Talk:Anglo-Manipur War

Paona Brajabasi

@Kautilya3: you removed Major Paona Brajabasi,Chinglensana,Heirangkonja saying I have added personal POV ignoring WP:NPOV but removing a major rank person of Manipur Kingdom which was killed in action from the article Anglo-Manipur War which is added with reliable source.It is a kind of vandalism.you can help improve but you should not removed vital person(Major rank soldier of Anglo Manipur War)blaming as personal POV. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added hero title because of the source I find.I even removed that.Is it fine now?🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have deleted it because it is WP:UNDUE. The MOS:LEAD should summarise the body. Whether something is mentioned in the lead or not depends on the significance, as determined by reliable sources. Right now, the lead is a simple introduction. Until the body is completed, it won't be possible to write the lead. Add your content to the body first and convince is about its significance. This is not something should edit war over. You are displaying the same kind of issues as you did last time.

I am also very unhappy that you have not learnt to put space after full-stops and commas. Please don't expect other people to come and clean it up for ever. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I am also very unhappy that you are also the same as in the past deliberately giving trouble to editor,instead of helping improve article in a friendly way based on the reliable sources given as reference,If you know so much about significant or not why don't you add it at appropriate place based on the various rules you mentioned.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 14:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Luwanglinux, This is not an acceptable edit. You have added content under existing citations, thereby making it appear as if your new content is verified by the old sources (such as Imperial Gazette). Do you see the problem?

Your new content is not verified by WP:HISTRS. Ballads are not history. So this reference to the supposed Khongjom heroes is not verified. Do you have a better source? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: yes there are many source like this list of journals [1] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a good WP:HISTRS.

• Guite, Jangkhomang (2015). "One Event, Two States". Indian Historical Review. 42 (2): 226–260. doi:10.1177/0376983615597381. ISSN 0376-9836.

Please use this from now on. If you can't get hold of a copy, please send me an email message and I can send it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Lets exercise restraint. Luwanglinux is a new user and hence will inevitably make mistakes, @Kautilya3: should try not to bite the newbies. @Luwanglinux: on the other hand ought to study the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Terms such as brave, immortal sacrifice, bravery and courage of their forefathers etc are not neutral and should be avoided. If you use good sources (e.g. academic journals, encyclopedias) and avoid using NPOV language the reader will still be able to understand that an act is heroic without it being said explicitly.--Catlemur (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Background section

Luwanglinux, that is too huge of an addition to the Background section. Several problems with it:

• Punctuation is still wrong. All commas and full stops should be followed by a space.
• Views should be attributed, just as Katherine Prior's view is attributed in the Background section right now.
• The considered view of the scholars is that Manipur was a British protectorate between 1824 and 1891. The fact that the British call it an 'independent state' here and there does not mean what we understand by it these days. Its status was similar to that of the Kingdom of Sikkim, where also rulers were deposed when they "misbehaved" from the British perspective.

I suggest that you write your content in your Sandbox (look for it at the top menu in your talk page or user page). Make sure that it is of sufficiently good quality before you think of inserting it here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Everytime you reverted my edit it was mainly beacause of a line or word independent state Manipur.Dude why is it so?.Manipur was independent state not included in british India until 1891.I even use block quote to keep it as it is without adding any exceptional.Don't play game with me I have seen background way longer than this in other article all these are from the journal you approved as good source.For the commas space you mentioned I will try to improve.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Catlemur has characterised you as a "new user" who makes mistakes. (I don't quite agree with the first part because you have been here long enough and have had plenty of disputes, but I do agree with the second part.) Not just mistakes, you also display a perennial disregard for Wikipedia policies, and edit war over pretty much everything. I would like to see you start using Sandbox for a start and fixing at least the punctuation errors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Its not even 1 year since I joined wikipedia its natural other would see me as newbie.Also you are very kind to pointed out my lacking in punctuating but you never ever sincerely helped me contrary to what Catlemur did when my article lack notable tone.The funny thing the way you claim punctuation wrong wrong I don't have any idea is it regarding spacing or grammatically.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I wrote All commas and full stops should be followed by a space.. You have not said that you needed any more explanation of it. Most people learn punctuation in the elementary school. Wikipedia is not an elementary school. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ahh Ok I will very carefully examine those space any other else. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Are we good now do you have any other disagreement except the punctuation part?🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Are we good now for what? I suggested that you create your text in your Sandbox and clean it up so that we can discuss it properly. Right now, it is far too chaotic. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

British protectorate

Pradip Phanjoubam writes:

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.

