COLONIALISM AND THE PRINCELY STATE OF MANIPUR

Author(s): Miranda Bembem Mutuwa

Source: Proceedings of the Indian History Congress , 2018-19, Vol. 79 (2018-19), pp. 448-456
Published by: Indian History Congress

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26906278

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian History Congress is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Proceedings of the Indian History Congress

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 COLONIALISM AND THE PRINCELY STATE
OF MANIPUR: CREATION OF MODERN
URBAN SPACE IN NORTH EAST INDIA
Miranda Bembem Mutuwa
Delhi

Starting from the time of East India Company and later during the rule
of the Crown, Manipur was central to the British Imperial vision of expansion
to the east in China.1 In the course of nineteenth century, the British had
also realised its strategic geographical location as a buffer zone, between the
British and Burma. In 1835, an office of British Agency was set up in Manipur
as a sign of friendship between the British and Manipur Kingdom whose
primary responsibility was to fend any disputes between the Kingdom of Ava
and Manipur. The relationship remained congenial and friendly until British
intervention in a palace dispute in 1891, leading to the Anglo- Manipur war.
This event in the history of Manipur marked the inception of British power
in Manipur. 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. By 1910, there
were about 680 native states which amount to 45% of total area of British
India.2 In the hierarchy of princely states, it was given the status of 11 gun
salute and remained a Princely state till 1947.
Between the period between 1891 and 1907, the state was under the
regency of Political Agent who acted as regent and superintendent of the state
until the minor Rajah was reinstated to the throne. This period saw major
changes in the administrative, economic and political policies of the state
which continued even after the transfer of the power to the native ruler.3 New
rules of administration were introduced while retaining some of old ones.4
Revenue payment by kind was replaced by cash payment when Patta system
was introduced in 1892.5 On 29th April 1892, on the occasion of Raja’s
installation, new cash based revenue system and taxation was introduced.6That
summer the political Agent, Max Maxwell issued numerous patta of around
1400 in the valley. British Raj monetary system was implemented in the
economy through various state institutions, new markets and entry of colonial
capitalist economy. In the early twentieth century the law and regulations of
the state was reformed. This paper attempts to trace these transformation in
economy and society on the urban space of Manipur, focusing on the ancient
capital city of Imphal. This paper is based on the premises that town and cities

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IHC: Proceedings, 79th Session, 2018-19 449

are “place of contact” where interaction between the coloniser and colonised
subject are maximum. Though the colonial policy affected the entire region
the emphasis of this paper will be on Imphal, a seat of power from where the
laws and policies were further diffused to the entire state.
One of the many aspects of colonial rule was the idea of development
and progress as represented by the process of urbanization. In the nineteenth
and twentieth century, colonial urbanisation all over British India was
changing the structures of cities. The North east frontiers of India was
considered lest urbanised region during the colonial period. A study on some
districts of East Bengal between 1872 and 1921 showed that the level of
urbanisation was as low as 2.5 percent.7Though on a smaller scale, the process
of colonial urbanization was reshaping the physical, economic and cultural
experiences of these urban spaces. During the colonial period, new towns and
cities developed primarily as administrative stations, military cantonments
and commercial centres in the North east frontier of British India. Towns like
Gauhati, Silchar and Shillong grew as administrative centres. New towns of
economic value were Dibrugarh, for it tea plantations and Digboi for its oil
reservoirs. Sylhet, Dimapur and Tinsukia developed as commercial centres.
Ancient capitals like Imphal and Agartala grew as the capital cities of native
states.
Imphal, the capital city of the Manipur Kingdom, grew out of Kangla
which was the seat of power. Like in any ancient city, the capital city was
the religious, cultural and political centre of the kingdom and the monarch
had a “demi- god” status in the society, often manifested in ceremonies and
rituals.8 In the aftermath of the Anglo- Manipur war, the process of reshaping
and restructuring the “spaces” was directed by the colonial concept of
security, segregation, subjugation and alienation. The capital city of ancient
and medieval Manipur was transformed to match the developments that took
place in neighbouring British India.
Kangla to Imphal: colonial urban development and spatial transformation
The origin of Imphal city was intricately interwoven with the ancient
walled-city Kangla. For most part of the ancient and medieval history of
Manipur, Kangla remained the capital of the Meitei monarchy. Located in
the heart of Imphal (city), Kangla was the capital of the Meitei Kingdom
established by the Ningthouja clan. Kangla had all the features of pre-modern
cities: presence of fort, citadel, palace, markets etc.9 As in other pre-modern
cities, the population concentrated near the seat of the ruling power or
authority; and hence, areas around the Kangla became densely populated than
the rest of the Valley. The conglomeration of these settlements including the
Kangla consisted what was to be Imphal- “yum” (houses) “phal” (to gather/
collect) which meant ‘collection of houses’.10 Earliest colonial description of

