycle of Manipur, Burma and India (2014), p. 259"British Created Visious Cycle of Manipur, Burma and India Dr Th. Suresh Singh. extent after the war. ... What is the position of Manipur between the period British left and merging to India i.e. between 14/8/1947 and 14/10/1949? "

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42748891. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sennecaster (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

The references, when clicked lead to nowhere. A large number of previous edits are not viewable anymore. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous section on copyright violation. The source is a journal paper mentioned above.
On another note, please note that the Maharaja had no administrative powers from 1891 to 1947. The British appointed an administrator as the President of the Manipur State Darbar ("PMSD" in your sources), who held the reins. The Maharaja apparently devoted himself to social causes.[1] That is probably how he ended up founding the NHMM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is also unclear to me whether the Manipuris for agitating for "democracy" or just agitating against the British rule. When the so-called democratic government was installed, the Maharaja just appointed his own brother as the Chief Minister and that was apparently ok for Irabot's party. The Manipuris are royalists par excellence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and that was apparently ok for Irabot's party - Source needed because on my reading of Irabot's pamphlets/speeches, I don't agree.
I don't believe that Manipuris of the mid-1940s can be classified as a monolith — that was a time of intense factionalism among political parties who worked towards a largely-common goal but disagreed on vital specifics including deference to the royal house, accession etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is in your own citation:

A coalition government led by the Praja Shanti Party, which was supported by the Krishak Sabha and the Hill representatives, came into existence.[2]

I admit it is possible that the Manipuris of mid-1940s are more liberal than the Manipuris of today. But what I read from the Manipur scholars today is pretty uniformly royalist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The support was highly conditional and strategic. In hindsight, it was naive. I will note the minute details over the relevant article.
The adulation for the royals is largely a post-colonial phenomenon. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Backgrounnd

The lead in the background as per this revision [7] bring only one POV that Manipur hill areas were ruled independently from the jurisdiction of Majaharaja without any relation to the Maharaja. But Aitson treaty record itself clearly mentioned that the hill administration was done by President of the Durbar in the name of the Maharaja.[3] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate issue. My objection was that you were doing an "WP:UNDUE expansion of background". This article is about the 1947 constitution, and the background you add has to be what is needed as context to this topic. Or, you need to find sources on the constitution that bring in the additional information you think it is relevant.
As for administering "in the name of the Maharaja", it was mentioned right in the beginning that the Maharaja was the "nominal head of state". You understand what is meant by "nominal", right?
Finally, you have been here long enough to know that, when an edit is contested, WP:CONSENSUS is required before you can reinstate it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hill regions, populated by Naga and Kuki tribes, were taken out of the jurisdiction of the Maharaja and administered by the President using Assam regulations this statement show POV that hill region were under administrative rule of Assam not Manipur, this is the part where this contestation come.
  • After a long debate in the British Parliament, it was decided that Manipur should not be annexed by the colonial power but be maintained as a Princely State under the indirect rule which allowed minimum investment in material and human resource by the British. Manipur was one of the last small kingdoms to join the list of Princely states under British Raj [4]
British continued to indirectly rule Manipur as a state for a long time and it did not change after 1891 also. This is the reason Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 was enacted in 1947. So, mixing up with Assam regulation as if part of Manipur territory (hill regions) were under administrative rule of Assam state without any relation with Manipur need WP:CONSENSUS before it is reinstated.
Also, full administrative the power of the Mahajara can't be exercised not only in the hills ,restriction of rules of Maharaja is in the valley as well, as per some scholar like Gangmumei, British felt a need to protect the hill tribes from slavery tradition enforced by Maharaja and colonial divide and rule policy, British did frame rules for management of hill tribes without slavery system of the Maharaja in 1935 which policy is reflected in Manipur State Constitution Act 1947 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hassan, M. Sajjad (February 2006), Explaining Manipur’s Breakdown and Mizoram’s Peace: the State and Identities in North East India, London School of Economics, p. 7
  2. ^ Indrakumar, Colonialism and Movement for Democracy (2015), p. 69.
  3. ^ Aitchison, C. U., ed. (1931), A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, vol. XII, Calcutta: Government of India, Central Publication Branch, p. 107 – via archive.org, After the suppression of the Thado Kuki rebellion in 1919 .. the method of administration in the Manipur Hill areas was completely changed. Four Sub-Divisions were formed, three of which are administered by members of the Assam Provincial Civil Service lent to the State, while the fourth is directly under the President of the Darbar, who now administers the whole of the Hills in the name of the Maharaja.
  4. ^ Mutuwa, Miranda Bembem (2018). "Colonialism and the Princely State of Manipur: Creation of Modern Urban Space in North East India". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 79: 448–456. ISSN 2249-1937.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manipur_State_Constitution_Act_1947&oldid=1247618330"