Whether it is a protectorate or not becomes clear only much later when historians look at an entire sequence of developments. The British rarely made it clear what relationship they envisaged. Nor were they consistent everywhere. If there are differing views among scholars, we have to state all of them as per WP:NPOV. But this is not the place to do it. That should be discussed in Manipur (princely state). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Manipur rule was sovereign lets consider authentic records from British directly here,citing that in 1855 The British Political Agent In Manipur exercised minimum influence clearly show who is the authority here.It was more like an embassy in today's modern world.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The same source has also said that succession law of the state was settled by the GoI in the form of primogeniture. If the succession issues were being decided by the British, full sovereignty did not exist. Moroever, it is over a successioon issue that this conflict has occurred. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Manipur was never consider a British India until 1891 this can be seen from the same source.what I quoted is direct words of British officer to be precise the viceroy of India as mentioned in the journal.I added no masala.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

"British protectorate" does not mean British India. The British had protectorates all over the world. That is an irrelevant point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

For your info the quoted word also don't say anything about full sovereign or not it mentioned about ending independence of Manipur I doubt independence of people and sovereign carry same meaning ...but the quoted lines stated Manipur not a state in India.Read the journal again this issue was from Tikendrajit being a threat to British influence in the state.This was a pre planned act.The only surprised thing was the execution of high ranking British officer in Manipur in 24 March 1891.The fact that rebellion against Maharajah Sur Chandra by Tikendrajit who was his blood brother was a cooked up and can be seen by any unbiased reader of the journal.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 08:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what this source can say about the issue. The term "protectorate" does not even appear in it. There is one occurrence of "independent existence", which is vague and can mean a variety of things. But the source does acknowledge that the British retained a say in the succession matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This specific journal consist most authentic records of British quoting their exact words at various place,your claim of British protectorate is vague now as Pradip Phanjoubam is a Manipur editor and writer.Without much research one Manipur writer claimed Khongjom Battle day to be 23th April He even got Doctorate for that thesis but the funny thing is it really contradicts with the London gazette reports of August 1891.I am repeating this again this time I have not added any assumption or my own analysis.Give it a rest🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 13:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this doesn't make sense. What if Pradip Phanjoubam is a Manipuri writer? His work is published internationally and has received plenty of citations. What he writes is pretty much common sense for any scholar of international relations. When an empire has a state reinstated by defeating an enemy, the reinstated state becomes automatically subsidiary. It is expected to show loyalty and gratitude and maintain friendly relations with the empire, irrespective of what the treaties or agreementss say. All this, Manipur did, until this particular conflict.

I recommended the Guite source, from among the ones you showed on Google scholar, for "Khongjom heroes". I pointed it out as being worthy of a HISTRS, because it is published in a peer-reviewed history journal instead of random web sites and snippet views etc. But you have now left Khongjom aside and latched on to something else. We don't give as much as space as you did for elaborate theories constructed by scholars. Only brief summaries are warranted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Back to the Background section

Thanks for recommending Guite source , I find more interesting part after reading it fully also I was surprised with the finding of those quoted remarks.Does it make any different now??? are you saying cause of Anglo Manipur war as mentioned in the one event two state is now not worthy of HISTRS ???? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Also m suprised the edit revert cycle was not because of being a british protectorate or not.According to WP:BRD reverting other edit just because you don't like a content is unacceptable(unjustified) Its more like for personal reason(not wikipedia guidelines or procedure) if one show ownership over an article..After all this is an encyclopedic article which need precise information which will help in making the article a better one.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, my very first objection was to the size of expansion. And, also the fact that views are not attributed. You need to focus carefully on the objections that are raised, and think about how to address them.

In the Background section itself, no more than 3-4 sentences can be given to Guite. However, given that this seems to be a lot more controversial than I had imagined, a later Commentaries section might be warranted. But once again, we can't give too much space to a single source. All sources need to be summarised in an WP:NPOV way. The fact that you find something "interesting" is not justification for giving it enormous WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

As in most article involving British Empire it mentioned causes, just like this First Anglo-Burmese War. So make changes you see fit insted of reverting but once again you are doubting a source which was notable in the HISTRS this specific one event two state use various other books and research work as its reference I will list it below

<list elided>

🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 18:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are plenty of citations. But there are no citations for the conspiracy theory that you cherry-picked and added:

The new policy which become fruitful after the annexation of upper Burma was to make the British Political Agent in Manipur the de facto power in Manipur and if possible to annex Manipur too. British government were merely waiting for an occasion to end Manipur's independence. British saw Tikendrajit as a possible threat to British influence in Manipur administration and wanted to remove this possible threat.

This stuff is the author's own speculation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is another scholar's summation:

It will be clear from the above circumstances that the entry of the British forces to the state of Manipur was due to the feuds and dissensions between the rival princes in their lust for power.

To completely ignore the rot in the Manipur royal house and blame it on the British for the ulterior motives (as Guite is doing) is not very convincing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok add that part too so that it can be in a sense neutral point of view.Since it happened in the past no one know for exact the cause why Maharajah colluded with the British residency.Is there really a coup or not since guite view the cup as a cooked up one base on his research...Manipur royal palace took help from British for first in the seven years devastation (occupied by burmese) time.Also from this quote

He was first accused of taking the administration of the state into his hands making the ‘lawful’ Maharaja a mere ‘puppet’; this is in a way was a war against the Queen Empress of India under colonial law. Second, he was accused of brutally torturing the people of Manipur. ‘His cruelties were’, the Viceroy latter remarked, ‘notorious’. In 1888, the Maharaja was advised to remove him from Manipur, which was however declined.

I doubt this is Guite personal view only. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 21:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Third, his character was painted to be a man of ‘infamous character’, ‘notoriously turbulent’, ‘disloyal ruffian’ and ‘a man who had always been hostile to the British influence’ If these defamation of Tikendrajit (who was a military commander) were only Guite personal you are right,But as far as Back in 1855 British wanted strong influence more like a ruler was an undeniable fact based on their conversation words 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 21:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, we don't know, do we? Since there are no citations whatsoever in the entire section, we have no idea what is factual and what is theory-building. Ibochou Singh, who gives copious citations to government records, mentions none of this. During the trials and executions etc. all kinds of stories got printed everywhere. He could have picked those up.

