Stand Still Agreement Of Manipur

Stand Still Agreement Of Manipur

According to K.M Munshi, appointed India`s general agent in Hyderabad, the Indians felt that the conclusion of a status quo agreement with Hyderabad meant that India had lost control of Hyderabad`s affairs. The Hyderabad State Congress opposed it because it was seen by the Indian government as a sign of weakness. [16] V. P. Menon stated that Nizam and his advisers viewed the agreement as a respite from which Indian troops would be withdrawn and the state could establish its position to maintain its independence. [17] Both draft treaties were submitted to the House of Princes on July 25. A state negotiating committee was formed, which reviewed the two agreements, consisting of ten leaders and twelve ministers. After discussion, the Committee finalized the two draft agreements on 31 July. [3] It is significant that the agreement did not provide for the Dominion of India to deploy Indian troops to the state, while British India had maintained several cantons, notably in Secunderabad, as part of its «subsidiary alliance» with the state. Over the next six months, Indian troops were withdrawn from the state.

[15] Hyderabad violated all the terms of the agreement: in foreign affairs, by carrying out intrigues with Pakistan, to which it secretly lent 15 million pounds; in defence, by building a large semi-military army; communication, through interventions in border traffic and transit traffic of Indian railways. [18] India has also been accused of violating the agreement by imposing an economic blockade. It turns out that the State of Bombay unknowingly intervened from Delhi in deliveries to Hyderabad. The government has promised to take it with the provincial governments, but scholar Lucien Benichou says it has never been done. India also delayed India`s arms deliveries to Hyderabad, which was later de affirmed as a violation of the status quo agreement. [19] Unhappy about the central regime, Rishang Keishing began in 1954 a movement for representative government in Manipur. However, India`s interior minister said that the time had not yet come to establish representative assemblies in Part C countries such as Manipur and Tripura, saying that they were in trouble in India`s strategic border areas, that populations were behind politically and that administration was still weak in those countries. [17] However, it received a considerable measure of local autonomy under the Territorial Councils Act of 1956, a legislative body and the Council of Ministers in 1963, and the state in 1972. Soon, Endienam withdrew under pressure from Majlis-e-Itteha Musdule (Ittehad), the Muslim nationalist party active in the state, and withdrew from the agreement. [8] On the morning of 27 October, Qasim Rizvi, the leader of Ittehad, organized a massive demonstration by several thousand activists to block the delegation`s withdrawal. He convinced Nizam that, as India was then linked to the defence of Kashmir, it did not exceed sufficient resources to put pressure on Hyderabad.

He claimed that a Hyderabad princess could get a much more favorable deal. [9] Nizam then appointed a new delegation, dominated by members of the Executive Council opposed to the previous agreement. [10] Former Hyderabad bureaucrat Mohammed Hyder called the event the «October coup.»

Comments are closed