The recent violent clashes between the Mizoram and Assam security forces has resurfaced the problem of inter-state boundary disputes in India. The incident took place on July 25, 2021 reportedly after eight farm huts belonging to Mizo farmers were burned down by Assam Forces. The violence took place in the border area of Lailapur (Assam)-Vairengte (Mizoram) districts, resulting in the two sides using bullets, tear gas canisters, and grenades against each other. Consequently, around seven people, including six police personnel and a civilian, were killed and over 50 people were injured in this clash. Both the governments have pinned the blame on the other side for the recent violent eruption of the conflict. Assam-Mizoram border violence spotlights the long-standing inter-state boundary issues in the Northeast, particularly between Assam and the states that were carved out of it. Border disputes are not uncommon among the states in India’s Northeast. The majority of the border disputes in the frontier region involve Assam since the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Meghalaya and Nagaland were carved out of Assam under the North-East Reorganisation Act, 1972. The state of Assam does has border dispute with all the above mentioned state ,which has flared up occasionally over the past several decade . Apart from this ,Mizoram has a border row with Tripura as well, while Manipur has claimed the Dzukou Valley, which is currently in Nagaland. 

North-East - A Zone of Conflict and Peace : 

The partition of the country in 1947 further isolated an already geopolitically sequestered North-Eastern region. It is worth noting that the North-East region of India comprises eight     states, namely Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Tripura, and Sikkim. The boundary disputes in the northeast evolved out of the North-East Reorganisation Act, 1972, which actually challenged the colonial administrative bifurcation of these traditional tribal areas. The region is known for a multitude of conflicts. 

The northeast presents an intricate cultural mosaic with over 200 ethnic groups having distinct languages, dialects and socio-cultural identities. The region is highly sensitive and of great significance due to the fact that the region shares an international border , which is about 99 percent of its geographical boundary with several neighbouring countries including China ,Myanmar ,Bangladesh,Nepal and Bhutan. Only a slender 22 Kms wide connection through the tenuous Siliguri corridor exists with the rest of India. In such a scenario it is really important to keep the region peace from the perspective of National security.

The Conflict :

The problems in the region primarily stem from the assertion of identity by the different ethnic groups especially in the backdrop of a perception of neglect by the dominant ethnic group of that particular state. Some insurgent groups such as the ULFA in Assam and the Meitei outfits in Manipur etc. have also been playing the card of the neglect of their respective states, the region as a whole and of the Centre and have continued to pursue their secessionist goal wanting sovereignty. The demands from other groups vary from maximum autonomy, to separate states or more empowered District Councils for the political representation of their claimed ethnic communities. 

Apart from the ethnic difference and the fight over resources, there are other reasons that led to insurgencies in the region. According to the Report of the Commission on Centre - State  Relations , 2007, called the Puncchi Commission, apart from the ‘isolated insurgencies/militant movements in the different states and areas of the region, there is also a commonality of certain reasons that have precipitated the internal security problems in the region. These include economic infrastructural backwardness leading to unemployment and lack of opportunities creating insecurity, particularly among the 'youth'. The report further noted that ‘the threatened identity crises among minorities only adds to the problem. It is well understood that economic development and internal security have a direct link with each other.’ According to report "it creates imbalances in the society which lead to tensions and ultimately even violence, and once that stage is reached, ensuring rapid economic development in the affected areas also becomes a problem for the Government(s)."

The insurgency in the North-East continues to pose a serious threat to the security and unity of the country even though the situation has, by and large, been kept under control over the last few years. These groups include United Peoples Democratic Solidarity (UPDS), Karbi Longri North Cachar Hills Liberation Front (KLNLF) and Dima Halam Daogah (DHD) in Assam, the Achik National Volunteer Council (ANVC) in Meghalaya, the Kuki National Organization (KNO) and United People’s Front (UPF) in Manipur and the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (Isaac Muivah) NSCN(IM) in Nagaland. The situation came under control because some insurgent groups, as a result of political initiatives, interlocutory efforts, administrative actions and sustained counter insurgency operations have given up the strategy of violence and have started participating in the elections. The continuous dialogue process between the central government and the groups eventually led to the agreement on  Suspension of Operations (SoPo). 

Besides, the return of total peace in Mizoram with the Mizo National Front (MNF) joining  mainstream politics in mid-eighties, the constitution of the Bodoland Territorial Council in the year 2003 and the apprehension of some of the top ULFA leaders to fight also had their impact on the containment of violence. The government records of violent incidents in the region also indicate that there has been some improvement in the overall security scenario in the region over the years especially in terms of a continuous decrease in the deaths and other casualties over border disputes.