But the stuff you inserted into the page is clearly his theory, and overstates the evidence. If the British wanted to intervene more, that doesn't necessarily mean that they wanted to "end the independence". All over India, the British were intervening in princely states to varying degrees, but none of them got "ended" till 1947. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Lets clear one thing here although Manipur became a part of British India in 1891.comparision with other princely state situation or design by British at that time with manipur sitution is irrelevant,clear evidence is seen mentioning the word exception can be made...Trying to indulge in a state which they had little inference in internal affair like reforming law(which were existing there) there is absolute intention of meddling in administration which is possible when someone's independence( either full independence or partly independent) is removed.After all British were colonial expansionist at that time.No one know what is really agreed between Manipur and British since treaty of Yandaboo.After treaty of Yandaboo Manipur got or reclaimed kabaw valley,its hitorical fact.Burmese historian claim Manipur got independence after Treaty of Yandaboo(meaning they occupied Manipur before that).Manipur historians consider it as ally relationship with British and it was a common folk tale told among natives 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Also these lines again emphasize the term alliance

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.

🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Seeking Consensus

Austronesier You stated your revert was good faith,ok I won't revert or edit unless consensus is reached.I was trying to improve the article based on the current findings of the journal one event two states...the current background(causes) of Anglo Manipur war is very vague and different in a sense,now explain the part you want to improve or disagree with since this is from a reputable institution we need a consensus here .my edits contains detail of the five british officer executed in Manipur in 24 March 1891 and other vital parts ,is it the tone (notable tone) or other thing 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 14:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:BRD the WP:STATUSQUO should be maintained here until consensus is reached. Now coming to the content itself, paras upon paras for a single contentious theory shouldn't be there "cut it down" and find consensus here on what to include before you proceed to edit. Though ideally questions about sovereignty shouldn't be on this page it all unless absolutely pertinent to the issue at hand (which isn't apparent to me). Gotitbro (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Lets be clear again here, as per wikipedia rule removing well cited lines which uses WP:RS is consider vandalism.What do you mean by what to include before proceeding does it mean I have to insert what Kautilya agree only.(As per Wikipedia you can't remove content which are well referenced just because you don't like it).You seem to be the one disturbing status quo as I have told Kautilya or any can re edit what I added with reliable source.Even Kautilya only tag neutral point of view is not respected.Even he did not revert.Autronesier told this can be solve between a consensus of Kautilya and me.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw a WP:EDITWAR and restored the WP:STATUSQUO before the edit war started which is absolutely inline with Wikipedia policies. You have no idea what the WP:VANDALISM actually is about and citing it liberally anywhere is disruptive. You need to gain WP:CONSENSUS with other editors about your edits which I simply don't see here. We've been through this but I can't help it if you don't actually bother to read the policies. Gotitbro (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have read the W:BRD,I think the edit war stopped when Kautilya put causes to a sub section of background.I think Kautilya and me were at a different opinion only on the cause of the war which he pointed out as rot among the princes,I agreed to insert his point too.As for the sovereign part its irrelevant here as you mentioned on this talk.Why didn't you change it to a better one instead of removing all? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Your continued reinstatement does constitute edit-warring. You have also removed the POV tag that I had added to that section. You are nowhere near understanding why I put the tag. This is not working well. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

POV tag was removed by Gotibro when he reverted,you can add it if this version still violate NPOV.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 11:00, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the status-quo and I am the fourth editor to revert your additions. On reverting me, you will be reported for a block at WP:3RRN. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

You were removing reference which falls under WP:RS and then removing Causes section which was inserted with due verification,I am considering you as new editor which has edit conflict with me on this Anglo Manipur War,State your reason for removing those lines that section was even revised by Autronesier.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

War or rebellion?

Some newish editors started contesting whether it was a "war" or a "rebellion". It is not easy to make a decision. The Manipuri sources are pretty much unanimous in calling it "Anglo-Manipur War", a term that they made up themselves, while the British sources have used terms like "expedition" or "punitive expedition". I have only one independent source, pretty good one:

• Majumdar, R. C., ed. (2002) [1963], British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, Part I, History and Culture of Indian People, vol. IX (4th ed.), Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, pp. 720- – via archive.org

which has a chapter titled "War against Manipur". But the majority of the chapter is devoted to the rebellion that preceded the "war", and the trial that followed the "war". Regarding the "war" itself, what it says is uninspiring.

Punitive military expeditions were immediately sent by the British Government to avenge the foul murder. Three columns of troops advanced simultaneously from Kohima on the north, Silchar on the west, and Tammu on the south-east. There was little resistance and the three columns met at Manipur on April 27 after two or three engagements in which the enemy suffered heavily. The palace was found deserted and Kula-chandra, Tikendrajit, their brothers, and Tongol General had all fled. A price was set upon their heads and by May 23 all of them, with many other persons accused of murdering the British Officers or taking part in the assault, were arrested, though some of them, including Tikendrajit, are said to have voluntarily surrendered.

This doesn't sound much like a war, but I see Majumdar using the term "War" in a general sense to cover the whole episode.

