Assam-Nagaland border row: facts and efforts.

The North-Eastern part of the Indian territory has been in news since the decade of 1940s. Ever since the Government of India took a pragmatic step to unify the territories of India, there has been some conflict. 

One of such conflicts involved the states of Assam and Nagaland. 

There was a clear demarcation of boundary between the Ahom (now Assam) people and the Nagas. After the advent of the British Government in 1826, the commercial interest of the Birtish gave birth to conflict. 

In this post, I will explain the causes of conflict and role that was played by the British regime in accentuating the conflict.

Interest of the trade and commerce of the British.

Looking into the general aspect of Nagland-Assam boundary dispute, it is the dispute regarding demand for return of forest and other areas, of which Nagas have the ownership but were transferred and included within the neighbouring districts of Assam by the then British Government of India. It was done:

1. for expansion of tea gardens; 
2. to convert the forests owned by Nagas into Reserved forests so that it can be used for extraction and exploitation of valuable species of timber available in the areas.

These reasons led to the violent protests against the encroachment of the Naga area by the British.

The protests and Nine Point Agreement.

For the first time the Naga people had a talk on the border issue with the representative of the then British Indian Government Sir Akbar Hydari, the then Governor of Assam in Kohima on 27 to 29 June, 1947. Consequently, an Agreement known as the ‘NINE POINT AGREEMENT’ was drawn up, wherein there was a promise to restore all the forests transferred out of Naga Hills and to bring all the Naga inhabited areas under one unified administrative unit. But it remained unfulfilled. As a result, serious agitation was launched throughout the Naga territory. The first two General Election of the Country were boycotted by the Nagas; the District Council which was set up under the 6th. Schedule of the Constitution was also rejected by the Nagas and the people organized themselves for armed confrontation.

16 Point Memorandum.

1960- The Naga People’s Convention (NPC) was held in August 1957 in Kohima, as a result a "16 Point Memorandum" was presented to the Prime Minister of India in Delhi in 1960 by a delegation of the NPC. When during the discussion, the question of creating a separate State for Naga areas emerged, the Nagas demanded:

1. The return to Nagaland all the Reserved Forests transferred from the Naha Hills to Assam during the British Regime (Point 12 of the Memorandum). 
2. The consolidation of the contiguous Naga inhabited areas to form a part of the new State (Under Point 13 of the Memorandum).

The representative of the Government of India pointed out that if Naga delegation wants a new state, first the boundary of the new State have to be stated in the First Schedule of the Constitution. Under Regulation 6 of 1957 and Nagaland Act 27 of 1962, the 3 Districts of Kohima, Mokokchung and Tuensang were notified in the schedule which would form part of the State of Nagaland without defining precise boundary. 

The delegation was advised to take up border issue under the provision of Article 3 and 4 of the Constitution of India after accepting the State.

Thus, after the final agreement was arrived at in July 1960, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, on 1st. August 1960 announced in the Parliament, the Government of India’s decision to establish ‘Nagaland’ a State of India comprising the territory of the then existing Naga Hills Tuensang Area.

Though the Government of India could not make definite arrangement before Nagaland became a state, on the questions of restoration of transferred areas and merger of contiguous areas inhabited by Nagas, the issue was kept open for future settlement under the provisions of the Constitution.

Nagas accepted Statehood in the hope that the Government of India would act upon the terms of the agreement and would take immediate action to re-adjust the boundaries between the two States of Assam and Nagaland by returning all the reserved forests and other areas transferred out of the then Naga Hills to Assam. But there has been failure on the part of the Government as for over half a century, Naga people have been waiting without any solution to the problem in sight.  

This has given birth to intense conflicts between Nagas and people of Assam.

Efforts made.

1. KVK Sundaram Commission (1971) and Shashtri Commission (1985) gave recommendations but were rejected by Nagaland, following which, Assam moved the SC. The border dispute between Assam and Nagaland is being mediated by the boundary commission set up under the direction of the SC.
2. The Supreme Court in its judgment of 25.9.2006 appointed a Local Commission for identification of boundaries of the States of Assam-Nagaland and Assam-Arunachal Pradesh. 
3. While hearing an application filed by Government of Nagaland before the Supreme Court, the Court its order dated 20.8.2010, interalia, directed that apart from continuation of the Local Commission, possibility to resolve the issue through mediation may also be explored and for this purpose appointed two Co-mediators. The meeting of the mediators in regard to boundary issues between Assam and Nagaland are continuing. Last meeting of mediators with the States of Assam and Nagaland was held in 2013. The Local Commission is continuing its hearing in regard to Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. 

Accountability and Independence of Judiciary: Impact of Judicial Appointment Commission Bill, 2014 on these two aspects.

Accountability and Independence are considered two sides of the same coin. If one is present the other has to be there to ensure a balanced framework for smooth and effective functioning of the Indian Judiciary. But the basic issue relating to concoction of the two aspects seems really a tough job for the policy makers on one hand and legal experts on the other hand. The debates on setting up of a Judicial Appointment Commission through Judicial Appointment Commission (JAC) Bill, 2013 have got a lot of media coverage but what still remains unsettled are the questions raised on its constitutionality and to what extent can this step by the government would go on to achieve the objectives it has been formulated for.

