I sometimes wonder if the geographical location of Manipur had been different, could Manipur be of a different destiny. I guess up, at the risk of being dubbed as too much speculative and ingenious by the critics! Had Manipur been endowed with a shoreline or ocean outlet, would Manipur have fared as to become a Bangladesh or Singapore- for the sake of comparison!

Well it’s an imagination with ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ with respect to the political fortune of Manipur in the wider, say international, arena. But it’s surely a talk of geo-strategic concerns of academic and general interests, I would venture to say. If there is a discipline or subject such as Philosophy or Psychoanalysis, why is there no application to a territorial concept as Manipur! We need not wait for some other person or a man from the West to develop another subject as relatively new as Anthropology, Semantology or so. We can discover our own way or theme to discuss our issues in an interesting way that matters with our future and identity. 

Let’s come this way that Manipur is comparatively a small State. Small is Beautiful. Small is also limited by itself- especially when geo-strategically constrained. How Manipur could have been different as to become an East Timor or Sri Lanka. They have sea and ocean outlets which made them possible to wage war or to struggle for national independence successfully. It is a discussion over the vanished opportunities of Manipur from the perspectives and paradigm of political economy and political history, thereby making a comparative study of small states and nations. This is what this discussion is all about.

It will, how I wish, make the analysts and those concerned about Manipur to decide over the possibilities vis-à-vis the reality. Do the think-tank (if at all such had been so) in the strategic point of view ever thought or concentrated on the implications of sea outlets. Or that they have not seen a sea or ocean in real life and even if some of them did see, they just forget or had no idea at all to apply it on Manipur. This dearth of water-lane is, in my view, the single most damaging constraint to the destiny of Manipur and her sovereignty was lost, as the natives had no way to dispel, from the sea, alien invasion or incursion into Manipur as they could have resorted to sea- warfare or tactically withdraw and pull out to the sea, in times of distress, as defensive measure; or they could have gone for help from friendly lands or countries- in Manipur’s chequered history. 

Manipur simply could not establish foreign relations with the outside world as – 
(I) Manipur was a landlocked country between India and Burma, and
(II) Manipur had no sea route to go international. 

In the limited geo-strategic thinking, analysts might have thought that Manipur is well placed geographically, from a defense point of view, as the land was well guarded by nine ranges of hill. But these positive factors are dwarfed by the negative factors. After all, the Avas (Burmese) - several times and latest during 1819-26, then British (1891-1945) made inroads into Manipur to subjugate her peoples. Manipur too invaded Burma many times of course. Thereafter Manipur was compelled, by circumstances, to join the Indian Union though very reluctantly with the result that Manipur now is a small Northeast state of India, instead of being a sovereign nation in South East Asia.

Small nations like the Netherlands, Portugal and Britain earned their place in history as some of the most successful nations in the comity of world nations, establishing colonies in far off lands among others, because of the sea outlet and whole world of opportunities made possible by it. These nations faced the rough seas and overcame a barrier of sea-wall to prepare themselves as the most adventurous, toughest, most creative and enterprising nations. They sailed to far off lands and high seas to collect products- raw materials, natural resources, mineral deposits, fish, precious under-sea minerals and other resources, with which they built powerful nations and prosperous peoples themselves. 

Given the courage, the sports achievements in world arena, overall confidence- to cite some examples- which the Manipuris have exhibited all along history, this state could have been like the Netherlands or Portugal at least in some semblance. The importance of airspace and airplanes was not there yet in those ages of decisive developments. If Manipur could have been different in terms of sovereignty and relations among the independent nations, Manipur could have seen such facilities as well. This has the risk of being a too far-fetched assumption but the topic is essentially about the Idea of Manipur.

As A.C. Kapoor says, “Land, water and airspace within the defined territorial area comprise the territory of the state. It embraces the geographical limits of the state, its rivers and lakes, natural resources it has and the air space above. Generally, the territorial limits of a state extend to a distance of three miles (4.4 kilometers) of the sea from the coast, though in practice the maritime jurisdiction is sought to be extended further by the states.

As a result of the extensive developments in aviation, radio communication and space-flights, the importance of the territorial sovereignty of the States over the air-space has, during recent times assumed a vital role” (Principles of Political Science, 1997). These corroborate to the theory that the essential elements of a State are not limited to- land (territory), people (population), government, sovereignty and international recognition. In many ways, the status and destiny of a land is determined by the nature of the landscape which may be the nature of terrain, hilly or desert landscape, sea-lane, availability of resources etc.

The positive aspects or ingredients of Manipur and her peoples may be as:
1. Cultural advancement and civilization
2. Flora and fauna
3. Patriotism and sportsmanship

The negative factors or the dearth of elements may be as:
1. Territorial- landscape and water-lane disadvantage
2. Lack of mineral and economic resources
3. Almost non-existence of the industrial sector
4. Lack of rapport and connection in the international arena of nations.

Other determining factors can be listed as:
5. Political outlook and versatility
6. Intellectual culture
7. Art of public opinion

Lord Acton, the political theorist and philosopher, while summing up the defects of small states, says that they (small states) “isolate and shut off their inhabitants, to narrow the horizon of their view; and to dwarf in some degree the proportion of their ideas. Public opinion cannot maintain its liberty and purity in small dimensions, and the currents that come from large communities sweep over a contracted territory…These states, like the minute communities of the Middle Ages, serve a purpose, by constituting partitions and securities of self-government in the larger states but they are impediments to the progress of society, which depends on the mixture of races under the same government”. 

This corroborates to the observation that the hill terrains and absence of sea-route limited the world view of the Manipuris; they limited their vision, learning and appreciation of diversities and differences with respects to cultural notions, civilizational perspectives, trading relations, racial make-up, outside and overseas experience- in the formative years of cultural diffusion. The strength and tenacity of Manipuris, on the other hand, lie in the capacity of its culture to absorb outside influence, culture and religious components to make its local civilization and culture all the more versatile, flexible and sustaining- sometimes taking in the shock-waves without giving away anything. 

The incoming and acceptance of Vaishnav Hinduism by the Meiteis did not evaporate or vanquish the local faiths as Sanamahi, Leimarel and Pakhangba; it rather enriched Meitei culture- with Hinduism and local religion intermingling and living in blissful synthesis- to the extent that Meitei is identifiable with Hindu without any problem or schism.

What could have been desirable! The state, in brief, must be viable or capable of maintaining a separate independent existence. This can be possible only if it has adequate area and resources to support the increasing population and adequately meet the needs of defense and an efficient administration. The modern demands for an efficient and up-to-date defense and administration are ever growing and consume a pretty big-slice of the resources of all states.

Then population size must fit together and cohere with the landscape. Considering the classical definition of a state and its ingredients, thinkers gave many accounts as how the population and the state to be like. No limit like the population can be put on the territory of the state, although opinion has differed on the political utility of a small and big state. 

Plato drew an analogy between the stature of a well-formed man and the size of a normal state. Aristotle was also favorably inclined towards the state of a moderate size of a well-governed state. He maintained that in general “a small State is proportionately stronger than a large one”. Montesquieu said that there is necessary relation between the sizes of the state the form of government best adapted to it.

(The author is a former Senior Researcher at the Center for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and hails from Manipur State, India)