The page itself has a section on "Coup and rebellion" and another section on "War", but the content on the latter seems at least partly dubious. This sentence has been there from the beginning of the page, written by Catlemur: On 31 March 1891, the British Raj declared war on Kangeilpak, expeditionary forces were assembled in Kohima and Silchar. Two sources are given at the end of the paragraph. Ahmad, which I don't have access to, but the same pages are cited on C. J. W. Grant page, and there is no mention of declaring a war. The London Gazette doesn't have a mention of declaring a war either. So, I am going to put a citation needed tag on this. If Catlemur can provide a quotation from the source, that would be helpful.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@ Kautilya3 The London Gazette of 14 August 1891 clearly stated

The accompanying General Order and Despatches, describing the operations of the Manipur Field Force, which resulted in the occupation of Manipur on the 27th April Last, have been received from the Government of India

So its definitely a war as it was between two government prior to this 1891 armed conflict Manipur Kingdom was not under control of British Empire although there were maximum interference through political agent ( a reason possible for this war ). Manipur Kingdom was more or less in alliance with British since 1762. Two treaties signed in 1833 and 1834 bwteen British and Manipur Kingdom referred Manipur State as a country

You know that WP:OR does not work on Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Here is another WP:RS from Indian History Congress Journal article 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Luwanglinux, it does not look like you have processed what I had said in August. There are two separate sections called "Coup and rebellion" and "War" in the article. The coup and rebellion were not part of the "war".

Secondly, I still don't see a source for the claim that the "British Raj declared a war". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

References

"Manipur Rebellion" in the lead

There was a recent attempt to remove the term "Manipur Rebellion" from the lead. As Google Ngram Viewer shows, the term has been used often, even though its use seems to be decreasing.

Logically speaking there were two "rebellions"

• One against the reigning king.
• Second against the British officials who came to enforce order.

There are arguments made about how Manipur was an "independent kingdom" and so could not possibly "rebel" against another power. That is wrong reading. Several leading scholars accept that Manipur was a British protectorate after the Anglo-Burmese War (including Pradip Phanjoubam, Phanjoubam Tarapot, Pum Khan Pau, etc.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Source issue

Kautilya3 I have added and revised the content with reference to two peer reviewed journal article which is WP:RS written by established historians that can be verified for WP:HIST

• Reference 1 for war between British Raj and Manipur Kingdom

which is supported by London gazette published in 14 August 1891

• Indid Office, August 11, 1891.THE accompanying General Order and Des- patches, describing the operations of the Manipur Field Force, which resulted in the occupation of Manipur on the 27th April last, have been received from the Government of India :-MILITARY DEPARTMENT. GENERAL ORDER. FIELD OPERATIONS. MANIPUR. Simla, the 19th June, 1891. HIS Excellency the Viceroy and Governor- General in Council is pleased to direct the pub- lication of the subjoined letter from the Adjutant- General in India, submitting, under the orders of the Commander-in-Chief in India, despatches from Major-General H. Collett, C.B., commanding the Manipur Field Force, and from Major- General T. Graham, C.B., and Lieutenant-Colonel R. H. F. Rennick, commanding respectively the Tamu and Silchar Columns of the force. These despatches report the particulars of the simul- taneous advance on Manipur of the three columns from Kohima, Tamu, and Silchar, which were sent to restore order in Manipur and to exact retribution for the murder of the Chief Com- missioner of Assam and other British officers in March last.

• The Gazette clearly mentioned Manipur Kingdom was occupied by British on 27 April 1891 and British army attacking Manipur using three columns of British army ; viz , Major general H Collett, C.B commanding the Manipur Field Force, and Major General T Graham,C.B and Lieutenant-Colonel R H F Rennick commanding Tamu and Silchar column respectively. Two mountain guns and 200 riffles were used by British army in the war.

• Reference 2 ( Paona Brajabasi,Thangal General are important commanders for Manipur Kingdom who were executed because of the war ) 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 17:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly do "kingdom" and "war" appear in the London Gazette? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 "Kingdom" and "War" is mentioned in the source of link 1, I mean clear reading of the gazette shows the involvement of high ranking leaders of British Empire in the arm conflict of 1891, from the British POV it is a rebellion, to the Manipur POV it is a war. The current lead I doubt is NPOV with the current style of narration which is favouring only side POV.

For Paona Brajabasi at first you said find better source, now its the NPOV in the lead, we work through consensus in other articles, I hope we can in this article too 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 16:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation 1 is substandard. It is pubished in an unknown journal and has no citations whatsoever. It doesn't acknowledge that Manipur was a protectorate of the British Empire. See more on that below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

You need to recognize that there is a British POV and a Manipuri POV as explained in the Background section, and we are bound by WP:NPOV. You cannot state either POV as fact, no matter what kind of source you bring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Gazettee says forces were sent to "restore order" and to "exact retribution for murder". That is not called a war, it was a punitive expedition.

Manipuri POV is devalued because most Manipuri scholars exhibit no understanding of the wider world beyond their own state. "Protectorate" is a concept in international law. The Lee-Warner's book, published by McMillan in 1894, is a detailed analysis of all the Indian kingdoms under the protection of the British Empire. All the scholars writing about British colonial rule and princely states would be expected to have an understanding of what it contains. But practically no Manipur scholars exhibit any knowledge of it.

