There were numerous procedural errors made by the Indian government in the implementation of the merger agreement in 1949. Such a failure is that the 1949 Manipur merger agreement was not ratified by either the Indian parliament or the Manipur State Assembly within a reasonable time. In accordance with the relevant provision of international law, a treaty without ratification does not engage the high-ranking contracting parties. In its international law: A Treatise (Volume 1), Oppenheim writes that the GoI made another serious political error when the merger agreement came into force on 15 October 1949. The Manipur Constitution was abolished and the democratically elected Legislative Assembly of Manipur State was arbitrarily dissolved by two ordinances: the Manipur (Administrative Order) of 1949 and the Order of state Fusion (Chief Commisioner`s Provinces) Order, 1950. Such an approach to the GoI led to a complete usurpation of democratic space in Manipur, which caused widespread political discontent among the Manipury elites. This had set the stage for political disagreements that find articulation in the form of an insurgency. It should be noted here that the policy behind the Manipur insurgency is to reclaim the democratic space that took hold in 1949. However, the signing of the merger agreement resulted in full ownership of the democratic space. This is the main reason why the merger agreement remains essential to understanding the conflict and the insurgency in Manipur.
In this context, it is useful to argue that the dissolution of the Manipur State Legislature can be considered more significant than the signing of the merger agreement. For it was the dissolution of the MSLA, not the signing of the merger treaty itself, that immediately took hold of Manipur`s democratic space. Nevertheless, the dissolution of MSLA itself can also be interpreted as a direct consequence of the merger agreement. The signing of the merger agreement and the dissolution of the Manipur National Assembly should be considered as a single chain of events and not as separate events. This is where the central importance of the merger agreement lies in the investigation of conflicts and uprisings in Manipur. Therefore, the resolution of the current conflict should include recognition of the failures committed in the process of securing the merger agreement and the default related to the dissolution of the National Assembly of Manipur. The restoration of the democratic space that existed before 1949 will remain a key factor in establishing peace and normality in Manipur. On September 21, 1949, the Maharajah was forced to sign a merger agreement with the Union of Indians, which was due to come into force on October 15 of the same year.  As a result of the agreement, Manipur State merged with the Indian Union as a Part C state (similar to a high-level province under colonial rule, later called Union Territory) to be led by a senior commissioner appointed by the Indian government. The representative assembly of Manipur has been abolished.  The last step taken by the State Government to take over the royal palace under the pretext of renovation may be seen as a logical consequence of the merger agreement. This approach can be interpreted as a policy to finalize the unfinished agenda of the merger.
The acquisition plan aims to fully understand what has been left to Ipur, such as the king of the title, a cultural symbol of Manipur`s sovereign past. If the king is separated from the palace, the existence of royalty makes no sense. The acquisition of the palace therefore implies the end of the titular king. In other words, the government does not seem to want to keep royalty in the current form of the title, because it has intrinsic political implications.