Apart from this, the Centre has also played an important role in the emotional and cultural integration of the region through special constitution provisions. For instance, special clauses and provisions, under Article(s) 371(a), (b), (c), (f), (g) and (h), have been introduced from time-to-time starting from 1969 in the Constitution for the States of Nagaland, Assam Manipur, Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh respectively. These amendments were made for the protection of customary laws, religious and social practices and of the special position of some districts or sub-regions having distinct ethnic identities within a particular state etc. Besides, some of these Articles provide that no Act of Parliament in respect of the specified subjects shall apply to the particular state unless its Legislative Assembly decides that it be so by a Resolution. These provisions have served an extremely useful purpose towards not only maintaining and preserving the ethnic identities, but also giving the communities a sense of security about the same.

In the process of keeping the peace process intact and workable, the eight states of Northeast India formed the North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA) government after the Assam Assembly Polls in 2016. It is a platform of non-Congress parties. The new agenda for NEDA is to resolve the interstate border disputes which exist between the North-eastern states and to promote emotional integration amongst the states and to focus on common problems like drug maniacs in the region. NEDA is in government in most of the states and Congress is out of all the states. NEDA had its 4th convention in Guwahati in September 2019 to discuss these issues.  Presently it has 19 MPs in Lok Sabha out of total 25 seats in Northeast India. Mizoram has a coalition government with the NEDA and other political groups while Assam is governed by a newly formed BJP led NDA government. 

However, the clashes continued even after such processes. The Rights and Risk Analysis Group stated that the clashes over the border between Assam and the states carved out of Assam led to the death of at least 157 people, injuring another 365 people and the displacement of more than 65,729 persons from 1979 to 2021 including the current incident. The Supreme Court and the Centre have formed Boundary Commissions fromtime to time  like the Sundaram Commission (1971) and the Shastri Commission (1985) for the resolution of disputes between different states. But it did not help in resolving the issue. It is because the states consistently reject the recommendations of the commission if it is not in their favour. 

The Recent Clash :

Media reports suggest that the current tensions at the Assam-Mizoram border originated in June 2021. The governments of Assam and Meghalaya started accusing each other of encroachment over the forest land. On June 30, Mizoram accused Assam of encroaching upon its land in the Kolasib — one of the bordering districts. Assam, in turn,accused Mizoram of building structures and carrying out plantations of betel nut and banana saplings. Both the states carried out these activities ten kilometres inside Hailakandi — one of the bordering districts on Assam’s side.

The Assam Police was reported to take control of Aitlang Hnar, an area about five kilometres from Vairengte in the Kolasib district of Mizoram. Officials and people in Mizoram forced the Assam officials to return. Tension flared up and senior officials came to the discussion table. Then again on July 10, reports came that the Assam officials carried out an ‘anti-encroachment drive’ at Burachep in Kolasib district of Mizoram. Assam said it was on its side of the border. Tension flared up and on July 26 a grenade was hurled at an Assam government team.

Assam-Mizoram Border Dispute: 

At the time of Independence, Northeast India consisted of Assam and the princely states of Manipur and Tripura. Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, and Mizoram were carved out from the large territory of Assam between 1963 and 1987. Unlike the other states in the Southern part of India that were reorganised on the basis of linguistic identity in 1955, the separate north-eastern States were created based on the history and cultural/ethnic identities of people living in these units. Assam and Mizoram share a boundary of about 165 km. The border districts in Mizoram are Aizawl, Kolasib and Mamit while in Assam they are Cachar, Karimganj and Hailakandi.

The dispute between Assam and Mizoram goes back over 150 years. The region was under the control of British rulers, who demarcated the boundary between Lushai Hills (as Mizoram was known at the time) and the Cachar Hills (in Assam). The British government issued a regulation in 1873 for the demarcation of these boundaries. It was called the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR) Act, 1873. In 1875, a notification based on BEFR demarcated the Inner Line Regulations, known as the Inner-Line Permit (ILP) system and defined the line between the Lushai Hills and Cachar plains. In 1933, the colonial rulers carried out further demarcation into districts based on culture, linguistic and tribal lines and carved out Lushai Hills district and Cachar district. While BEFR was lifted in Assam and other Northeast states, it continued to be in force in Mizoram and Nagaland. Mizoram was a District of Assam known as Lushai Hills and was included in the Sixth Schedule until 1972. It was renamed as Mizo Hills in 1954. The area experienced severe famines in the late 1950s and early 1960s which led to serious turmoil and insurgency spearheaded by the Mizo National Front (MNF). With the implementation of the North-Eastern Reorganisation Act in 1972, Mizoram became a Union Territory. Later, as a sequel to the signing of the historic memorandum of settlement between the Government of India and the Mizo National Front in 1986, under the 53rd amendment of the Indian Constitution, Mizoram was granted statehood on 20 February 1987 as the 23rd Indian state. It has made rapid strides and has emerged with the highest literacy in the country. Despite its small population and limited territory, it has considerable ethnic diversity. With the conferment of the status of Union Territory the Mizo Hill District Council was dissolved and now the State has three autonomous district councils catering to three non-Mizo minority tribes - Mara, Lai and Chakma.