Nor do they exhibit any knowledge of their own history. For example:

Chandrakirti was recognized by the (British) Government of India in 1851 as the Raja of Manipur, and the public declaration was made by the political Agent in Manipur to the effect that the Government of India would uphold Chandrakirti and any attempt to dispossess him would be resisted and the [concerned] persons making such attempts would be accordingly punished.[24: Foreign Department secret (E) October, 1891 NO. 133. (Cf. dated 16th July, 1891 by the Chief Commissioner of Assam on the Annexation of Manipur. Para 6)]

Similarly, Surachandra Singh was also recognized by the British government. Thereafter, any individuals, no matter how powerful they are within Manipur, if they attempted to dethrone a British-recognized king, they are liable to be punished. Any individuals that murdered British officials are also liable to be punished. That is how law and order works.

Neither can Manipur claim to be "independent" in any sense. It is clear that virtually all the arms in its possession were provided by the British for free. And, even the troops were apparently being paid for by the British. Even Jankhomang Guite admits this:

Under the new circumstances the erstwhile free supply of arms, ammunition and other accoutrements to Manipur had been gradually reduced and removed; the reduction of Manipuri troops had been gradually affected in phases; a report against the state administration had gradually grown so that the state could be annexed under the colonial logic of ‘misrule’ and so on.

So, the British get you released from Burmese occupation, the British decide your borders, the British provide arms and support your army, the British recognize your kings and declare that they will punish anybody that rebels. And, you still claim that you are independent country. Sorry, that is not how the world works. If you still keep claiming that you are independent, we will mention that you say so. But we can't recognize it as having any sort of validity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3 You are cherry picking things, there are quite many scholarly references that support before the 1891 event relation between Manipur Kingdom ( which British record sometimes use as Manipur state) as a friendly state and a buffer zone between British India and Burma.

• In early times occasional communications passed between relations with British Government and the the Manipur State, but our present relations may be said to have originated in the first Burma War. Manipur had been devastated by the Burmese, and its ruling family had fled to Cachar. In 1823 the British Govern- ment opened communications with Gumbheer Sing, one of the members of the Manipur family; upon which 500 Manipuris under his command were taken into the pay of the British Government, and co-operated with the British troops in driving the Burmese out of Cachar. In 1825 this force was increased to 2,000 men, and placed under the command of Captain Grant; it was denominated the Manipur Levy, and was paid, accoutred, and supplied with ammunition by the British Government. Subsequently by the Ava Treaty of 1826, Gumbheer Sing was recognized as the Rajah of Manipur, though without any corresponding obligation so far as the British Government was concerned. The language of the Treaty was as follows:-"With regard to Manipur, it is stipulated that, should "Gumbheer Sing desire to return to that country, he shall be recog- "nized by the King of Ava as Rajah thereof." Shortly afterwards the British Government discontinued the payment of the Manipur Levy, but still furnished ammunition for the reduction of refractory hill tribes; and further supplied 3,000 muskets and sets of accoutre- ments, on the condition that the Rajah should raise the Manipur Levy to the same number. The condition of affairs may be, perhaps, best understood from the following extract from a Minute by Lord William Bentinck dated the 25th March 1833:- Previous to the late war with Ava wo possessed no knowledge of the Passes connect- ing Manipur with our Territories of its resources we were equally ignorant, and the panic occasioned by the simultaneous appearance of two divisions of the Burmese Army, one from Manipur and the other from Assain, led to a very general flight of the inhabitants of Cachar and those occupying the northern and eastern borders of our District of Sylhet. Under such an emergency it was natural that every resource, how- ever trifling, should be sought after, and the re-establishment of the Manipur dynasty seems to have been a schemo peculiarly favoured by our late Agent, Mr. Scott, as afford- ing, in his estimation, a well-founded prospect of defence of our frontier in that direction by the interposition of a race of people known to entertain a rooted antipathy to the only enemy against whose aggressions it was necessary to guard, and of the fertility of whose country highly-coloured descriptions had been given. Whether the policy of identifying our interests with those of this petty State,- separated from our Territories by an extremely difficult tract of country, and from those of Ava by one of great comparative facility, has ever been made a question I have not learned; the advantages, however, to us of a connection with Manipur appear to me very problematical, and this is the consideration to which I would now more particularly direct attention, The result of our late enquiries have clearly shown that, after an uninterrupted tranquillity of seven years, this small State is still considered as totally incompetent to defend itself against a Burmese invasion. Its entire population is supposed not to amount to more than 30 or 40,000 souls and its available revenue to 4 or 5,000 rupees

Compare to British India, Manipur state is extremely small and insignificant to the British political admiration, but some how British treat it like ally ( a friendly independent state ) and Manipur Levy was a great help in the first Anglo Burmese war

Even Parratt and Zak Leonard noted that Manipur was not a British territory before 1891

• When the Anglo Burmese war ended in 1826 the treaty of Yandabo declared Manipur an independent kingdom, with Gambhir Singh as its Rajah. Cachar became a British protectorate.....During this period in 1835, British found it expedient to extablish a Political Agency in Manipur; it was in the nature of an embassy in a friendly foreign indpependent country.

