[ Samshum Changmi ]
CHANGLANG, 21 Sep: The debate over carving out Rima district from Changlang has resurfaced, at least on social media, reigniting old questions and concerns that have never been fully addressed.
On 15 September, Changlang Deputy Commissioner Vishal Sah ‘re-submitted’ a long-dormant proposal to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, naming Miao as the prospective headquarters, with Bordumsa, Diyun, Kharsang, Vijaynagar, and Namphai-I included as part of the new district.
While the move appears administrative in nature, the absence of public engagement casts a long shadow over its legitimacy.
The demand for bifurcation is not new. Historically, Changlang itself was carved out of Tirap district in 1987 under the Arunachal Pradesh (Re-organisation of Districts) Amendment Act, 1987, covering an area of 4,662 sq km, and further demands have surfaced over the years, most notably in 2011, when three constituencies, namely, Bordumsa-Diyun, Miao, and Nampong, were proposed, and again in 2017. Though Nampong was not included in the latter proposal, it still drew significant attention. However, both efforts met with equally strong opposition. Supporters saw the move as a pathway to development and administrative convenience, but critics rightly warned of far-reaching demographic and political consequences, particularly for indigenous tribal communities who risk being reduced to minorities in their own administrative units.
These fears are not unfounded. Critics argued that in areas like Bordumsa, Diyun, and Vijaynagar, where non-APST populations are significantly high, they would outnumber the indigenous tribes. Any district reorganisation that ignores such realities risks institutionalising disparities. The possibility of indigenous tribal groups being marginalised economically, culturally, and politically should make the policymakers pause, not rush.
What is most troubling about the current proposal is not merely its content but its process. Reports suggest that the deputy commissioner’s submission draws heavily from documents and signatures collected back in 2017.
But endorsements made eight years ago do not automatically reflect present-day realities. Many signatories have either left office, stepped aside, or passed away. To base today’s decisions on outdated records is to deny people their rightful say in shaping the future.
Moreover, over the past few weeks, sections of the public have participated in meetings in Jairampur and Nampong, expressing their desire to merge with the proposed Rima district.
Public consultation is not a bureaucratic formality; it is the very measure of whether governance remains rooted in democracy. Each exclusion of youth organisations, CBOs, student bodies, and political parties deepens distrust in governance.
The government and the administration must remember that development cannot and should not come at the cost of public confidence. If there is genuine intent to create a new district, it should begin with fresh, inclusive consultations. Every stakeholder, CBOs, student unions, elected representatives, and political parties must have a voice in an issue of this scale. The credibility of such a step rests not on the swiftness of its submission, but on the depth of its consensus.
At this moment, the re-submission of the Rima district proposal reads less like progress and more like a rushed attempt built on an outdated foundation. Without transparency and participation, it risks being perceived as unilateral, irrelevant, and disconnected from the people it aims to serve.
If the state government is serious about reorganisation, it must go back to the very principle it represents: democracy through dialogue. Anything less will not strengthen Changlang; it will fracture it further. (The writer recipient of the V Ravindran Excellence in Journalism Awards, 2024)