Initially, Mizoram accepted notified borders with Assam, but later the state started raising the issue of Assamese encroachment of forest lands in the border areas leading to border clashes. It led to continued accusations of encroachment and violent clashes between the states. Three Mizoram’s districts- Aizawl, Kolasib and Mamit share a 164.6 km long inter-state border with Assam’s Cachar, Hailakandi and Karimganj districts. The two stretches at Lailapur-Vairengte and Karimganj-Mamit districts are disputed ones

Now, based on the 1873-regulation, Mizoram claims a 509-square-mile or about 1,318 sq km area of the inner-line reserve forest notified 148 years ago. The Mizoram State insists on making this notification as the basis for delineating the boundary with Assam. Mizo leaders have been arguing that the demarcation notified in 1933 was biased since the Mizo society was not consulted before this bifurcation.

Mizoram backed this demarcation with the Inner Line of the Lushai Hills Notification of 1993. Assam,on the other hand, is of the opinion that it is the 1933 order that ought to be the basis for determining the border asserting that the state is not willing to give up any of its territory at any cost.

After the 1993 notification, several attempts were made to resolve the boundary dispute, particularly after the violent incidents in 1994 but it remained unresolved. In 2005, the Supreme Court suggested that the central government form a boundary commission to resolve the dispute.

There were a few instances in 2007 as well when tensions along this border flared up. But because of the timely intervention of the Central Government, the situation was quickly brought under control. Following  the 2007 border incident, Mizoram declared its reservations on the present boundary with Assam and demanded that Inner Line Reserved Forest as described in the 1875 notification (under the East Bengal Frontier Regulation of 1873) should be the basis for demarcating the border or the inner line territory of the Mizo state. 

Following the recent clash, Assam has decided to approach the Supreme Court for protection of the Inner Line Forest Reserve in Cachar district from destruction and encroachment by Mizoram. Assam has previously petitioned the apex court for demarcation of the border with Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh but it failed to produce an outcome.

Mizoram Boundary Committee Resolution:

In 2018, the representatives of Young Mizo Association (YMA), Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP), MzoUpa Pawl (MUP), and the Joint Action Committee on Inner Line Reserve Forest Demand of Boundary Dispute submitted a memorandum to the Prime Minister requesting for the establishment of the Boundary Commission for Settlement, Delimitation, and Demarcation of Boundary to resolve the dispute. The memorandum was jointly signed by all the groups. The Mizoram government constituted a boundary commission on July 23 and officially intimated the Centre about it. Mizoram's boundary commission is at present studying the nuances of the dispute by examining old maps and documents to present its case in a stronger manner. But, the violent incident occurred within two days of the formation of the Commission.

The Commission, while strongly condemning the incursion of Assam police into the Mizoram police post at Vairengte on July 26, asserted that the demarcation of the boundary of Mizoram  on  the  northern  side   is   to   be found only in the Inner Line of 1875 alone. The experience of Mizoram, where peace was established through negotiations after years of insurgency is an example of what is possible through sincere, wise and good faith dialogue. Any agreement arrived as a result of such dialogue, however, needs to be adhered to rigorously. 

Given the sensitive nature of the northeast region, it is really important to resolve the border issues with a positive and constructive involvement of the Central government, and peaceful cooperation of different states through NEDA. Centre should also utilise the platform such as Inter-State Council and the Northeast Zonal Council to initiate talks and discussion on the matter to find practical and acceptable resolutions. The involvement of the Supreme Court will lead to more conflicts, the way it has been in the case of water-related disputes. The border disputes are not merely the disputes over boundaries. These are over resources, forest and agricultural lands, which have been given an ethnic/cultural colour. The formation of the multiple boundary commissions has also shown no positive results in the absence of the cooperation from the either side of disputing states especially when the decision is not in their favour. Thus, the only possibility of the resolution remains inter-state cooperation, cultural integration and the focus on local problems through the greater involvement of NEDA.