• As far as back in 1855, the Chief Commissioner of Assam asked the government of British India for its opinion for reforms in Manipur administration. He stated the Political agent of British Government in Manipur exercised very little interference in internal matters of Manipur and he wanted to change this. He particularly recommended the abolition of slavery system prevailed in Manipur, reform in trade system , a system of passes and the administration of jails and law courts with immediate effect. The Viceroy replied

  The GoI in general, felt that it would not be justified to carry out any sweeping reforms in the 'Native States in India' but set the 'exceptional' case for Manipur. It recommended that the reform being advocated 'may be possible and expedient' as Manipur was 'not a State in India.

  And cautioned not to proceed too fast and advised considering opinion of local officers and then submitting an official representation so that the attentive consideration of Government of India could be taken up.

London Gazette is a report to its superior Officer by involved person , solely taking it as punitive expedition in the lead is definitely not NPOV, there were no formal declaration or war that could support Manipur State as British territory before 1891 although there is no doubt Manipur is a small fry compare to British India.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

You brought in the London Gazette, I didn't. And you misrepresented what it said. So, don't blame me for "cherry picking".

Parratt and Parratt clearly represent the Manipur POV. They are not neutral scholars here. Neutral scholars would be those that study colonial history in general, or at least princely state history, and understand the complexities of the colonial relationships.

The Treaty of Yandabo decalred Manipur to be an "independent kingdom" from the Burmese point of view, i.e., Burma relinquished its suzerainty over Manipur. The British did not declare on anything. That is what your unlabelled quote of Mackenzie above is saying. There was "no obligation" on the British part in the Treaty of Yandabo. The entire Kabaw Valley affair, discussed thoroughly by Mackenzie, clearly shows that the British regarded Manipur as a dependency. Manipur did not have a right to choose its own border, or to negotiate with Burma, or an opportunity to war with it. The British decided it and told Manipur their decision. No Kangleicha will agree that Kangleipak (Manipur) is a Sovereign Country at this moment of signing this agreement in 1834. But the "Kanleicha", it seems, love to endlessly argue. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• the book begins like this, so blaming Parratt as not studying British POV or any proper reference is illogical, Manomohana Ghose reflect the same....

The conflict between Manipur and the British Raj of 1891 has never been documented, and it is fitting that John and Saroj Parratt's account and analysis of the event should appear in the centenary year of the event. It is an extraordinary narrative in which multiple British diplomatic and military blunders led to the decisive defeat of a force of crack Gurkha troops at the hands of the tiny state of Manipur, and to the public execution of five high-ranking British officers. Following the inevitable crushing of Manipur by the might of the Raj, the leading figure on the Manipuri side, the young and popular Crown Prince Koireng Tikendrajit, was arraigned before a military tribunal in a trial which violated a good many of the tenets of British justice, and con- demned to be hanged.

The Manipuri affair of 1891 symbolised a tragic struggle for national identity. It is a story of the complex tangle of the relationship between British power and an independent state, and of the personal tragedies of Koireng Tikendrajit, Political Officer Grimwood and his beautiful and resourceful wife.

This book is based on detailed archival research in London, Delhi, Calcutta and Imphal, and on field research in Manipur. This gripping narrative is recounted here with great vividness and elegance.

The Viceroy's claims respecting the subordinate status of Manipur and the right of British intervention were gratuitous assumptions, assumptions moreover quite at variance with Manipur's own apprehension of its relationship to British India and with its status of independence explicitly agreed at the Treaty of Yandabo. The Manipur conflict was not a "revolt" or a "rebellion"; rather was it an act of spontaneous self-defence on the part of a tiny state to maintain its sovereignty and integrity. Koireng Jubraj Tikendrajit Bir Singh, the tragic hero of the drama, and Manomohana Ghose, the defender of those wrongly condemned to death, were perhaps the only ones to put the Manipur affair in its true perspective. "So far as your petitioner is aware," wrote Tikendrajit in his appeal, "there never was any such reservation or declaration of allegiance on the part of any Ruler of Manipur to Her Majesty .... on the 24th March, last, Manipur was a Sovereign State."

Here, it may be recalled that the Treaty of Yandaboo, 1826 had extended recognition to the sovereign status of Manipur. This treaty still remained in force at the time when the British intervened into the internal affairs of Manipur in 1891. Though Manipur was not a signatory to the treaty, the same had never been abrogated by the British or the Burmese. Rather, the treaty was reaffirmed by the Government of India Act, 1858, which stipulated that all the treaties made by the Government of the English East India Company should be binding on the British Crown (M. I. Singh 1986: 30).

