Anglo-Manipur War#Legacy

{{Short description|1891 Armed Conflict Between Manipur Kingdom and British }}

{{Infobox military conflict

| conflict = Military Expedition of 1891
Manipur Rebellion of 1891

| partof =

| image = kangla3.jpg

| caption = The sculptures of two dragons in front of the Kangla Palace were destroyed during the war.

| date = 31 March – 27 April 1891

| place = Kingdom of Manipur

| casus =

| territory =

| result = British victory, Meidingngu Churachand declared as king

| combatant1 =

{{flagcountry|British Raj}}

| combatant2 = 22px Kingdom of Manipur

| commander1 = {{flagicon|British Raj}} Lord Lansdowne
{{flagicon|British Raj}} Major General H. Colle

| commander2 = 22px Maharajah Kulachandra Singh{{POW}}
22px Jubraj Tikendrajit{{Executed}}

| strength1 = +395
2 mountain guns
350 rifles{{Cite journal |date=14 August 1891 |title=The London Gazette |url=https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/26192/page/4369 |journal=The London Gazette |issue=26192 |pages=4369–4372 |quote=As Captain Drury had only 100 rifles of the 2-4th Gurkha Regiment, 50 rifles of the 12th (Burma) Madras Infantry, and 44 mounted infantry of the 12th (Burma) Madras Infantry with him, and as I did not think this force strong: enough for the purpose, I ordered two guns of No. 2 Mountain Battery and 200 rifles of the 2-4th Gurkha Regiment, the whole under the com- mand of Captain Rundall, 2-4th Gurkha Regi- ment, to reinforce Captain Drury. Captain Rundall, on arrival at the scene of action, placed his guns on a hill about 1,000 yards from the entrenchment, and commenced to shell it.|via=thegazette.co.uk}}

| strength2 = +3,200
2 mountain guns

| casualties1 = 4{{KIA}}
15{{WIA}}

| casualties2 = +178{{KIA}}
5{{executed}}

| campaignbox =

}}

The Anglo-Manipur War{{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 |jstor=26906278 |issn=2249-1937}} or Manipuri Rebellion of 1891{{sfnp|Majumdar, Rebellion in Manipur, 1891|1960}}{{sfnp|Aitchison, Treaties|1931|loc=pp. 134–135: "While the Manipuris called the British action 'treachery' because they interfered in the internal affairs of an independent kingdom, the latter termed the events of 1891 as 'rebellion'."}}{{sfnp|Lee-Warner, The Protected Princes of India|1894|loc=p. 175: 'The proclamation ended thus: "The subjects of the Manipur state are enjoined to take warning by the punishments inflicted on the above-named persons found guilty of rebellion and murder".'}} was a short armed conflict between the British Colonial Forces and the dissenting royal princes of Manipur Kingdom, which was arguably a dependency of the British Empire in India. The conflict began with a palace coup staged by the general (Senapati) of Manipur, ousting its reigning king, and installing a half-brother, the heir-apparent, in his place. The British government took objection to the action and attempted to arrest the general. The effort failed, with the Manipuri forces attacking the British residency and the resident and other British officials getting executed. The British launched a punitive expedition that lasted from 31 March to 27 April 1891. The general and other rebels were arrested and convicted. The British conquered Manipur and did not annex it under British India but governed it as a princely state till 1947.{{harvp|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011|loc=p. 46: "Dramatic changes in the socioeconomic realm, political policy, institutional set up and governance of the state were brought in after Manipur lost her sovereignty in the Anglo-Manipuri War of 1891. At the politico-administrative outset, a rigor of deliberations among the colonial policy makers on the political fate of the state, finally concluded to refrain from direct annexation under the British India and instead introduced the rule of British paramountcy. The period of British paramountcy in Manipur can be studied under the two inter-related phases: (a) The Rule of Superintendency 1892-1907. (b) Indirect Native Rule 1907-1947."}}{{Cite book |last=Lokendra |first=N. |title=The Unquiet Valley: Society, Economy, and Politics of Manipur (1891-1950) |date=1998-01-01 |publisher=Mittal Publications|pages=35–38 |isbn=978-81-7099-696-5 |language=en}}