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
450 Modern India

Imphal with its walled fort, great moat, colour markets and polo ground etc.
was mentioned in the writings of administrators like R.B Pemberton (1834),
James Johnstone (1877) and E W Dun (1886).11
In the cosmology of Meitei belief system, the entire geography of
Manipur was imagined as a human organism: the Kobru hills in the northwest
was considered as the head, the three rivers - Imphal, Nambul and Iril - as
the main arteries, Loktak Lake as the pelvic zone, the delta of the big river at
Chindwin river at Myanmar beyond Sugnu Nongthong was the rectum. Kangla
was the navel of the body which was attached to the umbilical cord. Thus, the
ritual practices conducted in Kangla were supposed to keep the body of the
state in a condition of equilibrium and well-being.12 Kangla and later Imphal
can be termed what Gideon Sjoberg propounded as the ‘preindustrial city’
where, ‘the city is the seat of the key religious functionaries whose actions set
standards for the rest of the society’.13
Veena Oldenburg’s The Making of Colonial Lucknow 1856-1877,
alludes how colonial state dealt with recalcitrant state and how city was planned
in aftermath of revolt? Lucknow became British’s tamplet for reorganising
and planning a city where the city had to be safe, clean and loyal; and to
make it more conducive to control. She argued that the emerging colonial
morphology was to make the city more safe not particularly from outside but
from internal conspiracy and rebellion and sabotage.14 Similarly, immediately
after the defeat of Manipur Monarch in 1891, the Kangla fort was occupied
by the British troops and the nearby villages were evacuated and displaced.
A battalion and half of Gurkha Rifles were settled in Imphal to confront
any future uprising and to serve the new administration. In 1892, a military
cantonment was built within the fort complex. It was surveyed, demarcated
by brick pillars and protected with laws like the Cantonment Act, 1889 and
the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890.15 The Cantonment Act of 1889, introduced
rules on sanitation and prevention of diseases, prohibition of liquor and other
intoxicating drugs etc. The Cantonment also had its own jurisdiction and
was immune from all rules of the native state. The Cantonment Magistrate,
who was appointed by the Assam Government (local government) and was a
subordinate to the district magistrate or the sub -divisional magistrate was in
charge of cantonment.16 After the First World War, ‘Darrang Battalion’, raised
by Major C. Bliss with Captain Ostrechen and Monyifore in Dibrugarh, was
sent to replace the 123 Outram Rifles in Manipur and it permanently settled in
Manipur as the 4th Battalion of Assam Rifles, under the Assam government.17
The cantonment was enclosed within a much larger area on its western,
southern and eastern parts, which was called the British Reserve. The
boundary of the British Reserve was marked by 29 Pillars and covered
an area of 310 acres.18 Later, the total area under the British Reserve was

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IHC: Proceedings, 79th Session, 2018-19 451

1.83 square miles. It included Kangla, Pologround, the British Residency,

Johnstone School, the Cantonment and the markets- old and new ones. The
southern border included Babupara; on the northern borders it covered areas
hillock of Chingmeirong. Towards the eastern side, the British Reserve’s
border extended from Porompat and covered the areas along the Imphal River.
On 16th May, 1907, the area was brought under British jurisdiction and was
exempted from the laws of the state which continued till 1949.19 By 1912-13,
the old city had changed enormously in its topography and morphology: new
buildings like Jail building, Dak Bungalows, State and Hill Office, Education
Office, Civil Police Buildings, Medical office building, Palace Dispensary,
Civil Hospital and Veterinary Hospital had appeared20. New urban forms and
colonial economy were institutionalised within this British Reserve which
now occupied major part of pre-colonial city.
Except for the Raja and his relatives, Manipuris were prohibited from
entering the reserve except for entry to the bazaars.21 Within the reserve, no
Manipuris were allowed to hold land or reside unless they had the permission
of the Political Agent.22 Majority of the residents were British subjects
including Europeans, British subjects from other parts of British India who
were working under the colonial state or were merchants and traders. In other
words, all movements or access to the most important geographic landscape
of the Kingdom was regulated or rather restricted through these colonial
policies. The building of the cantonment and British reserve was a watershed
in the history of Manipur and Imphal.
Society and communities: demographic transformation.
Diversity in the demography, in terms of ethnicity and communities
gave Imphal a plural character. Such diversity which prevailed even in the
pre-colonial period was limited to the indigenous population of the Kingdom.
In the valley many of these migrants had assimilated to the Meitei identity
as a process of migration which started from the fifteenth century. However,
colonialism was a watershed in the demographic diversity of Imphal as other
communities from British India started to settle in Imphal. New population of
Marwari, Nepali, Punjabis and other communities were settled by the Colonial
authorities in Imphal and other parts of Manipur. . How this demographic
transformation shape the city? Despite the plurality why the city failed to have
a hybrid culture?
In this section, the paper argues that such issues were deep-rooted in
the way these communities were settled in the state. Similar to other towns and
cities in British India, the colonial urban development in Imphal was based on
racial segregation, security of military troops, sanitation and planning. The
British policy of “White colony” and “Black colony” was evident in the way
the British settled their officials and subjects. Whereas on one hand, the local

