Assam-Mizoram Border 

Dispute

Baggage of the Past

The North Eastern region originally comprised of the states of Assam,

Manipur and Tripura. The states of Meghalaya, Nagaland and Mizoram
were subsequently carved out of Greater Assam with the North East
Frontier Agency being amalgamated into the state of Arunachal
Pradesh. The region, with differences in culture and identity, was earlier
amalgamated into one major state which led to a conflict among the
various communities and tribes. The ‘balkanisation’ of Assam and
thereafter to the formation of three major states that is Nagaland (1963),
Meghalaya and Mizoram(1972) was essential.

However, a conflict between the states due to incorrect boundary

demarcation escalated an already tenuous history of conflict amongst
the communities that populate this land and as a result, this conflict
spread outside Assam, and ‘radically redefined’ the political balance
between all the local communities and tribes. This conflict is not only
because to the growing need for an ethnic identity fanned and fuelled by
political aspirations but also the need for the suppression of one ethnic
identity over another, by trying to increase tribal territorial and resource
aspirations.

Baggage of the Past

Formerly known as Lushai Hills, Mizoram is located on the southern

fringes of Northeast India. The state shares borders with three north-
eastern states of Tripura, Assam and Manipur, and a 722-km border with
the neighbouring countries of Bangladesh and Myanmar.

The two documents that are at the heart of this ongoing boundary
conflict are a 1875 notification which differentiates between the Cachar
Hills and Lushai Hills and a 1933 notification which demarcates the
Lushai Hills (from where Mizoram has been carved out) and Manipur,
are the major reasons of conflict between the two states. The state of
Mizoram does not follow the notification of 1933, since the boundary was
demarcated before the formation of the Mizo state.
Assam has been the common strand that connects all these North
Eastern border disputes. The root cause of all these inter-state border
disputes are the result of a decision to carve out new political states
out of Assam which was necessitated by compelling circumstances
based on the prevailing external and internal situation in the region
during the 1960s highlighted the urgent need to effectively integrate
this sensitive area with mainland India.

The 1962 border conflict with China and numerous ethnic

insurgencies that spawned in the region threatened the unity and
integrity of the country. In this context, the Government of India
decided to carve out new political entities, with the dual aim of
integrating this remote region as well as to fulfil the aspirations of
various ethnic communities which were involved in these insurgent
movements.

A case in point was the reorganisation of Arunachal Pradesh into a

Union Territory in 1972 and its subsequent upgradation to full-fledged
state in 1987 was a strategy of the Indian government to consolidate
its position vis-à-vis China in the border negotiations. Similarly, the
granting of the status of a state to Nagaland in 1963, Meghalaya in
1972 and Mizoram in 1987 were steps to accommodate the territorial
aspirations of the Nagas tribes, the Khasis, the Garos, and the Mizos.
Granting statehood definitely addressed their demand for a separate
political identity but had a negative fallout in the form of these
continuing border disputes between the mother Assam state and
these newly created states. It is important to note that these states
were hurriedly carved out of Assam without paying much attention to
the tribal realities on the ground and because these freshly created
state boundaries did not strictly conform to the ethnic boundaries of
the region. Especially since there continue to be sizeable populations
of Mizos and Nagas in the Cachar Hills, making it possible for both
Mizoram and Nagaland to claim these territories in Assam. The
Central government had transferred areas that were a part of Assam,
thus creating reasons for potential tensions. A case in point is the
example of Dimapur which was given to Nagaland to provide it with a
railhead. This decision caused heartburn among the Dimasas of North
Cachar Hills, as historically Dimapur was their capital.

Unfortunately, the Central government did not create any mechanism

that allowed these states to jointly address these disputes and left
these boundary issues for a resolution at a later date. Later, these
concerned states tried to resolve these boundary disputes amongst
each other by holding negotiations between each other, which
unfortunately failed and third party intervention was sought to resolve
the matter. For instance, in 2005, the Supreme Court had directed the
Central government to constitute a boundary commission to resolve
various inter-state boundary issues in the Northeast. The Centre had
earlier constituted two commissions, the Sundaram Commission
(1971) and the Shastri Commission (1985), to settle the Assam-
Nagaland border dispute. These commissions failed to resolve the
matter as the concerned states did not accept their 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 strongly favoured negotiations with Assam and
opposed any third party intervention. Though the Assam government
has so far been reluctant to hold talks, its dialogue with the
Meghalaya government to resolve the Langpih and related issues
marked a welcome change in this attitude and gave reason to hope
for similar resolutions with other states.
It is time that the Centre took the initiative to facilitate a fair settlement
of this festering border problem in the Northeast. It can do so by
either persuading the concerned states to come to the negotiating
table and seek a solution or by constituting a boundary commission
whose recommendations would be binding on the parties involved.
Needless to say, a quick and speedy resolution of these border issues
has become necessary given the Central government’s renewed
emphasis on the overall development of the Northeast. This goal can
only be achieved by purging strife and promoting greater co-operation
among these states to usher in an era of peace and prosperity in the
region.
Recent Incidents. On July 11, 2021, two grenade explosions jolted
Dholakhal in Assam’s Cachar district. The Dholakhal village is located
along the inter-state border of Assam and Mizoram. This latest clash
along the Assam- Mizoram border reignited tensions and created
instability and insecurity along the border villages. The main reason for
this escalation is believed to be timed with visit of several senior officials,
including the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police
(Cachar).
This attack was followed by counter attack from the members of the
villages. The main reason for the clash is related to the border
demarcation which has been a thorn in the relations between the two
states and thus a permanent solution to the conflict is a must for peace
and stability. Although the main reason for the clash were these
miscreants, but their underlying sentiments could be traced to the border
dispute which ‘still acts as a thorn’ in the relations between the two
states.

