[ Nani Bath ]
On the 20th day of April, 2023, a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed to settle the interstate boundary dispute between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. The principles that governed the MoU are four-fold: historical perspective, administrative convenience, contiguity, and people’s will. Apparently, the policy of ‘give and take’ remains the principal guiding principle.
The Namsai Declaration of July 2022 laid the foundation of the MoU. The chief ministers of Assam and Arunachal, under the declaration, had broadly agreed to confine the border issue of 123 villages “raised before the local commission in 2007.” Secondly, it was decided that the boundary line delineated and signed on the 29 toposheets by the high-powered tripartite committee shall be taken as basis for realignment of boundary.
The MoU looks to be the culmination of various efforts initiated by the chief ministers of both the states since 1976. At the insistence of the then union home minister, a meeting of the chief ministers was held on 12 April, 1979. It was decided in the meeting to constitute a high-powered tripartite committee (HPTC), comprising representatives from the governments of India, Assam and Arunachal to “demarcate the boundary with such adjustment as may be mutually agreed upon.”
The HPTC, after five rounds of meeting (1979-1980), had marked the alignment of the boundary based on the existing boundary notifications. The representatives of Assam, Arunachal and the Survey of India, on 29 October, 1980, had signed on 29 maps with the boundary delineated on them.
On 14 May, 1983, a proposal was submitted by the government of Arunachal for inclusion of 1,085.82 sq kms out of 3,648.85 sq kms claimed to have been transferred from the then North East Frontier Tracts to Assam in 1951.
A case was filed by the government of Assam in the Supreme Court, praying before the apex court for a declaration that the boundary between Assam and Arunachal should be in terms of the the first schedule to the Constitution, read with Section 7 of the North East Areas (Reorganization) Act, 1971.
A local commission for identification of boundaries of the states of Assam and Arunachal was appointed by the Supreme Court, through a judgment, dated 25 September, 2006. The commission consisted of SN Variava, a retired supreme court judge (Tarun Chatterjee since 2010), as chairman, M Kamal Naidu and SP Goel as members, known as the Tarun Chatterjee Commission.
A year later, the government of Arunachal had proposed before the local commission for inclusion of an area of 1,119. 279 sq kms within its territory. The claim was premised on historical records, old usages and practices, physical occupation and administrative control of these areas by the state of Arunachal. The proposal was rejected by Assam in 2009.
The author has not gone through the report of the Tarun Chatterjee Commission, but a leading national daily writes that the commission, in its report submitted to the ministry of home affairs, recommended that “around 70-80 percent of the disputed land around the interstate boundary should be given back to Arunachal Pradesh.”
Prior to the British occupation of Assam, the tribal communities were enjoying the life of ‘be in nature’ and ‘be with nature’. They were able to hunt freely, fish with leisure, and gathered food as and when required. They supplemented their economy by rubber-tapping, elephant catching and imposing ‘taxes’ on their ‘subjects’.
There are historical records which suggest that the Akas, Monpas, Sherdukpens, Nyishis, Adis, Noctes and Wanchoos had ‘sovereign’ control over the land at the foot of the hills north of the Brahmaputra. The people inhabiting these areas were considered as their ‘subjects’ and they were subjected to payment of ‘taxes’ or ‘revenue’. This kind of revenue collection was regularised by the Ahoms, and the right of posa was granted to them. The Ahom kings allowed the tribal chiefs to receive posa from the inhabitants of the territory under the jurisdiction of the respective chiefs.
A village, six miles away from Dibrugarh, was attacked by the Adis in 1858 because the villagers had refused to pay the tribute.
Mackenzie, citing the records of 1825, writes that the tribal chiefs were entitled to receive cotton cloth, cotton handkerchief, dao, heads of horned cattle, salt, etc, as posa. The posa payment in kind was replaced during the British period with cash payment. In 1885, the Monpas north of Sela, including Tibetans, received Rs 5,000, Thebengiah Bhutia Rajas (Monpas of Thembang) Rs 2,526, Charduar Bhutia Sath Rajas (Sherdukpens) Rs.. 2,526, Akas Rs 700, Nyishis of Charduar and Nowduar Rs 2,494, Nyishis of Choiduar Rs 983, Nyishis of North Lakhimpur Rs 2,178, Adis Rs 3,000.
Interestingly, the government of Arunachal is continuing with the system of posa payment to the Akas, Monpas and Sherdukpens. The Akas receive Rs 700 (Jamiri Rs 164, Buragaon Rs 536), the Monpas of Thembang receive Rs 164, Rs 2,100 is paid to Taklung Dzong of Kalaktang, and the Sherdukpens receive Rs 2,526 (Rupa Rs 2,046, Shergaon Rs 480).
The representatives of the erstwhile chiefs’ families would receive the tribute (posa) with full traditional attire either on the Republic Day or Independence Day. Dibru Dususow, one of the recipients, says that they were accorded warm reception by the district administration when the first posa from the state government was received in 1972. “Now,” he adds, “it’s just a formality.”
