Context

The violent stand-off between the Assam and Mizoram armed policemen at Vairengte in Mizoram, on July 26, took six lives and left over 50 injured is the culmination of a long-standing border dispute.

History of the boundary issue

• The ‘inner line’ boundary of the Lushai hills was ‘fixed’ in 1875 on the southern border of Assam’s Cachar district.
• In line with the colonial practice of ‘fixing’ borders, this boundary was however not ‘precise’ as it was drawn largely using natural markers such as rivers and hills.
• In post-independent India, the Mizoram government has accepted this boundary in preference over the subsequent revisions made by the colonial government.
• There was a change in boundary when the Inner Line Permit under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 was extended to the Lushai hills district in 1930 and 1933.
• The Mizoram government perceives that the boundary instituted by these revisions amounted to unilateral superimposition.
• These revisions are also seen to conspicuously fail to recognise the Mizo’s long-standing historical rights to use the un-demarcated southern border of Cachar as their hunting ground, for jhum cultivation, and as sites of their resource extraction including rubber and timber.
• However, considering that borders cannot be driven by perception but by institutionalised rules and laws, Assam’s government continues to refuse to accept Mizoram’s standpoint.
• The Assam government considers Mizo plantation and settlements in the Inner Line Reserve Forest areas as an ‘encroachment’.

People-centric Vs. State-centric approach in dispute

• At the heart of this dispute is the contending approaches of the Assam and Mizoram governments to ‘borders’, namely ‘state-centric and ‘people-centric approaches.
• The Assam government represent a continuum of the colonial ‘state-centric’ approach to borders which gives premium to legal, juridical and administrative recognition and protection of the border.
• The Mizoram government advocate a ‘people-centric approach seeks to give a premium to the historical and traditional rights of the local indigenous people.
• The Mizoram government also advocate the principle of uti possidetis juris (‘as you possess under law’, including customary law) on the other hand.

Way forward

• Historical context: Fixing the Assam-Mizoram border and resolve the dispute need to be sensitive to the historical context.
• Deep historical knowledge, sensitivity and an accommodative spirit need to inform dialogue and negotiation under the neutral supervision of the Centre.
• Inter-governmental forum: It is about time that the Centre sets up a permanent inter-governmental forum to involve important stakeholders in order to effectively manage border and territorial conflicts.
• Quick-fix solution should be avoided: Any quick-fix solution driven by temporal electoral considerations should be avoided if we were to resuscitate and sustain interdependent Assam-Mizoram borders and beyond.

Conclusion

The resolution should be sensitive to the possibility of fluid and overlapping sovereignty, where forest ‘commons’ are seen not simply as sites of revenue-extraction but as powerful symbols of identity and sustainable livelihood resources for the local people.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now