This indicated that the sovereignty of Manipur had remained intact till its defeat in the Anglo-Manipuri War of 1891. Therefore, the British did not have the legitimate authority to entertain the application of Surchandra for regaining the throne of Manipur and to secure the arrest of Tikendrajit. The change of rulers in Manipur either through peaceful means or violent revolt was purely an internal affair of Manipur. The British Government had no right to exercise its jurisdiction over Manipur as no state can claim jurisdiction over another under the Law of Nations Two more treaties were signed between the British and Manipur in 1833 and 1834, respectively. While the former dealt with the boundary of Manipur, the latter dealt with the Kabaw Valley. Both the treaties did not affect the sovereign status of Manipur. A careful examination of the wording of these two agreements shows that there is nothing in them that affects any condition of ‘owing allegiance’ to the British or which prejudices the State of Manipur as an independent kingdom’ (Parratt and Parratt 1992: 187). Besides, there was no evidence at all that Manipur ever entered into a formal agreement which gave it the status of a protected state (ibid.: 188). No doubt, the presence of a political agent in Manipur after 1835, as a representative of the GoI, was a factor of discouraging external aggression as well as preserving the internal stability of Manipur to a certain degree. However, the incidental rendering of the claim of Manipur to be a protected state is highly contentious as the protection that the British had extended to Chandrakirti was not extended to Surchandra when the latter was forced to abdicate the throne. John Parratt and Saroj Parratt thus opined that the protection given by the British to Manipur was not in perpetuity on account of the fact that the British did not agree to protect all Manipuri rajas therefrom (ibid.: 189). Manomohon Ghose, the Bengali barrister who defended Kulachandra and Tikendrajit in their trials, made a brilliant contribution to the debate relating to whether or not Manipur was a sovereign independent kingdom in 1891. According to him, the royal dignitaries of Manipur could not be guilty of waging war against the British Government since they did not owe allegiance to the British Government by residing in its territory (Sanajaoba 1993: 262). Therefore, Manipur being an ‘alien’ country, neither the English laws nor the Indian Penal Code could be invoked. Ghose further pointed out that there was no express reservation, by treaty or ‘compact of allegiance’ due to the sovereign of England from the ruler of Manipur (ibid.: 264). Since there was no such declaration of allegiance on the part of any ruler of Manipur to Her Majesty, occasional interference into the management of the internal affairs of Manipur by the British did not create such allegiance to make Manipur liable to be tried for treason. Manipur was not a British territory but an Asiatic power in alliance. The way the British dealt with Manipur was on a footing of its being a sovereign power in alliance and not as owing any allegiance to the Queen, such as might be due from some of the native states in India (ibid.: 266).....That Manipur was an independent state as on 24 March 1891 was fairly demonstrated by the official conduct of the British authorities when they tried to secure the arrest of the Manipur prince. J. W. Quinton, the Chief Commissioner of Assam, having failed to arrest the prince through holding a durbar approached the king and asked him to either surrender the prince or give a written authority to arrest him.

The mode of arrest undertaken by the British officers did not demonstrate even the slightest procedure to indicate that Manipur was a Subordinate State. A formal request for a written authority from the king was absolutely unnecessary for securing the arrest of an objectionable person in a Protected State.

I doubt if Wangkhhemcha Chingtamlen is an establised scholar, for the fact that he seem to have no knowledge about this nor the above analysis by various scholars

Manipur, to which colonel Johnstone was appointed in 1877, was called by one of the Indian secretaries the Cinderella among political agencies. "They'll never," he said, "get a good man to take it." "Well," was the reply, "a good man has taken it now." The loneliness, the surrounding savages, and the ill-feeling excited by the Kubo valley (which so late as 1852 is placed in Manipur, in maps published in Calcutta) having been made over to Burmah, were among the reasons of its unpopularity. Colonel Johnstone's predecessor, Captain Durand (now Sir Edward) draws a very glaring picture in his official report for 1877, of the Maharajah's misgovernment; the wretched condition of the people, and the most unpleasant position of the Political Agent, whom he described as "in fact a British officer under Manipur surveillance. He is surrounded by spies. If the Maharajah is not pleased with the Political Agent he cannot get anything he is ostracised.

Why should British ever pay annual compensation for Kabaw Valley to Manipur, and include the term the compensation will cease if under any condition Kabaw valley revert to Manipur? This is also the reason, there is a POV that says Kabaw valley was leased to Burma in lieu of the annual compensation given to Manipur. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 05:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Luwanglinux, please see WP:WALLOFTEXT and also WP:TENDENTIOUS.

As Wikipedia editor editing in a contentious topic, you are bound by WP:NPOV. Trying to argue one side of a debate while ignoring everything said about the other side would be considered Tendentious editing.

I am not prepared to discuss the Sanatomba article, because it is a light-weight source, with no book reviews and only one citation. (And overall he is not much of a scholar, more like newspaper columnist.)

The Parratt & Parratt book appears to be about the trial of Tikendrajit, which is not currently covered on the main page. It can be covered, and you can summarise the arguments made (without taking a position yourself). I don't see anything in the passages that you quote that are worthy of any attention. They are just tendentious arguments. The Treaty of Yandabo simply says that the KIng of Burma recognises Gambhir Singh as the Raja of Manipur. There is nothing in it about any "independence" or "sovereignty". See Mackenzie. More over, as Mackenzie points out, it only had an obligation for Burma, no obligation for the British.

It is possible that the British were happy to leave Manipur "independent" initially, but Manipur itself became dependent on the British by accepting money, troops and arms, and for controlling internal rebellions. Once the British started guaranteeing the Maharajas' security against rebellions, the dependence became complete.But even in the beginning, it is clear that the British regarded Manipur as a subsidiary state when they ceded Kabaw Valley and laid down the border. Paying compensation for the Kabaw Valley in no way implies any "independence". There were loads of such arrangements all over India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• I am not taking sides and I have not touched the lead even though the narrative is one sided, I am putting the NPOV of both sides as per scholars like Paratt, Shyam etc. I doubt if there should be difference in stance of source acceptance as per choice of article, not the author or publisher.