Background

In the First Anglo-Burmese War, the British helped prince Gambhir Singh regain his kingdom of Manipur, which had been heretofore occupied by the Burmese.{{citation |title=Self-determination movement in Manipur |last=Sharma |first=Hanjabam Shukhdeba |publisher=Tata Institute of Social Sciences/Shodhganga |year=2010 |hdl=10603/2710 |url=http://hdl.handle.net/10603/2710 |at=[https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/jspui/bitstream/10603/2710/11/11_chapter%203.pdf Chapter 3]}} Subsequently, Manipur became a British protectorate. This was certainly the British view,{{sfnp|Lee-Warner, The Protected Princes of India|1894|loc=pp. 171–172: "Although the British connexion with the state had been established soon after the battle of Plassey, it was not until the conclusion of the Treaty of Ava in 1826 by Lord Amherst that Manipur was included in the protectorate.... British intercourse with the principality was confined to the formal admission of subordination by the rulers of Manipur, and to periodical intervention for the suppression of usurpers or for the banishment of relatives dangerous to the stability of the Maharaja's rule."}} and is also acknowledged by several scholars.

{{citation |last=Phanjoubam |first=Pradip |title=The Northeast Question: Conflicts and frontiers |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OxStCwAAQBAJ |year=2015 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-317-34004-1 |pages=3–4 |quote="After comprehensively defeating the Burmese in 1826 in Assam and Manipur, and the signing of the Treaty of Yandabo, the British annexed Assam, but allowed Manipur to remain a protectorate state."}}

{{citation |first=Pum Khan |last=Pau |year=2012 |title=Tedim Road—The Strategic Road on a Frontier: A Historical Analysis |journal=Strategic Analysis |volume=36 |number=5 |pages=776–786 |doi=10.1080/09700161.2012.712387 |quote=Manipur then became a British protectorate although final annexation was only to take place in 1891.}}

{{citation |last=Wahengbam |first=P. |chapter=Colonisation of Manipur: Cause, Process, Native Resentment and Resistance |title=Tribe-British Relations in India: Revisiting Text, Perspective and Approach |editor=Maguni Charan Behera |publisher=Springer Nature |year=2021 |isbn=9789811634246 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kZJCEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA264 |pages=264–265 |quote=The British authorities felt that Manipur would hardly stand independently without their 'benevolent' help. Gradually, they began to take Manipur as a protectorate state.}}

From 1835, the British stationed a Political Agent in Manipur,

{{Cite ODNB |last=Reynolds |first=K. D. |title=Grimwood [née Moore; other married name Miller], Ethel Brabazon [pseud. Ethel St Clair Grimwood] (1867–1928), the heroine of Manipur |url=https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-101006 |year=2010 |doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/101006|isbn=978-0-19-861412-8 }} and succession arrangements were settled by the British Government of India.{{sfn|Guite, One Event, Two States|2015|loc=p. 232: "[The Chief Commissioner of Assam] argued that since the succession law of the state was settled by the GoI in the form of primogeniture it had ‘removed any check on oppression’ by the ruling class which the people had hitherto enjoyed."}}

However, there was no treaty between the British and Manipur confirming these arrangements.{{sfnp|Majumdar, British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Part I|2002|loc=pp. 732–733: "[The Treaty of Yandabo] leaves vague and undefined the exact status of the Manipur State, and there is no subsequent treaty to indicate that it was a vassal State, either of Burma or of the British."}} Consequently, the Manipuris tended to regard themselves as an independent state.{{sfnp|Majumdar, British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Part I|2002|loc=pp. 728–729: "It was pointed out on behalf of the accused that Manipur was an independent State and the British had no right to attack the house of Tikendrajit in order to arrest him."}}

{{citation |last=Lokendra |first=N. |title=The Unquiet Valley: Society, Economy, and Politics of Manipur (1891-1950) |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6FXEEd2muZoC |year=1998 |publisher=Mittal Publications |isbn=978-81-7099-696-5 |pages=26–27 |quote=Legally, however, Manipur never acknowledged the suzerainty of the British Government.}}

{{efn|The British position was stated by the Viceroy of India as follows: "Manipur is a subordinate Native State. We rendered it independent of Burma. We have recognized succession in Manipur and have asserted suzerainty in many ways; and Manipur ruling family have repeatedly acknowledged their position of dependence.".{{sfnp|Majumdar, British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Part I|2002|pp=728–729}}}}

In 1890, the reigning Maharaja was Surachandra Singh. His half-brother Kulachandra Singh was the jubraj (heir apparent){{efn|From Sanskrit yuvarāja, also spelt yubraj or jubraj in the northeast India.}} and another half-brother Tikendrajit Singh was the military commander (senapati). Frank Grimwood was the British Political Agent.

Tikendrajit is said to have been the most able of the three siblings, and was also friendly with the Political Agent. According to historian Katherine Prior, the British influence depended on the military aid they had provided to the ruling family, which had dried up in the 1880s, leading Tikendrajit to doubt the value of British alliance.