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
452 Modern India

population was ousted from the Reserve, the new population that the British
brought with them was settled within the Reserve where new colonies were
created for their settlement. For instance, Babupara, as the name suggests, was
a colony of clerks (Babus) working both for the state and the Government of
India. Most of the residents were from Bengal, Assam, United Province and
other parts of British India. Soon government quarters for these officials were
constructed on the site of newly cleared villages. The nomenclature used for
these locations like “para” or “bari” used by the colonial administration was
influenced by Bengali habits of classifying space, especially, in the city of
Calcutta. Colonial Calcutta was divided into a host of paras, to-a, tulis; all used
to distinguish localities, or blocks which residents themselves demarcated.
However, these boundaries were not legal or administrative categories, but
came from new usages.23.
These segregation of race was often justified by the colonial officials.
An official once commented in foreign department file:
Constant friction occurs between British subjects (Native of India) and
Manipuris when living alongside each other; the habits and customs of the
one displease the other, and moreover, the Native of India, as a stranger to
the country, never feels quite safe in the near neighbourhood of a Manipuri
who has the evil reputation of being an adept at burglary. Then later on, when
the raja attains the Gadi, the Political Agent will find it more convenient, on
local disturbance arising, to have all the British subjects over whom he is the
recognized guardian in a ring fence and not scattered throughout the thickly
populated capital.24
Thus, the Reserve was aimed to provide a so-called safe, healthy
and secure environment for British subjects, its troops and its administrative
functionaries. This was done by establishing urban amenities, planning the
town and introducing modern infrastructure and economic practice, however
by keeping the native people and local features at bay. The segregation of the
indigenous elements was accomplished by defining spaces and geographical
limits. Natural boundaries like rivers, streams and hills were used to outline
these demarcations. Such urbanization completely ignored the social and
cultural aspects of the land and it hardly incorporated any indigenous values.
Nearby villages like Yaiskul, Brahmapur (Bamon leikai), Wahengbam Leikai,
Wangkhei, Tangmeiband etc. which existed just adjacent to the new modern
urban centre maintained their traditional idea of space and remained unaffected
in their internal appearance. The interior functioning of their society and
culture followed the rural- traditional pattern. The city was divided in two
spheres: the indigenous space still occupied by the remnants of the pre-colonial
structures; and memories of festivals conducted around Kangla etc. and in the
structure of leikais (Mohallas). The other space was represented by the new

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IHC: Proceedings, 79th Session, 2018-19 453

buildings, roads, markets and institutions in Imphal. Such policies limited any
social or cultural interaction between the old and new communities and failed
to develop any hybrid culture.
Each group of the new population established monopoly in different
economic sphere. Bengalis and people from the Central Provinces in
administration as clerks and officials, Marwaris in trade and commerce and
the Nepalese/Gurkha in the Military. Concomitantly, very little scope of
employment were left for the indigenous population except with the elite and
educated classes. Creating a class and economic gap between the ‘natives’ and
‘foreigner’ under colonialism. Their curtailed access in the reserve not only
exclude them from the close interaction with the new communities, but it also
denied them access to their old urban spaces, except in some limited areas.25
The commercial areas, urban amenities and facilities for travellers made
the city more open and suitable for a new population of immigrants. Major
Maxwell in 1896 noted that the influx of foreigners exceeded the number of
posts available with the administration. This compelled the immigrants to take
up alternative jobs or travel to Burma or elsewhere.26.
Conclusion
In the early 20th century, Manipur under the ‘indirect rule’ came
in contact with colonial state. New administration and bureaucratic rules
transformed the economy and society both in the hill and valley. Under these
new rules, land revenue system and taxation were introduced; British Raj
monetary system was implemented in the markets; large number of labourers
and coolies were employed under the Imperial military during the First World
War as Labour Corps. New markets, commodities and population coerced
colonial economy into the traditional society. Manipur was completely
opened to colonial trade and the state was used as a source for rice, cattle and
timber production, and also as a new market for manufactured goods from
outside.
The ‘non-interference’ policy of the ‘indirect rule’ was not entirely
implemented in the case of Manipur as the religious and cultural centre was
transformed into a colonial urban space with creation of Cantonment and
British Reserve. With colonial urbanization, a new framework of cultural
domination, social control and governance was introduced in the urban areas.
This was achieved with the introduction of a modern system of education,
hospitals, municipalities, legal courts, press and other such institutions. These
institutions mostly catered to the colonial ideas of urbanization and “urbanity”.
Colonial capitalist economy was superimposed on these preindustrial society
and its traditional economy. The small scale industries was nabbed at the bud
with the domination of new manufactured goods. Economy was characterised
with diminution of industrial production, export of primary agriculture and

