Violent clashes of an unprecedented scale that erupted at Assam-Mizoram border on Monday in which exchange of fire between police forces of the two states led to the on-spot deaths of 5 police personnel has shown once more how the long-standing issue of land dispute in the Northeast has remained genuinely unattended since decades. So far as the Assam-Mizoram boundary dispute is concerned, the genesis of conflict definitely lies in the demarcation exercises made by the British, first in 1875 and then again in 1933. British Raj ended on August 15, 1947, however, the legacy in which the bone of contention was sown still persists and a single spark is enough to lead to a tinderbox like situation. Despite formation of various Border Commissions in the past to end the boundary disputes in NE, none of the states have accepted the recommendations and as such no consensus-based solutions have emerged. Whenever clashes have erupted, the Union Home Ministry has intervened, calling the warring states to show restraint. A tension-easing methodology of this kind only has an ephemeral impact, leaving the ailment to turn chronic and that’s exactly what has happened in the region.

It’s pretty clear that the prevailing dispute over 165-km long Assam-Mizoram border that has fuelled hostility between the two states with their Chief Ministers engaging in a war of words on social media and both drawing Home Minister Amit Shah’s attention, lies in the two demarcation exercises made in 1875 which was actually based on the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation introduced 2 years earlier in 1873 and then again in 1933. While Mizoram has categorically reiterated it will only accept the 1875 demarcation exercise as final as per which around 1,318 sq km area of the inner-line reserve belongs to them, Assam says it will only accept the 1933 document and there’s no question of parting with the said piece of territory. Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Meghalaya have similar land ownership and boundary disputes with Assam, the state from which they were carved out. Despite enjoying more than three decades of full statehood, it remains a fact that full satisfaction in terms of demarcation of boundaries is still a far cry from realisation for these states. The pertinent question is why the frequency of such flare-ups arising out of such decades-long disputes has increased of late. A possible answer can be that all the states entangled in such disputes have gone more assertive in their respective territorial claims.

Volatility is inching towards danger level and the Centre must make deeper intervention right now and frame permanent solutions that should essentially honour history, ethnicity, indigenous culture, people’s aspirations and all the present day socio-economic practicalities.