8/17/2014 Interstate Border Disputes in the Northeast

http://www.idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/InterstateBorderDisputesintheNortheast_PDas_120608f772.html?q=print/676 1/3

Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

Home > Publications > PAPERS & BRIEFS > IDSA Comment > Printer-friendly

Interstate Border Disputes in the Northeast

Pushpita Das

June 12, 2008

At a time when the India-China border dispute is hogging the limelight and causing unease in theIndian establishment, many festering inter-state border disputes in the Northeast that are sowingseeds of discord seem to elude the attention of policymakers at the Centre. The issue of inter-state border disputes came to the fore recently, when tensions erupted along the Assam-Meghalaya border following the Assam governments attempt to lay a foundation stone for aprimary health sub-centre at Langpih, a border village claimed by both Assam and Meghalaya.To resolve the issue, the Chief Minister of Meghalaya invited his Assamese counterpart fornegotiations on May 26, 2008. In the absence of an immediate response from Guwahati, theMeghalaya government had declared on June 3, 2008 that if talks with Assam fail to take off, itwould seek intervention from either the Central government or the Supreme Court to resolve thematter. But Assam subsequently agreed to hold talks and the Chief Ministers of the two statesmet on June 11, 2008 and decided to set up a high level co-ordination committee to examinethe disputed areas along the border and work towards resolving it in a phased manner. Theyalso decided to hold negotiations at regular intervals to arrive at an early solution.

The border problem between Assam and Meghalaya has persisted for decades now. It firststarted when Meghalaya challenged the Assam Reorganisation Act of 1971, which bestowedBlocks I and II of the Mikir Hills to Assam (presently, the Karbi Anglong district). Meghalayacontends that both these blocks formed part of the erstwhile United Khasi and Jaintia Hills whenit was created in 1835. At present there are 12 points of dispute along the 733 kilometreAssam-Meghalaya border.

Other states in the region are also embroiled in similar inter-state border disputes. The longestand bloodiest of these is the border dispute between Assam and Nagaland, which began rightat the inception of Nagaland state in 1963. The Nagaland State Act of 1962 had defined itsborders according to the 1925 notification when Naga Hills and Tuensang Area (NHTA) wereintegrated into a new administrative unit and made an autonomous area. Nagas, however, didnot accept the boundary delineation and demanded that Nagaland should comprise theerstwhile Naga Hills and all Naga- dominated area in North Cachar and Nagaon districts, whichwere part of Naga territory according to the 1866 notification. Since Nagaland did not accept itsnotified borders, tensions between Assam and Nagaland soon flared up resulting in the firstborder clashes in 1965 at Kakodonga Reserve Forest. Since then, violent clashes along theAssam-Nagaland border have become a regular feature, with major armed conflicts reported in1968, 1979 and 1985. The latest in this series occurred in June 2007 in Sibsagar district whenthree villages Sonapur, Dhekiajuri and Borholla were attacked by Nagas resulting in thedeath of two people.

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

8/17/2014 Interstate Border Disputes in the Northeast

http://www.idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/InterstateBorderDisputesintheNortheast_PDas_120608f772.html?q=print/676 2/3

Two other states of the region that were carved out of Assam, namely, Arunachal Pradesh andMizoram, are also entangled in border disputes with Assam. Initially, both Arunachal Pradeshand Mizoram accepted their notified borders with Assam, but later on started raising the issue ofAssamese encroachment leading to border clashes. In the case of the Assam-ArunachalPradesh border, clashes were first reported in 1992 when the Arunachal state governmentalleged that people from Assam are building houses, markets and even police stations on itsterritory. Since then intermittent clashes have been taking place making the border tense. In2005, for example, during an eviction drive by the Assam government, some 100 houses in EastKameng district of Arunachal Pradesh were allegedly set ablaze by Assam Police and forestofficials. Again in 2007, tensions flared up along the Assam-Arunachal border when villagersfrom across the border fired at a peace meeting in Assam injuring eight people.