Historian Jangkhomang Guite states the British annexation of Upper Burma reduced the strategic importance of Manipur. They contemplated introducing reforms in the administration of Manipur, such as abolition of slavery and reform in trade, but, according to Guite, Tikendrajit stood in their way.{{sfnp|Guite, One Event, Two States|2015|pp=232–233}}

Coup and rebellion

File:AssamProvince1936 Map.png

On 21 September 1890, Tikendrajit Singh led a palace coup, ousting Maharaja Surachandra Singh and installing Kulachandra Singh as the ruler. He also pronounced himself as the new jubraj.{{efn|It is reported that Kulachandra Singh was absent at the time of the coup. So his role in the affair is not clear.{{sfnp|Lee-Warner, The Protected Princes of India|1894|pp=171–172}}}} Surachandra Singh took refuge in British residency, where Grimwood assisted him to flee the state. The Maharaja had given the impression that he was abdicating the throne but, after reaching the British territory in the neighbouring Assam Province, he recanted and wanted return to the state. Both the Political Agent and the Chief Commissioner of Assam, James Wallace Quinton, dissuaded him from returning.{{sfnp|Temple, The Manipur Bue-Book|1891|p=918}}

Surachandra Singh reached Calcutta and appealed to the Government of India, reminding the British of the services he had rendered.{{sfnp|Temple, The Manipur Bue-Book|1891|p=918}} On 24 January 1891, the Governor-General instructed the Chief Commissioner of Assam to settle the matter by going to Manipur:

{{blockquote|The Governor-General in Council thinks that you should visit Manipur, for the avowed purpose of making, and, if necessary, enforcing, a decision on the merits of the case. You should probably have with you a sufficient force to overcome the conspirators. It is probable that a very small body of troops would be enough, and that sufficient numbers could be taken from Cachar or Kohima.{{sfnp|Temple, The Manipur Bue-Book|1891|pp=918–919}}}}

The Chief Commissioner Quinton persuaded the Government in Calcutta that there would be no use trying to reinstate the Maharaja. This was agreed, but the Government wanted the Senapati Tikendrajit Singh disciplined.{{harvp|Temple, The Manipur Bue-Book|1891|p=919}}: "The Regent Juberaj is to understand that if he is recognised as Maharaja this recognition is to be owing to the will of the British Government, and not to the successful rebellion of his brother the Senapati—in other words, he is to reign as the vassal of the British Paramount, and not as the puppet of his strong-minded brother the Senapati."

Quinton arrived in Manipur on 22 March 1891, with an escort of 400 Gurkhas under the command of Colonel Skene. The plan was to hold a Darbar in the residency with the erstwhile jubraj Kulachandra Singh (now regarded as the Regent) attending along with all the nobles, where a demand would be made to surrender the senapati. The Regent came to attend the Darbar, but the senapati did not. Another attempt was made the next day which was also unsuccessful.{{harvp|Temple, The Manipur Bue-Book|1891|pp=919–920}} (Government of India's report to the Secretary of State in London) Quinton ordered the arrest of senapati in his own fort, which was evidently repulsed and the residency itself was besieged. Finally Quinton went on to negotiate with Tikendrajit, accompanied by Grimwood, Skene and other British officers. The talks failed and while returning, the British party was attacked by an "angry crowd". Grimwood was speared to death. The others escaped to the fort. But during the night the crowd led them out and executed them, Quinton included.{{Cite ODNB |last=Prior |first=Katherine |title=Quinton, James Wallace (1834–1891), administrator in India |url=https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-22968 |year=2004 |doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/22968|isbn=978-0-19-861412-8 }}{{efn |According to the Manipur State Archives, they were executed upon the orders of Tikendrajit Singh.}}

According to later accounts, Quinton had proposed to Kulachandra Singh a cessation of all hostilities and his return to Kohima (in Naga Hills to the north of Manipur). Kulachandra and Tikendrajit regarded the proposals as deception.{{cite web |url=http://archivesmanipur.nic.in/whoswho.htm |title=The Anglo Manipur War 1891 and its Consequences |work=Manipur State Archives |date=19 January 2012 |access-date=8 June 2015}}

The surviving British troops besieged in the residency were led out by two junior officers in the dead of night, along with Frank Grimwood's wife Ethel Grimwood. It was a disorganised retreat. But they were met in the forests by a relief party arriving from Cachar and were rescued. The Residency was set on fire soon after their departure.{{sfnp|Temple, The Manipur Bue-Book|1891|p=921}}{{sfnp|Tarapot, Bleeding Manipur|2003|p=133}}

Ethel Grimwood, the only woman in the retreat from the residency was later lionised as a heroine of the "Manipur Disaster" when she returned to Britain. She received a medal, £1,000, and a civil list pension. She later wrote her biography. According to scholar K. D. Reynolds, her contribution is unclear, but a hero was required and Ethel became that hero.