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
454 Modern India

forest products, and diminishing of traditional markets space etc. Characters

of colonial urban development of the big cities were visible in Imphal where
the urban spaces was transformed in meaning and materiality. Old urban
forms: morphology, governance, economy and communities were replaced by
new forms of ‘colonial’ modernity, transforming the space into what once can
called ‘scattered and selective’ urbanism.

Bibliography
Primary sources
 Administration Report of Manipur State 1889- 1940s
 Administration Report of Public Works Department, Assam 1907-1908, ASA
 Assam secretariat, foreign A, Feb 1893
 Foreign and Political Department, 1891- 1920, NAI
 Manipur Under British management 1891-1907, MSA
 Tour diary of Maxwell, dated 21st April 1896,MSRL
Secondary sources
 Arambam ,Lokendra, “Historical organization of public spaces: ritual theatre
state in pre-colonial Manipur.” in M.D Muthukumararswamy and Molly Kaushal
eds. Folklore, Public Sphere and Civil society( New Delhi : IGNCA,2004)
 Allen, B.C et al, Gazetteer of Bengal and North-east India (New Delhi: Mittal
Publication, reprinted 1979)
 Bhattacharya, M, Gazetteer of Mnaipur state ( Calcutta, 1960)
 Brown,R., Native State of Manipur,(Calcutta: office of superintendent of
Government press,1873)
 Cederlof, Gunnel, Founding an Empire on India’s North Eastern Frontiers,
1790-1840,(New Delhi: Oxford University Press
 Chattopadhyay, Swati, “Blurring Boundaries: The limits of “white Town” in
colonial Calcutta”, Journal of the society of architectural history, Vol. 59,no.2 (Jun
2000), pp.154-179
 Dena, Lal, “Some Anomalies of Colonial Rule,1891-1919” in Lal Dena ed.
History of Modern Manipur 1826-1949,(New Delhi: Mittal publication,1991)
 Dun, E. W, Gazetteer of Manipur, (New Delhi, Vivek Publication, reprinted
1975)
 Evans, Geoffrey and Anthony Brett-James, Imphal: A flower on Lofty Heights,
( London: Macmillan & co. ltd, 1964)
 Gangmumei Kabui, “Imphal-A short historical account” in Lal Dena ed,
History of Modern Manipur,(New Delhi: Orbit Publication,1991)
 Geertz, Clifford, Negara: The Theatre State in the nineteenth Century Bali,
(Princeton: Princeton University Press,1980).
 Hodson,T C, The Meitheis, (Delhi: Low price publication, 1908,2015)
 Howell.A.A, “Short account of land revenue in Manipur”, 1891, Manipur
State Archive.

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 IHC: Proceedings, 79th Session, 2018-19 455

 Iyer, Lakshmi, “Direct versus indirect Colonial rule in India: long term
consequences.”, The review of economic times and Statistics, Vol. XCII, number
4, Nov 2010, pp.694-713
 Johnstone, James, My experiences in Manipur and Naga Hills( London :
Sampson Low, 1896)
 Kidwai, Atiya Habeeb, “ Urban Atrophy in Colonial India”, in Indu Banga
ed.,The city in Indian history,( New Delhi: Manohar Publication, 2014)
 Mumford, Lewis, The City in History, ( Middlesex : Penguin books/ Secker
& Warburg, 1961)
 Parratt, John, Wounded Land: politics and identity in modern Manipur,(New
Delhi: Mittal Publication,2005)
 Pemberton, R. B, Report on The Eastern Frontier of British India. Gauhati:
Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, 1835, reprinted 1966
 Reid, Robert Reid, History of the frontier areas bordering on
Assam(1883-1941),1997, Guwahati: Spectrum
 Ramusack, Barbara,
 Shakespeare, J.W, History of Assam Rifles.(Gauhati: spectrum Publication)
 Singh, Khelchnadra, Sapamcha bheiya, S Rupoban singh eds. Kangla: the
ancient capital of Manipur( Imphal: Government of Manipur, 2006), pp 3-6
 Singh, N. Lokendra, The Unquiet Valley: society, economy and politics in
Manipur(1891-1950),(New Delhi; Mittal Publication)
 Sjoberg, Gideon, The pre- industrial City, ( New York: The free Press,1960)
 Singh, L. Gouragopal, Local Self Government in Manipur(1891-1981),
(Imphal: Ambika Press, 1990),