Separation of power is said to be one of the most fundamental features of constitutional setup in our country. The fountain-head of the power is the Constitution itself. The basic reason behind this doctrine was to ensure non - interference of other bodies of the government in the Judicial process. Now it becomes imperative on our part to raise this question that whether the appointment of Judges should also be kept out of the purview of the government control while conforming to the basic principle behind the doctrine of Separation of Power? Can it be considered feasible for India to allow the decision making body to have absolute powers in appointment of Judges? This is something which can be answered in both affirmative and negative. If it is in affirmative i.e if judiciary is allowed to have absolute powers without government interference then although it would result in providing independence to the Judiciary but at the same time that would lead to monopoly and nepotism and this is one of the major effects which the experts think have been resulted by the collegium system. And if it is answered in negative, there would be a lot of government interference without Judiciary having an upper hand in its own affairs. The requirement of checks and balances and accountability of the judiciary would be met but it would not allow effective functioning of the Judicial System.  Therefore the call for the day is to strike a balance between the two aspects and to come up with such parameters that seek for reforms in the appointment process.

The existing Collegium system has been condemned by the various experts on the grounds that it is wholly and largely dependent on the decision taken by CJI and four senior most Judges of the Supreme Court while appointing judges to the Supreme Court. In the case of appointment of judges to the High Court, again the collegiums system constitutes members only from the judiciary i.e CJI and 2 senior-most judges of the Supreme Court. This has put the process of appointment of judges in the arena of doubt and dilemma thereby rendering it ineffective and unjust. But the debate does not end here for the basic reason that the Bill, 2013 proposed for setting up of Judicial Appointment Commission is equally criticized by the legal experts and eminent jurists stating that the new proposed collegium constituting 2 eminent persons selected by the Prime Minister, the CJI and the Leader of Opposition would again not serve the purpose as desired so.

Thus, to strike a balance between the two requirements, the model must be judiciously adopted that it not only encompasses members of the Judiciary and the government but also people from non legal background and also other stakeholders so that diversified forum is formed to appoint the Judges. Also, instead of limiting the number of members of the commission to just 5, the number should be increased to more than double of what is otherwise proposed in the new bill so that the appointment is done by a larger group which to a great extent diminish the possibility of arbitrariness and biased approach on the part of the commission.

The government should take this as an opportunity to make Judiciary as transparent as it can by keeping a close check on the initial process i.e the decision of who would be the upcoming set of Judges. Although prima facie it looks not more than a mere administrative function, yet the consequences and the reach it would lead to would to a great extent determine the future of a large number of people who always seek to get justice. It is the duty of the Parliamentarians to secure and safeguard the independent nature of Judiciary and this can be done by providing a proper model for the appointment of the Judges and not by directly interfering and taking away the powers in the pretext of formulating a commission. It should not be made a sham process which is what the bill of 2013 is leading to.

Notable Role (12/1000): Nawazuddin Siddiqi (Kick).

Watching this movie was a good experience for me as far as the role of Nawazuddin Siddiqi goes. He played the role of villain named Shiv Ghazra. His performance in the movie reminds me of the Joker (the legendary character in the movie industry across the globe.

Being famous for his performance in the Gangs of Wasseypur series, where he became famous as Faizal Khan, he deserved more chances. Kick was right choice for him. His style of dialogue delivery, which involved his strange laughter and songs of old Bollywood classic movies, makes him a remarkable character.
In a nutshell, I found the great actor, who can emulate the legendary Joker of The Dark Knight.

Pixelzz: ocean in palm.

Article about working of GTO.

Friends, I came across a very useful article about the definition and and working of the orbits, in which the satellites are placed. Here is the excerpt of the post by Jason Davis.

How to get a satellite to geostationary orbit.

As I wrote about the GSLV-D5 mission, I was tempted to include this standard informational line, punched directly out of the press kit: 

The satellite was placed into a geostationary transfer orbit with a perigee of about 180 kilometers, an apogee of about 36,000 kilometers and an inclination of 19.3 degrees. 

But unless you’re familiar with basic orbital mechanics, that sentence doesn’t have much meaning. What’s a transfer orbit? Is there a difference between geostationary and geosynchronous? Why is there such a wide range between the perigee and apogee?

For help explaining all of this, I turned to Mike Loucks of The Astrogator’s Guild. The Astrogator’s Guild uses a software package called STK/Astrogator from Analytical Graphics Inc. that is used to help spacecraft mission managers plan the trajectories of a variety of space missions. The software has been used on numerous NASA missions, including WMAP, LRO, LCROSS, New Horizons, Messenger, LADEE and MAVEN. 

The first concept I want to tackle is the difference between a geosynchronous and geostationary orbit. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, they are not the same thing:

A Geosynchonous Orbit (GEO) takes a satellite around the Earth at a rate of once per day, keeping it roughly in the same area over the ground. 

A Geostationary Orbit (GSO) is a geosynchronous orbit with an inclination of zero, meaning, it lies on the equator.