The Noctes and Wanchoos of Tirap/Londging district used to receive, what was then called ‘khat’ money. There are reports indicating that the government of Assam paid the ‘khat’ money till 1962. The chiefs of Chopnyu and Banfera received Rs 25 and Rs 61, respectively.
In an ‘agreement’ (1874) with Minto’s Company, which owned tea gardens in Hukanjuri and Namsang, the Namsang and Borduria chiefs pledged to cede “the rights of the landlord” over the concerned tracts against a payment of Rs 450 per year. A year later, in another ‘agreement’, the right was transferred to the government of British India on payment of same amount as was being paid by Minto.
The chiefs and gaon buras of the villages in Kanubari (Wanu, Runu, Chopnu and Russa) do receive some kilograms of lea leaves and salt till the date from some tea estates which now technically lies within Assam. The tea estate managers/owners call these items ‘gifts’ while the receivers call them as ‘khajana’ (land revenue).
The author has been informed that Wanglin Lowangdong, the chief and MLA of Borduria-Bogapani, and his family own a large swathe of land near Naharkatia. For the inhabitants of the land, who have been granted the right of usage, their ‘masters’ are Lowangdong and his family.
The pre-colonial ‘tribal way’ of rustic and natural life got disturbed by the British way of capitalising the frontiers through extension of teas gardens and creation of reserved forests. The never-ending crave for more lands by the Britishers had also complicated the question of territorial jurisdiction, and the issue of ownership of land and ‘subjects’.
It is estimated that in 1901 there were 1,37,829 acres of tea gardens in Darrang (foothills of Kameng Frontier) and 21,272 acres in North Lakhimpur subdivision. Thereafter, reserved forests were declared to which the hill communities were not allowed to have access. In 1891, the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 was passed. It prohibited all non-forest activities (hunt, fish, fell or cut trees or collect forest produce) in the reserved areas.
According to Choudhury (1978) the denial of access to the forests, which traditionally belonged to the hill communities, “became the most fruitful source of tribal outrages.”
Kar (2016) writes that the “least-garrisoned, least-mapped and least-administered frontier” became “the most heavily capitalised one in the entire British Indian empire.” He gives an approximate idea of the degree: in 1869, 38 joint-stock companies were engaged in tea industry with nominal capital amounted to nearly four millions and a half sterling pounds and called-up capital three millions.
He further notes, “Very soon, scores of other companies – specialising in timber and saw mills, rubber and gutta-percha, ivory and minor forest products, oil and mining, and railways and transport, followed the suit of tea. By 1933, even in the middle of the severe worldwide economic downturn, at least 184 companies registered in India (with a combined authorised capital of more than 35 million rupees and a combined paid-up capital of 9.7 million rupees) and another 144 companies registered in England with a fund of several million sterling pounds were working in the frontier province.”
After India’s independence, the Bordoloi Committee’s (a sub-committee of the constituent assembly) recommendation that the “Lakhimpur frontier tract should be attached to the regular administration of the district” further complicated the question of territorial jurisdiction. The recommendation was accepted by the constituent assembly. However, the areas to be excluded were not represented in the text of the constitution by the drafting committee, and were left to be notified by the governor of Assam.
On 23 February, 1951, by an order of the governor of Assam, approved by the president of India, the plain portions to be transferred to the administrative jurisdiction of the government of Assam were notified. The territorial loss, as per my records, was around 2,124 sq kms. The proposal of the governor of Assam, Jairanmdas Doulatram, was actually approved by the president, Rajendra Prasad on 22 December, 1950.
Constitutionally, Arunachal got separated from the state of Assam under Section 7 of the North East (Areas) Reorganisation Act, 1971. It included the areas specified in Part B of the table appended to paragraph 20 of the sixth schedule, but excluded the plain areas transferred to Assam in 1951.
At the ground level, however, boundary demarcation did fail to take a concrete shape. There are several instances of border clashes between the communities inhabiting the border areas. The border clash at Tarasso, an administrative circle in Papum Pare district, of 2014 is still fresh in the minds of the people of both the states. It led to the death of some people and an imposition of economic blockade against Arunachal.
In order to remove the trust deficit between the states and to improve fraternal understanding amongst the people, the interstate border disputes in India’s Northeast needed a solution. Such a solution would not have been possible without a touch of political boldness and visionary leadership. The previous political dispensation did not have either.
The BJP’s mantra of ‘karke hum boltha hain, bolke nahin karta hain’ (we do the things before talking, and don’t talk before doing) has been clearly reflected in the MoU, signed between the BJP chief ministers of Assam and Arunachal. It seems to have been guided by the prime minister and the home minister.
Hopefully, we are able to witness the ‘seven sisters’ (now with a brother, Sikkim) growing together as a family. The epithet ‘seven sisters’ was first used by Jyoti Prasad Saikia in 1972, which was adopted by Sarat Chandra Sinha, the then chief minister of Assam, in 1976 with an aim to improve interstate relationship in the context of interstate border dispute in India’s Northeast.
We also hope to see the relocation of the check gates in Kimin, Likabali, etc, to their rightful places.