War

File:Action by Lt CJW Grant, VC, 1891.jpg, during the action at Thoubal, on 1 April 1891.|280px]]

On 27 March 1891, news of the executions reached the British forces stationed at Tamu (a Burmese town on the border with Manipur). Lieutenant Charles James William Grant took the initiative to lead a contingent of 50 soldiers of the 12th (Burma) Madras Infantry and 35 members of the 43rd Gurkha Regiment, to handle the situation.{{London Gazette

| issue = 26192

| date = 14 August 1891

| page = 4370

}}

On 31 March 1891, the Tamu column seized the village of Thoubal after ousting an 800-man Manipuri garrison. On 1 April, 2,000 Manipuri soldiers accompanied by two guns laid siege to the village, Grant's troops repelled numerous attacks during the course of nine days. On 9 April, the Tamu column retreated from Thoubal in order to join the other columns, after being reinforced by 100 rifles led by Captain Presgrave of the 12th (Burma) Madras Infantry. Manipur forces suffered heavy casualties during the engagement at Thoubal while the British lost one soldier dead and four wounded.{{London Gazette |issue=26192 |page=4372 |date=14 August 1891}}Ahmad 2006, pp. 62–65.

While the Tamu column was engaged in Thoubal, orders were sent to Kohima (in Naga Hills) and Silchar (in Cachar) to send expeditionary forces to Manipur. The Kohima column was launched on 20 April, encountering no resistance apart from coming under rifle fire four days later. On 21 April, the Silchar column reached Thoubal, the next day the Tamu column clashed with Manipur troops outside Pallel, after the latter pursued the British troops, the Manipuris were once more pushed back.On 23 April, Manipur troops led by Poila Meiraba met the British troops at Kakching where Meiraba was killed in action along with 20 soldiers.{{Cite book|last1=Siṃha|first1=Niṃthaukhoṃjama Khelacandra|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LYgeAAAAMAAJ&q=Wangkhei+Meiraba+poila|title=The Battle of Khongjom|date=1983|publisher=N. Khelchandra Singh|language=en}}

On 25 April, British scouts encountered 500 Manipuri soldiers on the Khongjom hillock in the vicinity of Pallel.This battle is popularly known as Khongjom Battle being the last battle of Anglo Manipur War.{{Cite book |last1=Dena |first1=Lal |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vVluAAAAMAAJ&q=khongjom+battle |title=History of Modern Manipur, 1826-1949 |date=1991 |publisher=Orbit Publishers-Distributors |page=65 |language=en}} 350 infantrymen, 44 cavalry and 2 guns mounted an assault on the remainder of the Manipur army. Hand-to-hand fighting ensued, 2 British soldiers were killed and 11 were severely injured, while the Manipuri lost over 128 men including the death of high-ranking officials such as Major Paona Brajabasi, Heirang Kongja and Chinglensana.{{Cite book |last=Datta |first=Amaresh |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ObFCT5_taSgC&q=death+of+Paona+brajabashi+on+khongjom+battle |title=Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature: A-Devo |date=1987 |publisher=Sahitya Akademi |isbn=978-81-260-1803-1 |page=349 |language=en}}{{better source needed|date=April 2021}}

On 27 April 1891, the Silchar, Tamu and Kohima columns united, capturing Imphal after finding it deserted. The Union Jack was hoisted above the Kangla Palace, 62 native loyalists were freed by the British troops. On 23 May 1891, Tikendrajit Singh was detained by British authorities On 13 August 1891, five Manipuri commanders including Tikendrajit were hanged for waging war against the British Empire, Kulachandra Singh along with 21 Manipuri noblemen, who received sentences of property forfeiture and transportation for life. Manipur underwent a disarmament campaign, 4,000 firearms were confiscated from the local population.

On 22 September 1891, the British placed the young boy Meidingngu Churachand on the throne.