NOTES AND REFERENCES:

1. Gunnel Cederlof, Founding an Empire on India’s North Eastern

Frontiers,1790-1840,(New Delhi: Oxford University Press), p 10.
2. Lakshmi Iyer, “Direct versus indirect Colonial rule in India: long term
consequences.”, The review of economic times and Statistics, Vol. XCII,
number 4, Nov 2010, pp.694-713.
3. Foreign A, February 1893, nos. 78-79, ASA.
4. Manipur Under British management 1891-1907, p 2, MSA.
5. Manipur Under British management 1891-1907, p 2, MSA.
6. Manipur Under British management 1891-1907, p 9.
7. Atiya Habeeb Kidwai, “ Urban Atrophy in Colonial India”, in Indu Banga
ed.,The city in Indian history,( New delhi: Manohar Publication, 2014), 155.
8. For characteristics of “ ancient city”, “pre-industrial city” and “theatrical
state” see Lewis Mumford, The City in History, ( Middlesex : Penguin books/
Secker & Warburg, 1961); Gideon Sjoberg, The pre- industrial City, ( New

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
456 Modern India

York: The free Press,1960); and Clifford Geertz, Negara: The Theatre State
in the nineteenth Century Bali, (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1980).
9. Khelchnadra Singh, Sapamcha bheiya, S Rupoban singh eds. Kangla: the
ancient capital of Manipur( Imphal: Government of Manipur, 2006), pp 3-6.
10. T C Hodson, The Meitheis, (Delhi: Low price publication, 1908,2015), p
26.
11. For details see: James Johnstone, My experiences in Manipur and
Naga Hills( London : Sampson Low, 1896), 96-98, 133-135, E. W Dun,
Gazetteer of Manipur, (New Delhi, Vivek Publication, reprinted 1975), 97,
R. B Pemberton, Report on The Eastern Frontier of British India. Gauhati:
Department of Historical and Antiquarian Studies, 1835, reprinted 1966.
12. Lokendra Arambam, , “Historical organization of public spaces: ritual
theatre state in pre-colonial Manipur.” in M.D Muthukumararswamy and
Molly Kaushal Eds. Folklore, Public Sphere and Civil society, 2004 , 68.
13. Gideon Sjoberg, “ The preindustrial city”, in American Journal of
Sociology, Vol. 60, No. 5, World Urbanism (Mar., 1955), pp.438-445.
14. Veena Oldenburg, The Making of Colonial Lucknow, 1856-1877, ( Surrey:
Princeton University Press), xv.
15. Foreign Department Ext A proceedings August 1902, nos. 60-63.
16. The Cantonment Act, 1889(Act XIII of 1889), ( Madras: The Law Printing
House, 1910).
17. J.W Shakespear, History of Assam Rifles.(Gauhati: spectrum Publication),
177.
18. Foreign department, external A, 1907, NAI.
19. Ibid.
20. Annual Administration report of Manipur State 1912-1913.
21. Foreign department external A proceeding august 1907 no. 17, Letter by
J Shakespear, PA to Judicial secretary of Govt. of West Bengal and Assam ,
Shillong ,22nd Oct 1906.
22. Foreign department external A 1907,no.17.
23. Swati Chattopadhyay, “Blurring Boundaries: The limits of “white Town”
in colonial Calcutta”, Journal of the society of architectural history, Vol.
59,no.2 (Jun 2000), pp.154-179.
24. Foreign department external A proceeding august 1907 no. 17, NAI.
25. Lokendra Arambam, “Historical organization of public spaces: ritual
theatre state in pre-colonial Manipur.” in M.D Muthukumararswamy and
Molly Kaushal eds. Folklore, Public Sphere and Civil society (New Delhi :
IGNCA, 2004) 66.
26. Tour diary of Maxwell, dated 21st April 1896, MSRL.

This content downloaded from

103.226.184.237 on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 06:03:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms