SAT imagery for border impractical: Yanthan – NAGA REPUBLICNAGA REPUBLIC

Correspondent KOHIMA, AUG 3 (NPN):
Amidst continued border conflicts among some states in the Northeast mainly with Assam, the government of India has pitched in a novel idea of using satellite imagery to resolve disputes but this appears impracticable especially in the case with Assam and Nagaland which have no clear demarcated boundaries. This was the view of Adviser border affairs and horticulture, Mhathung Yanthan while talking to Nagaland Post Monday. Yanthan said as per available records, there have been umpteen efforts by successive Central and State governments to resolve the boundary issue. Even commissions set up for the purpose have failed to resolve the disputes.
It may be noted that both states share a 512-km long boundary that stretches from Dimapur, Peren, Wokha, Mokokchung, Longleng and Mon districts besides Tseminyu sub division. Yanthan said as per records, the dispute between Assam and Nagaland began since Nagaland became a state. Nagaland claims all forest lands (22 reserved forests) and Tea Estates (41 tea gardens) covering an area of 13,000 sq km approximately, which were transferred from the then Naga Hills to Assam by the British government through various notifications. Yanthan reminded that Assam however continues to make a counter-claim based on the 1925 Boundary Line Notification during the British rule. He said the map prepared by Survey of India based on the 1925 notification in the scale of 1.50,000 had clearly marked on the footnote that “it was yet to be verified on the ground”.
Yanthan said even if the British had issued the notification for furtherance of their economic interest and for administrative convenience, it was issued without the consent and knowledge of the Nagas who were the stakeholders.
Yanthan said there was human habitation from both States in 10 Reserved Forests (Disturbed Area Belts), where a little over of 50% was occupied by Nagas adding, that the remaining 12 RF and 41 Tea Estates (TEs) were never mentioned. He said Assam filed a suit in Supreme Court (SC) on December 10, 1988 against Union of India, Election Commission and Nagaland government seeking declaration of the 1925 Boundary Line Notification by the British as the final boundary between the two States.
He mentioned that the 1925 Boundary Line Notification was issued by the British for administrative convenience, revenue collection and to consolidate and legitimise all disputed forest areas illegally transferred out of Naga Hills district between 1866 and 1925 to neighbouring Assam districts. However, Yanthan termed the Notification “contentious”, since even officials of the Surveyor General of India officials, noted the map was “not surveyed”, “not verified” and “not identified” on the ground.
As Nagaland demanded Boundary Commission for a fair and lasting solution to the problem, Yanthan said SC had appointed “Local Commission” headed by a retired SC judge and assisted by two others on September 25, 2006 by setting aside all earlier orders. The apex court thereafter appointed two mediators for a settlement outside the court on October 20, 2010, he added. He claimed that the SC had clearly stated in its August 20, 2010 order that “the exact boundary between the two States is yet to be determined”.
Further, the adviser said the Centre had in its affidavit filed before SC on December 12, 2014 stated, “In most cases, the inter-state boundary was not authenticated or verified by the concerned State governments, while also there was a strong opposition from the local population, indicating that the boundary alignment as shown on Survey of India maps was not acceptable to them. For these reasons, it is not possible and not appropriate to demarcate the inter-State boundary between the States using the Survey of India maps.”
On SC’s directive on January 14, 2014 to produce witnesses for cross-examination, he mentioned that while Assam had produced eight witnesses, Nagaland produced 38 witnesses, adding that cross-examination of the representatives of Survey of India was currently going on. It may be mentioned that the Home ministry had on January 8, 2021 tasked Manohar Parikkar Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses to carry out documentation of disputes among NE States for further action. However, given the current pandemic situation, the project may get extended.

CHRONOLOGY OF ASSAM-NAGALAND BORDER ISSUE
Nagaland-Assam Border 512 Kms. of boundary between Assam & Nagaland.
Out of 22 Reserved Forests of the then Naga Hills District, 10 Reserved Forests fall under Disputed Area Belt (DAB) of Assam-Nagaland Border.
1. Nagaland-Assam case is merely about restoration of Naga territory (Forest & other areas) transferred out of the erstwhile Naga Hills District.
2. Naga Hills District was created by the then British India Govt. in 1866 (15/11/1866). 3. Naga Hills Dist. boundary was defined in 1867 (16/12/1867) – 1867 Notification was superseded by 1875 Notification but Eastern boundary was left undefined. Complete Naga Hills District boundary was defined in 1882
4. Over a period of time since 1898, large tracks of Naga’s lands were transferred to the then Sibsagar & Nowgong Dist. without consent of the Nagas through series of Notifications. (22 Reserved Forest (RF) & 41 Tea Estates (TE) = 13,000 Sq. Kms.
5. The Naga Club submitted memo to Simon Commission on 10/01/1929 “Not to include the then Naga Hills within the Reformed Scheme of India” citing historical and peculiar socio-political system of the Nagas which is different from the rest of India.
6. June 1947 — NNC entered into a “9 Point Agreement” with the then Governor of Assam, Shri. Akbar All Hydari & Gopinath Bordoloi, the then Premier of Assam (Point No. 4 & 6 mentions of boundaries of the Naga people).
7. On failure of Gol to fulfil the “9 Point Agreement”, NNC declared unilateral Plebiscite in 1951 and boycotted the first two General Elections of India.
8. NPC entered into “16 Point Agreement” on 26/07/1960, which led to creation of Nagaland State under Indian Union without boundary demarcation but assurance that the Inter-State Boundary demarcation shall be undertaken in due course of time in accordance with the Constitutional provision of Article 3, 4 (16 Point Agreement No. 12 & 13)
9. To resolve boundary dispute, Gol appointed Shri. KVK Sundaram in 1971 to make formal study on the boundary issue. However, he demitted office before completion of the task.
10.1972 – Interim Agreement Signed –
1972, 4 (four) lAs were signed between Assam & Nagaland
1979, 2 (two) lAs signed
1985, another IA was signed following Merapani clash
11. Violation of Interim Agreements by Assam
Assam instead of withdrawing the Armed Police Posts, has further established more posts.
– More land lease/contracts issued inspite of protests & Agreements
– Allowed exploration of oil in the disputed border area.
– Allowed all sort of settlement by Assam with impunity in all sectors.
– Failed to honour the agreement in not allowing the existing cultivation Yimpang, Champang, Old & New Tssori.
– In matter of eviction of encroachment, Assam Govt. has taken prejudiced stand by carrying such eviction on Naga settlers only.
12. Gol appointed One Man Shastri Commission in 1985
Short Term Solution -for immediate maintenance of peace – that Assam Govt. to assume the administrative control of all area within the existing 1925 Boundary Line Notification till a permanent solution is arrived.
Long Term Solution — Recommended for appointment of Boundary Commission for solution to the problem.
13. Taking advantage of the favourable remark in the Short Term Recommendation, Assam filed a suit in Supreme Court on 10/12/1988 against Union of India, ECI and Govt. of Nagaland for declaring 1925 Boundary Line Notification by the British Rule as the final boundary between Assam & Nagaland.
14. 1925 Boundary Line Notification was issued by British Ruler for Administrative convenience, Revenue Collection & to consolidate and legitimize all the disputed forest areas illegally transferred out of Naga Hills District over the years from 1866 to 1925 to neighbouring district of Assam.
15. 1925 Boundary Line Notification is a contentious notification. As per Survey General of India officials, the map is “Not Surveyed”, “Not verified” & “Not identified” on the ground.
16. Nagaland State demanded Boundary Commission for a fair & lasting solution to the problem.
17. On 25/9/2006, Setting aside all earlier orders, Supreme Court appointed “LOCAL COMMISSION” (Headed by Rtd Judge of SC, assisted by 2 others)
18. Again on 2010, Oct. 20th, Supreme Court appointed 2 (two) Mediators for settlement outside the Court.
19. It may be pertinent to quote Hon’ble SC Order 20/8/2010 “But the exact boundary between the two States is yet to be determined” Hence, appointment of Co-Mediators.
20. The Union of India in its affidavit filed before Hon’ble SC on 12/12/2014 also stated that “In most cases, the inter-state boundary was not authenticated or verified by the concerned State Govts. Also there was a strong opposition from the local population indicating that the boundary alignment as shown on Survey of India maps is not acceptable to them. For these reasons, it is not possible and not appropriate to demarcate the inter-state boundary between the states using the Survey of India Maps”
21. On failure of the attempt of the above two, on 14/01/2014, Supreme Court directed all parties concerned to produce WITNESSES FOR CROSS EXAMINATION
22. Assam has filed 8 witnesses and has been cross examined while Nagaland has filed 38 Witnesses. Presently Cross examination of the representative of Survey of India 15 going on.
BORDER ISSUE
1. There has existed a dispute between the State of Assam and Nagaland over the inter-state boundary since Nagaland Statehood Nagaland claims all the areas of forests (22 Reserve Forests), tracts and tea gardens (41 Tea Estates) covering an approximate area of 13,000 sq, km. which were transferred to Assam by the British Government through various notifications from Naga Hills.
2 The Naga Hills District Boundary in 1867 included large tracts of Naga lands which were subsequently transferred to the then Sibsagar and Nowgong districts of Assam The Point 4 and 6 of the Nine Point Agreement (1947) state about non-alienation, and transfer back, of all forests transferred to Sibsagar and Nowgong. The Deliberations of 16 Point Agreement (1960) also clearly documents the claim of the Nagas, wherein without any commitment, it was pointed out that Article 3 & 4 of the Constitution provides for increasing the area of any State.
3. The State of Assam on the other hand claims the boundary between Assam and Nagaland based on the 1925 Boundary Line Notification The map prepared by Survey of India based on the 1925 notification in the scale of 1.50,000 is however, clearly marked on the footnote that it is yet to be verified on the ground. The British India Government had issued the notification for furtherance of their economic interest and for administrative convenience. It was notified without the consent and knowledge of the Nagas who were the real stakeholders
4 There have been seven (7) Interim Agreements — 4 in 1972. 2 in 1979 and 1 in 1985 after the Merapani clashes between the State of Nagaland and Assam on the boundary dispute These agreements are primarily with regard to withdrawal of all Armed Police Posts within and near the Reserved Forests and also for not setting up any new post. The agreements also provide that Naga settlements that existed in the forest should not be disturbed. Further, no settlements are to be allowed to come up and neutral force are to be deployed in place of Assam Police in all such areas.
5 Assam, however, instead of withdrawing the Armed Police posts, as required by Intern Agreements has further established more posts over the decades. Presently it has 53 Police Posts in the disputed area belt (DAB) in violation of the Interim Agreements. ‘Three of these namely, Naganijan (2018), Aosenden (2020) and Vikuto (2021 Mokokchung district have been established in the last three years. Nagaland has withdrawn 12 Police Posts after 1972 Interim Agreement.
6. Further, list of lease/contracts already in existence at the time of agreement in the disputed areas, which was also agreed to be provided by the Assam Government, was never furnished to Nagaland and instead more lease/contracts have been issued in spite of protests.
7. The Assam Government has also allowed exploration of oil in the disputed border area in gross violation of the Interim Agreement. There are 27 exploration sites of ONGC in the disputed area authorized by Assam Government ONGC operations had also been reported in Pihekhu village, Tokishe village and Nikihe village under Dimapur District, and the State Government recently closed down operations in these villages.
8 All sort of new settlements in all the sectors of the DAB have been allowed by Assam Govt over the decades. In matter of eviction of encroachment, the Assam Government has taken prejudiced stand by only carrying such eviction on Naga settlers only.
9 A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued on 4th May 2005 by the ADGP Assam (Border) is not in line with the Interim Agreements. The ADGP Assam Border (an interested party) has been made the operational commander of the neutral forces, and the SOP also reinforces the 1925 Boundary Line Notification which Nagaland Govt. refutes. The provisions of the SOP have been a bone of contention for the past many years However the SOP could not be reviewed till date due to non-cooperation of Assam Govt
10. This boundary dispute is now sub judice in the Supreme Court of India under the Original Civil Suit no. 2/88- filed by the Government of Assam in the year 1988. The state of Nagaland has all along advocated for amicable settlement of the border dispute through mutual understanding among the two States as per the agreement entered between the two Chief Ministers in the year 1984. But the State of Assam filed a suit in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Original Suit No. 2 of 1988 on the matter, thereby disrupting the process. Accordingly, the State Government of Nagaland has compiled all necessary record supported by Maps to substantiate the claim of the State of Nagaland in regard to border dispute with the State of Assam.
11 In recent times the border disputes have led to tense situation in Ao Senden village in Mokokchung district when in November 2020, the Assam Government raised objections to the setting up of Covid temporary camp of 2nd NAP at Aosenden in Mokokchung District of Nagaland, and it subsequently setup Assam Armed Police (AAP) post at the same location. A total blockade was also imposed on Mokokchung District from Assam side by various groups based in Mariani and adjoining areas in Jorhat district of Assam, for many days The blockade was finally lifted, but, the police deployments from both the sides have continued and could not be resolved till date
12 In May 2021, a tense situation got created in Vikuto village in Mokokchung district when the sitting MLA of Marian’ Assembly constituency, Government of Assam, came to Vikuto village with a group of more than 60 (sixty) men accompanied by Assam Police and there were some blank shots fired. The group of people who came along also destroyed some properties and areca nut plantations existing in the village. Then during the last week of June 2021, the Assam Police, Forest Personnel set up their camps in Vikuto village area, and Nagaland was also compelled to make deployment in the same location The police personnel of both the States continue to camp in Vikuto village area not far from each other.
13. There has been some alarm created in the border areas owing to recent media reports that Assam Government is planning to set up Battalion Camps at strategic locations along the Assam-Nagaland border. There is however, no official communication on this matter yet
14 The violent incidents which occurred some days back in the bordering areas of Assam — Mizoram which lead to the death of six (6) Assam police personnel, has brought renewed focus on the tensions existing due to stand-offs between the police personnel of Assam and Nagaland at certain locations on the inter-state borders, and the need for taking urgent measures for defusing such situations.