The Assam-Mizoram border, on the other hand, has remained relatively calm despite thedisputed nature of the border. However, there were a few instances in 1994 and in 2007 whentensions along this border flared up. But because of timely intervention by the centralgovernment, a major crisis was averted and the situation was quickly brought under control.Following the 2007 border incident, Mizoram declared that it does not accept the presentboundary with Assam and that the inner line of the Inner Line Reserved Forest as described inthe 1875 notification under the East Bengal Frontier Regulation of 1873 should be the basis fordelineating the border.

Assam is the common strand that connects all these border disputes. The root cause of all theseinter-state border disputes can be traced back to the decision to carve out new political entitiesout of Assam. It is necessary to point out that this decision was taken under compellingcircumstances. The prevailing external and internal situation in the region during the 1960shighlighted the urgent need to effectively integrate this sensitive frontier area with the IndianUnion. The 1962 border war with China and numerous ethnic insurgencies that plagued theregion threatened the unity and integrity of the country. In this context, the Government of Indiadecided to carve out new political entities, with the dual aim of consolidating its hold over thisremote region as well as to fulfil the aspirations of various ethnic communities involved inseparatist movements. Thus, the reorganisation of Arunachal Pradesh into a Union Territory in1972 and its upgradation to full-fledged statehood in 1987 can be seen as a strategy of theIndian government to consolidate its position vis--vis China in the border negotiations.Similarly, the granting of statehood to Nagaland in 1963, Meghalaya in 1972 and Mizoram in1987 were steps to accommodate the territorial aspirations of the Nagas, Khasis, Garos, andMizos.

It is a moot point whether granting statehood has adequately addressed the issue of ethnicidentity. But it surely has had a negative fallout in the form of various border disputes betweenAssam and these newly created states. It is important to note that these states were hurriedlycarved out of Assam without paying much attention to the realities on the ground. And therefore,these freshly created state boundaries did not strictly conform to the ethnic boundaries of theregion. For example, there are sizeable populations of Mizos and Nagas in the Cachar Hills,making it possible for both Mizoram and Nagaland to claim territories in Assam. Also, theCentral government transferred areas that legitimately belonged to Assam, thus creatingsources for potential tensions. For example, Dimapur was given to Nagaland to provide it with arailhead. It caused heartburn among the Dimasas of North Cachar Hills, as Dimapur was theircapital for a long time. The Central government was well aware that its decisions might lead to

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

DipankarHighlight

8/17/2014 Interstate Border Disputes in the Northeast

http://www.idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/InterstateBorderDisputesintheNortheast_PDas_120608f772.html?q=print/676 3/3

tensions between states, but it did not create any mechanism to address these disputes and leftthese problems for resolution at a later date.

As tensions mounted and relations deteriorated, the concerned states tried to resolve the issueby holding negotiations. Unfortunately, negotiations failed and third party intervention was soughtto resolve the matter. For instance, in 2005, the Supreme Court had instructed the Centralgovernment to constitute a boundary commission to settle various inter-state boundary problemsin the Northeast. The Centre had earlier constituted two commissions, the SundaramCommission (1971) and the Shastri Commission (1985), to settle the Assam-Nagaland borderdispute. These commissions failed to resolve the matter as the concerned states did not accepttheir recommendations. In a significant move, Nagaland, Assam and Meghalaya decided to co-operate with each other to solve their respective border disputes with Assam. They stronglyfavoured negotiations with Assam and opposed any third party intervention. Though the Assamgovernment has so far been reluctant to hold talks, its recent dialogue with the Meghalayagovernment to resolve the Langpih and related issues marks a welcome change in this attitude.

However, given the track record of such talks, there is a possibility that negotiations could fail,necessitating third party intervention. It is time the Centre took a bold initiative to facilitate a fairsettlement of the festering border problems in the Northeast. It can do so by either persuadingthe concerned states to come to the negotiating table and seek a solution or by constituting aboundary commission whose recommendations would be binding on the parties involved.Needless to say, a quick and speedy resolution of these border issues has become necessarygiven the Central governments renewed emphasis on the overall development of the Northeast.This goal can only be achieved by purging strife and promoting greater co-operation amongthese states to usher in an era of peace and prosperity in the region.

Source URL: http://www.idsa.in/idsastrategiccomments/InterstateBorderDisputesintheNortheast_PDas_120608

Copyright 2005 - 2014 IDSA. All rights reserved.