The highlight of the book lies in its attempt to engage in nationalist historiography of Manipur, and also reversing the trend of history writing in the region - initiating from a people- centric perspective. The effort, in all likelihood, is to interiorise aspirations of Manipuri nationalism based on a long trajectory of collective experiences of various ethnic groups in the state. This, of course, is easier said than done. The book falls short of coming out with this position as clearly as it ought to have.

Manipur Puwari is an engaged exercise, of an embedded praxis in constructing nationalist narrative. The book takes political position on major historical events faced by the people of the state. Through the attempted historiography, the author paves ways for an alternate discourse on the history and politics of the region and its time.

The set perspective and methods move away from some of the well-known Indian academia's engagements to consolidate Indian nation state's unification agenda. What has been attempted in the book is to show alternate trajectories in conceptualising the collective experiences of the people. These can be seen as highlights of unrecorded historical sensibilities.

The obvious target, as the most popular discourse in the region, is to negate the 'merger' (and 'annexation' by the opposed ideological position) of the region (or parts of the region) into India.

To highlight the narrative, two-fold methods are employed: (i) to reject 'merger' thesis as propounded by Indian state, Manipur State Congress, and its likes, and (ii) to enact an alternate thesis upholding the sovereignty of Manipur as an independent kingdom prior to the merger whereby establishing a politico-legal autonomy of Manipur exclusive of the Indian state. Such historical exercise not only denies the existing dominant discourse, but also traces a line completely different from the experiences of Indian nationalism and its proponents.

The methodological engagement employed in the book highlights legal documentation and reasoning to show invalidity of many of the treaties and arguments preserved as sacrosanct under the international law. The author being one of the forerunners in the state to denounce merger of Manipur into India strongly employs legal arguments to bring out flaws in the treaties and documents signed pertaining to the merger.

The 'Stand Still Agreement' and 'Instrument of Accession' have been found wanting of basic minimum legal clauses on their structural framework. One such argument is that the treaties while primarily presume the status of equal autonomous political entities to come to an agreement; do not provide provisions where the constituting parties could quit the agreement. This is found to be flawed under jurisprudence.

The book aims at throwing open a nationalist discourse of the natives by capturing the contemporary history of Manipur. It also shows that the significance of the set historiography lies in highlighting peoples' movement. It does not attempt to take resort to feudal or parasitic (based on Indian political leadership) leadership that the state has been experiencing at various phases in its history.

The writer, for instance, sees many of the movements witnessed during the colonial and neo-colonial phases as spearheaded by the youths and women from lower strata of the society. On the other hand, the emerging middle class had been by and large engaged in enhancing and safeguarding its opportunistic interests. Most of them by virtue of their exposure to the world of comfort and the art of adjustment, have worked hard to put Manipur in the political map of India.

To trace the history, emergence of Manipur Congress, and subsequent split in the party, and finally few sections of the population representing one of these parties opting to get merged with India, the author opines, was one of the darkest phases in the history of Manipur.

The nationalist historiography of Manipur that the author initiates moves away from the perspective of the third world historiography - that of tracing the 'colonial' and the 'post-colonial'. The fate of the people in the region should not be scaled through post-colonial historiography. The author sees that the region has not freed itself from the colonial yoke.

The erstwhile colonialism operating in the region had only graduated to neo-colonialism. End of British paramountcy on 14 August 1947 in many states in the sub-continent showed glimmer of freedom only to be shuttered down. Annexation of the state as well as many 'British un-administered areas' into India is seen as the beginning of neo-colonial rule.

Protests by the Nagas and the Manipuris are some highlights against this development. The author is of the view that a referendum should have been conducted in as early as early as 1949 and let the people to decide the merger, if at all were to, through a democratic means. Neither the Indian state showed any sense of political maturity, nor people of Manipur had any chance to exercise their political maturity.

While the author brings to forefront the rightful claims of the marginalized and the vanquished, it also sets out a message to all the torch bearers among the claimants of the rightful forms and ideals of nationalist struggle. The book covertly attempts to fill in the moral vacuum that is presently witnessed in the nationalist struggle of the subdued and the marginalized.

However, the book does not seem to acknowledge this concern, and instead focuses primarily on legal and political reasoning. What the book needs to strongly highlight is that Right for Self- Determination can become a rightful claim only when claimed with strong moral commitment in addition to fulfilling right legal procedure. The book also highlights that the idea of self-determination should not be seen merely as a political programme but must also go economic.

The book aspires for nationalism based on ethnic pluralism. It is indeed commendable for the author to venture out such an exercise while the state, and the Northeast region as a whole, is at a state of turmoil marked by ethnic exclusivism, religious antagonism, and indifferent to any rationale of democracy and pluralism.

The book is a serious reading for the scholars and researchers of politics, history and law. But it can also be equally enjoyed by any engaging and rational mind. It is a call for engaged praxis from the readers from the state and elsewhere.!