Legacy

Ethel Grimwood was given £1,000, a pension and the Royal Red Cross (despite having no links to nursing). British participants of the Manipuri expedition received the North East Frontier clasp for the India General Service Medal. Colonel Charles James William Grant also received the Victoria Cross, for his actions during the battle of Thoubal.{{cite web |url=http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/collection/watson/page382.html?sf_function=print |title=India General Service Medal (1854–1895), with bar for N. E. Frontier 1891, awarded to Subadar Jangbir Rana, 1892 |work=Fitzwilliam Museum |access-date=8 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150611015018/http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/coins/collection/watson/page382.html?sf_function=print |archive-date=11 June 2015 |url-status=dead}} In 2021, the medal was auctioned along with other collectible items for an estimated sum of £420,000.{{Cite news |date=2021-06-23 |title=Victoria Cross soldier's medals sell for £420k |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-devon-57581600 |access-date=2021-06-27}}

13 August is commemorated yearly as "Patriots Day" in Manipur, with remarks to honour the Manipuri soldiers that lost their lives during the war. Tikendrajit Singh's portrait is included in the National Portrait Gallery inside the House of the People in New Delhi. 23 April is also observed as the "Khongjom Day", marking the occasion of the battle of Khongjom.{{cite web |url=http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080609/jsp/guwahati/story_9384736.jsp |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150611021817/http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080609/jsp/guwahati/story_9384736.jsp |url-status=dead |archive-date=11 June 2015 |title=Tourism discovers Khongjom – Ibobi wants war cemetery developed into tourist spot |work=Calcutta Telegraph |date=13 August 2014 |access-date=8 June 2015}}{{cite web |url=http://manipuronline.com/features/august-13-patriots-day-freedom-they-lost-but-love-of-freedom-they-retained/2014/08/13 |title=August 13: Patriots' Day "Freedom They Lost, But Love Of Freedom They Retained" |work=Manipur Online |date=13 August 2014 |access-date=8 June 2015}}

Notes

References

Bibliography

Ahmad, Maj Rifat Nadeem, and Ahmed, Maj Gen Rafiuddin. (2006). Unfaded Glory: The 8th Punjab Regiment 1798–1956. Abbottabad: The Baloch Regimental Centre.
{{citation |editor-first=C. U. |editor-last=Aitchison |title=A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries |volume=XII |location=Calcutta |publisher=Government of India, Central Publication Branch |year=1931 |url=https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.235895 |via=archive.org |ref={{sfnref|Aitchison, Treaties|1931}}}}
{{cite book |author=Sudhirkumar Singh |publisher=Jawaharlal Nehru University |year=2011 |hdl-access=free |title=Socio-religious and Political Movements in Modern Manipur |pages=46–49 |hdl=10603/121665 |ref={{sfnref|Sudhirkumar Singh, Socio-religious and Political Movements|2011}}}}
{{cite journal |last1=Guite |first1=Jangkhomang |title=One Event, Two States |journal=Indian Historical Review |volume=42 |issue=2 |year=2015 |pages=226–260 |issn=0376-9836 |doi=10.1177/0376983615597381 |ref={{sfnref|Guite, One Event, Two States|2015}}}}
{{citation |last=Lee-Warner |first=Sir William |title=The Protected Princes of India |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GciCSpe1OOMC&pg=PA171 |year=1894 |publisher=Macmillan and Company |ref={{sfnref|Lee-Warner, The Protected Princes of India|1894}}}}
{{citation |first=R. C. |last=Majumdar |chapter=Rebellion in Manipur, 1891 |title=Indian Historical Records Commission, Proceedings Volume XXXV, Part II |publisher=Manager of Publications, Government of India |year=1960 |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/dli.csl.1797/page/n140 |via=archive.org |ref={{sfnref|Majumdar, Rebellion in Manipur, 1891|1960}}}}
{{citation |editor-last=Majumdar |editor-first=R. C. |title=British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Part I |series=History and Culture of Indian People |volume=IX |publisher=Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan |year=2002 |orig-date=1963 |edition=4th |url=https://archive.org/details/britishparamount09bhar/page/670 |via=archive.org |ref={{sfnref|Majumdar, British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Part I|2002}}}}
{{citation |last=Tarapot |first=Phanjoubam |title=Bleeding Manipur |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FsUJ0E3BXkMC |year=2003 |publisher=Har-Anand Publications |isbn=978-81-241-0902-1 |ref={{sfnref|Tarapot, Bleeding Manipur|2003}}}}
{{citation |last=Temple |first=Richard |title=The Manipur Blue-Book |journal=The Contemporary Review |volume=59 |date=June 1891 |pages=917–924 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vToeAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA917 |id= |via= |ref={{sfnref|Temple, The Manipur Bue-Book|1891}}}}