Inter-district boundary row in Arunachal
GS 2, Inter-State Relations, Govt Policies and Interventions.
Context:
- An inter-district boundary row is as much of a niggle for Arunachal Pradesh as the dispute along certain stretches of its 804.1 km boundary with Assam continues.
- The dispute is between East Siang and Lower Siang, which was created in 2013 along with three other districts — Kra-Daadi, Namsai and Siang.
Bone of Contention in 1951.
- Arunachal Pradesh, which was once a part of Assam, shares an 800-kilometer border with the state, with numerous flare-ups recorded along the border since the 1990s.
- The conflict stretches back to colonial times, when the British issued the “inner line” order in 1873, delineating an imaginary boundary between plains and frontier hills, which were eventually recognised as the North East Frontier Tracts in 1915. The latter corresponds to the current state of Arunachal Pradesh.
- Following independence, the Assam government took administrative control of the North East Frontier Tracts, which eventually became the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA) in 1954 and, finally, the Union Territory (UT) of Arunachal Pradesh in 1972. It became a state in 1987.
- However, prior to its separation from Assam, a sub-committee chaired by then-Assam chief minister Gopinath Bordoloi made certain recommendations for the administration of NEFA (under Assam) and issued a report in 1951. According to the Bordoloi committee report, about 3,648 square kilometres of the “plain” region of the Balipara and Sadiya foothills were moved from Arunachal Pradesh (then NEFA) to Assam’s then Darrang and Lakhimpur districts.
- This remains a point of disagreement between the two states since Arunachal Pradesh refuses to recognise this notification as the foundation of demarcation.
- Arunachal Pradesh has long claimed that the transfer was carried out without the consent of its people.
- Arunachal has traditional rights over these territories since the tribes that lived there paid taxes to Ahom kings. Assam, on the other hand, believes that the demarcation outlined in the 1951 notice is both constitutional and lawful.
Attempts at demarcation
Border difficulties arose after Arunachal Pradesh became a UT in 1972. Several attempts were made between 1971 and 1974 to demarcate the boundary, but none were successful. In April 1979, a high-powered tripartite committee was formed to outline the border using Survey of India maps and consultations with both parties.
- Assam opposed and filed a petition before the Supreme Court in 1989, citing Arunachal Pradesh’s “encroachment.”
In order to resolve the issue between the two states, the Supreme Court formed a local border panel in 2006, which was chaired by a former Supreme Court judge. It was proposed that both states reach an agreement through dialogue. But nothing came of it.
Flashpoints
According to research published in 2020, Assam had highlighted the problem of Arunachal Pradesh encroaching on its forest area and had occasionally initiated eviction campaigns, causing tensions on the ground.
The path ahead
- In recent months, Assam’s chief minister has taken a proactive role in settling border problems not just with Arunachal Pradesh, but also with neighbouring states. While Assam and Meghalaya have made some headway, with both governments presenting proposals to the Centre last month, a real plan of action has yet to be developed.
- According to the Bordoloi committee report, about 3,648 square kilometres of the “plain” land of Balipara and Sadiya foothills were moved from Arunachal (then NEFA) to Assam’s erstwhile Darrang and Lakhimpur districts.
- This is still a point of controversy between the two states, since Arunachal Pradesh refuses to recognise this notice as the basis of demarcation, claiming that the transfer was made without the consent of its people.
- Assam, on the other hand, believes that the demarcation outlined in the 1951 notice is both constitutional and lawful.
- Several attempts were made between 1971 and 1974 to demarcate the boundary, but none were successful.
- In April 1979, a high-powered tripartite committee was formed to outline the border using Survey of India maps and consultations with both parties.
- By 1983-84, 489 km of the 800 km had been marked, largely on the north bank of the Brahmaputra.
- However, further delineation could not begin since Arunachal Pradesh refused to accept the suggestions and claimed many kilometres of the 3,648 square kilometres transferred in accordance with the 1951 announcement.
Conclusion:
- Inter-state boundary conflicts in the Northeast have lasted a long time. Several attempts to settle these conflicts have failed, reflecting the combined failure of the Union and state administrations. Following each big occurrence, the Union administration or the Supreme Court created commissions that advised methods to fix the problem. However, because these suggestions were not legally obligatory on the states, one or more state governments rejected the findings if their claim was not supported. The formation of commissions may be viewed as a delaying strategy by governments rather than a quest for solutions. Meanwhile, the continuance of border conflicts has strained inter-state ties and jeopardised regional security, as insurgent groups and criminals have gained an advantage in fomenting new tensions. Indeed, border conflicts have become increasingly politicised, with political leaders and student groups mobilising public sentiment in their favour.
- A negotiated conclusion to these border conflicts appears to be out of the question. It is incumbent on the region’s political leaders to calm frayed nerves and raise awareness about the benefits of stable and peaceful borders in terms of improved infrastructure, connectivity, and realising the full potential of India’s Act East Policy. Efforts should be redoubled to achieve a political settlement, mediated by the Union government, that is binding on all North-eastern states.