• Kangujam Sanatomba is a Post-Doctoral Fellow with the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), New Delhi, and Research Associate at the Centre for South East Asian Studies, Manipur University, India.[2]

• Yumkhaibam Shyam Singh, author of "Anglo-Manipuri War And Rarely Known Manipuri Heroes" is also an associate professor in "History Department Imphal College" under Manipur University[3]

• Manipur was never acquired by the British either through conquest or by a treaty till 1891. Although certain amount of protection was promised to Manipur on certain conditions, Manipur paid no tribute to the British. The kingdom of Manipur was governed by its own laws with...That Manipur was an independent state as on 24 March 1891 was fairly demonstrated by the official conduct of the British authorities when they tried to secure the arrest of the Manipur prince. J. W. Quinton, the Chief Commissioner of Assam, having failed to arrest the prince through holding a durbar approached the king and asked him to either surrender the prince or give a written authority to arrest him. The mode of arrest undertaken by the British officers did not demonstrate even the slightest procedure to indicate that Manipur was a Subordinate State. A formal request for a written authority from the king was absolutely unnecessary for securing the arrest of an objectionable person in a Protected State.

• lastly, its not an argument by newspaper columnist but analysis by establised scholars with references published by reputed publisher, so you arguing endlessly, instead of recognizing both POV and putting in a NPOV is unfortunate for both of us.🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 03:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It is an argument, and silly one at that. Even in modern day India, central forces cannot go and arrest somebody in a state without the state government's approval. This paper counts as a WP:PRIMARY source. Unless we can see that it has widespread acceptance among RS, it can't be used. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And you need to carefully read the Wahengbam article, which you carelessly removed in your recent edit. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Declaration of war

Luwanglinux, Which of your new sources say the British declared a war? And why did you remove Wahengbam? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Kautilya3 I have reverted because you removed a well cited source by saying its without citation. We can add Wahengbam, you also remove Shyam with your revert which is the source for war declaration.

• After the event of 24 March, the British declared war on 31st March, and sent British army via. Kohima, Tamu and Silchar.Famous battles were fought at Thoubal, Kakching and Khongjom in the eastern front of the war

• That Manipur was an independent kingdom state in 1891 is aptly proved by the mutual declaration of war by Manipur and the British Empire against each other. For example, the act of declaring war underscored the fact that Manipur was an independent kingdom state. The necessity of declaring war upon Manipur on the part of the British would not have arisen if Manipur were a British territory or if Manipur were under British control.

• Are you saying the above two sources and Paratt view of Sovereign Manipur before 1891 as dubious? I think you left me no choice but to open an RFC for non involved editors as you seem to deep on the view that Manipur was never sovereign before 1891 so far as putting a WP:HAR such as this [4] 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 04:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, probably they are dubious. We need WP:HISTRS for writing about the events in the past, and there must be a clear evidential basis. Whether the British declared war or not is an issue of fact, not opinion. So, scholars who claim that it has occurred without providing evidence (and perhaps never even bothering to search for it) only do discredit to themselves. See, Lee-Werner's book, pages 174-175, where these issues are discussed in detail. You should not be making any further edits to this page withotu reading this source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And, I should also point out that you are repeatedly citing the Noni-Sanatomba volume without bothering to state which article and which author you are citing. That information is required as per WP:Full citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Both are established scholars in history research with degree from reputed institutions and their work contains numerous primary and secondary source references.It satisfy the test of WP:HISTRS published by reputed publisher . War is an arm conflict between two sovereign entity. Shyam, Parratt, Sanatomba provide evidences of Manipur being sovereign legally. What is the dry argument here!? Isn't it like you saying you don't like proofs of Manipur sovereign and alliance like relation with British ( as stated by the authors) instead of the "protectorate" term you favour so much which is denied by the said scholars giving evidences... 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 12:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I have pointed you to Lee-Werner's book, pages 174-175. You haven't said whether you read it or not. If you have, then please let me know what you understand from it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Where is the full citation or the 'url' of this Lee-Werner's book you are refering to ? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 15:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Cited in the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I have read it, no doubt the British view Manipur as subordinate state while the Manipuri view it as international friendly relation with treaties (This is not only scholars view but of Manipur rulers of that time as well), Treaty of Yandaboo had nothing about Manipur ruler should pay allegiance to British, my point still stand considering the debate of the trial of Tikendrajit and other valid points by scholars like Parratt, Sanatomba. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 01:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing here the "declaration of war" issue. What does Lee-Warner say about that issue? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

What about Ghose, Sanatomba,Shyam Parratt's view of.."sovereign kingdom" which is directly related with "war declaration " The act of attacking on a sovereign kingdom from three sides which they (British) acted more like a foreign embassy ( according to Parratt) with little interference... ( as stated by scholars) is not declaration of war!? 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 01:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A "declaration" is a statement. None of your scholars cited any such statement or declaration. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You should see the the above quoted statements by the scholars, such as Shyam's British declared war on 31st March, and sent British army... Sanatomba's mutual declaration of war by Manipur and British Empire.. 🐲 ꯂꯨꯋꯥꯪ ^{ꯋꯥ ꯍꯥꯏꯐꯝ (talk)} 07:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

References