Earlier Incidents. Minor violent clashes took place in the region during
the 1972 demarcation of border alongside the districts of Cachar,
Halakandi, and Karimganj border. However, in 2020, a major incident
had occurred in the border where members of both communities clashed
with each other. This led to the loss of property on both sides. However,
with the intervention of the Centre, the situation was brought under
control and peace was restored.

Steps Undertaken to Solve the Conflict. There was a meeting in

Meghalaya comprising of officials of both the states of Assam and
Mizoram with the sole purpose of finding a solution to this boundary
issue wherein they agreed to maintain status quo along their respective
interstate boundaries. However, owing to the dynamic nature of the
situation, there is need for a permanent negotiated mutually accepted
solution to this problem between the states.

Reasons for these continued Boundary Incidents

Resources. The presence of important natural resources plays an

important role in these boundary incidents. To occupy a resource-rich
land, is beneficial for trade and economic purpose of any state.
Ethnic Identity. One of the main reason for the border conflict is the
presence of different ethnicities near the border region. Groups mainly
clash in order to supress the minority ethnic group. At times two ethnic
tribal identities clash in order to dominate the region.

Lack of Effective Boundary Demarcation. A common factor among

the major border clashes, in the North East, has been Assam, especially
since the three states involved in these incidents, Nagaland, Mizoram,
and Meghalaya were carved out of Assam. Border demarcation has
been improper and the borders have been demarcated as per
convenience of the involved parties, therefore, leading to many
‘undefined and complicated local boundary disputes. The single most
factor was that the local tribes residing in the area were not consulted
upon before demarcating these interstate borders.

Historical Evidence. Another important reason for clashes is played by

history. All the states involved seem to have connected historical
evidence and all of them tend to quote these historical evidences in
order to justify their land/border claims.

Ongoing Insurgency. The presence of insurgent groups in this region

further complicates the situation. These insurgents further restrict free
movement of people across the border thereby creating a safety issue
which diverts the attention of the states towards defending their own
territorial integrity, thereby, leaving less time to focus on finding a
solution to the conflict.

Legal Delays. There has been limited or negligible progress, in cases

with respect to border conflicts. Such delays lead to exhaustion of
economic means in the region, thereby contributing to instability in the
same.

Recommended Steps for Conflict/Boundary Resolution

Proper Demarcation of Borders. There is a need for a legitimate

‘Centre led’ initiative to resolve the border issues. The Centre can decide
to maintain status quo in the region or find a ‘common rationale’ to
demarcate the border.
People to People Engagement. All ethnic majority and minority tribes
residing in the region, must be respected and developed. The concept of
a ‘shared’ North East Identity could bring the people together. Education
can be an effective tool to facilitate people-to-people connect.

Involvement of the Supreme Court. The active involvement of the

Supreme Court in matters pertaining to legal issues could fast-track the
decision-making process and thereafter the implementation process.
Establishment of a ‘court monitored boundary commission’ to look into
the demands of all the conflicting parties involved, and thereafter,
suggest a solution, is essential.

Political Solution. With the NDA in power in all these states and at the
centre, a political solution to these vexed boundary disputes seems
relatively easy to push through. The presence of common leadership in
most states can lead to an agreement on border issues as well as the
presence of the centre leadership would lead to faster implementation of
the solution in the region.

The Act East Factor. Maintaining a peaceful North East is vital for
India’s ‘Act East Policy’ as the North East Region is the doorway to the
ASEAN regions. All the states gain by being connected to one another
and for this peaceful borders to ensure ‘free’ movement of people and
trade are essential.

Conclusion

It is time to find a permanent solution to the border conflict in North East,

as it would not only lead to peaceful relations between the various states
involved but, in the long run, will act as an important juncture for India’s
‘Act East Policy’ owing to its proximity to the ASEAN countries.
Moreover, the presence of China via its BRI near India’s North- East
makes it all the more important to solve the North East ‘internal border
conflicts’ as soon as possible.