Its sovereignty of the Maharadjas is entitled to the full ownership, exploitation and enjoyment of all private real estate (unlike state property) which belongs to it at the time of this contract. His Highness, the Maharajah, will present to the government, before 1 January 1950, an inventory of all the real estate, securities and cash holdings it holds as such. In the event of a dispute over whether an object is the private property of its sovereignty, the maharadar or state property, it is referred to a judicial officer to be appointed a judge of the Supreme Court, and that official`s decision is final and binding on both parties. Assuming that its sovereignty of the maharajah right to use residences known as “Redlands” and “The Chatalettes” in Shillong, and property in the town of Gauhati known as “Manipuri Basti” are not in question. The last ruler of the kingdom of Manipur was Maharaja Bodhchandra Singh. Between 1941 and 1949 he ruled. MMA-1949 and the Manipur State Constitution Act, 1947: Another important point of disagreement is that the conclusion of the merger treaty violated the Manipur State Constitution Act of 1947. Before the signing of the merger agreement, Manipur had already adopted its own written constitution and a partially democratic government was already functioning. Under the new Constitution and the new government, the Maharajah was a mere head of constitution with the true sovereign authority entrusted to the Ministry of the People. It is therefore important to examine the power and status of the Maharaja under the Manipur Constitution Act of 1947. India attempted to interfere in Manipur`s internal affairs even before the formal declaration of independence in 1947. Indeed, the signing of the accession instrument and the status quo agreement on 11 August 1947 marked the beginning of the conflict between Manipur and India.
By signing these two agreements, Manipur had virtually ceded its external sovereignty to India. In addition, the internal autonomy of the Manipurs has been largely eroded under the accession instrument and the status quo agreement. The legality or illegality of the two agreements is another matter entirely. But the signing of these two agreements did not lead directly to the total usurpation of democratic space in Manipur. Despite the signing of the accession instrument and the status quo agreement, Manipur was allowed to adopt its own constitution and establish a partially democratic government, elected on the basis of the Universal Adult franchise. This is the reason why the accession instrument and the status quo agreement are not considered to be the main causes of the ongoing conflict.