All geostationary satellites are geosynchronous. Not all geosynchronous satellites are geostationary.

Think of it like this: the “synchronous” part of geosynchronous describes the rate of the satellite’s orbit but says nothing about its inclination—the orbit’s angle with respect to the equator. A geosynchronous satellite with a non-zero inclination will trace out a figure eight in the sky as it dips above and below the equator. 

The “stationary” part of geostationary describes how a satellite in this orbit remains fixed with respect to an observer on the ground. This is an ideal orbit for communications satellites, since ground-based antennas can remain pointed at the same spot in the sky.

NASA / University of Texas Center for Space Research

The Earth's gravity field

This animation, created with data from the GRACE spacecraft, shows the variances in Earth's gravity field.

It’s also important to remember that even geostationary satellites drift over time as they are tugged on by the moon and sun’s gravity. For that matter, the Earth’s gravity isn’t uniform, either, so the satellite needs an onboard fuel supply to make slight corrections over time. 

What, then, is a transfer orbit? Rockets sending payloads to geosynchronous and geostationary orbits drop off their payload in transfer orbits, halfway points en route to the satellite’s final position. From transfer orbit, a satellite conducts engine burns to circularize its orbit and change its inclination. Both SES-8 and GSAT-14 were bound for geostationary orbits, so we say that the Falcon and GSLV launched their payloads to geostationary transfer orbits.

What does a geostationary transfer orbit look like, and how does the satellite get from there into its final position? Of the two satellites I mentioned, GSAT-14 took the more common route, so we’ll use it as an example. (SES-8 used a supersynchrounous transfer orbit, where the orbital period is longer one day.)

Mike doesn’t have all the parameters required to make an exact GSAT-14 simulation, so he’s made a few assumptions and created a virtual cocktail napkin outline for us to follow. 

Let’s revisit the line I struck from my GSLV article:

The satellite was placed into a geostationary transfer orbit with a perigee of about 180 kilometers, an apogee of about 36,000 kilometers and an inclination of 19.3 degrees. 

GSAT-14 launched out of India’s Satish Dhawan Space Centre. The mission began in powered flight under the GSLV, which is represented by the red line:

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 powered flight and coast

When it hit the equator, the GSLV finished its share of the work and released GSAT-14. This point in the orbit is our descending node. Ascending and descending nodes are just fancy ways of saying you crossed the equator in either a southbound (descending) or northbound (ascending) direction. For a geostationary transfer orbit, the descending node is also at perigee, the orbit’s lowest point. Here, GSAT's altitude is 180 kilometers. For comparison, the International Space Station has a typical altitude of just over 400 kilometers. 

GSAT-14 now coasts as it dips beneath the equator to a latitude of 19.3 degrees (our inclination), and starts heading back north. As we cross the equator again, we’re at the ascending node, and we’re also at apogee, the highest point of our orbit—36,000 kilometers above the Earth. For perspective, the Earth’s radius is 6,400 kilometers and the average distance to the moon is 384,000 kilometers. In other words, we’re five-and-a-half radii above the planet, and roughly one-tenth of the way to the moon.  

Here’s what that looks like from two different angles:

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 approaching apogee

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 first apogee

Our orbit is still fairly elliptical at this point. That’s no good—we want to circularize the orbit and lower its inclination to zero. We can accomplish both of these tasks by conducting a series of engine burns at apogee. According to the Indian Space Research Organization, GSAT-14 used three Apogee Motor Firings (AMFs) to get into its final orbit. For simplicity’s sake, we’ll assume a burn happens each time the satellite hits apogee. 

Why do three burns, instead of one long burn? Mike says that in some cases, single, long-duration burns can be less efficient, and there may also be limitations on a spacecraft’s engines that prevent them from firing for too long. We’ll also assume each of the three burns gets us a third of the way to our final orbit. 

After the first burn, our orbit becomes the pink line:

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 after first engine burn (polar view)

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 after first engine burn (equatorial view).

After a second burn at apogee, our orbit becomes the teal line: 

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 after second engine burn (polar view)

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 after second engine burn (equatorial view)

And after a third burn at apogee, our orbit becomes the green line: 

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 after final engine burn (polar view).

Mike Loucks / SEE

GSAT-14 after final engine burn (equatorial view)

And there we are! One geostationary satellite roughly 36,000 kilometers high, positioned at 74 degrees East, ready to provide communications services to the people of India. Here’s a video that puts it all together:

Kick: Nawazuddin delivers the real kick

This Eid the Rambo Khan's, i.e, Salman bhaai's fans expected a real kick ass movie. The trailer was also promising. But the movie can be appreciated on the count of the theme of welfare of the poor. 
Obviously, some stunts are illogical, specially the stunt in which the cycle crosses the track, leaving Devil behind. This stunt has been criticized a lot over the social media. But some stunts are good (like the scene in which Devil escapes the building in Poland).

But if I describe about the acting, it is Nawazuddin Siddiqi, who steals the show. In fact, in this movie, I see him as the Indian version of Joker (of famous Hollywood flick The Dark Knight).

His dialogue delivery is also full of fun and can be enjoyed again and again. This movie belongs to him.