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. 

Cauvery file: Impact of 1956.

The year 1956 has a very profound impact on the political history of India as it witnessed passing of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 as a major reform of the boundaries of India's states and territories, organising them along linguistic lines.

The Act came into effect alongwith the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, which (among other things) restructured the constitutional framework for India's existing states and the requirements to pass the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 under the provisions of Artcles 3 & 4 of the constitution.

Impacts on the concerned states.

1. Kerala: formed by the merger of Travancore-Cochin state with the Malabar district of Madras State.
2. Madras State: The southern part of Travancore-Cochin (Kanyakumari district) was added to the state. (The state was renamed Tamil Nadu in 1968.)
3. Mysore State: enlarged by the addition of Coorg State and the Kannada speaking districts from southern Bombay state and western Hyderabad state. (The state was renamed Karnataka in 1973.)
4. Puducherry had already become a de facto Union territory in 1954. It entered into the dispute in 1978.

All these changes further changed the equations as Kerala and Puducherry also jumped into the fray. Kerala staked its claim as one of the major tributaries of the Kaveri, the Kabini, now originated in Kerala. The Karaikal region of Puducherry at the tail end of the river demanded the waters that it had always used for drinking and some minimal agriculture.

Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956.

The Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956 was legislated to deal with conflicts, and included provisions for the establishment of tribunals to adjudicate where direct negotiations have failed. However, states have sometimes refused to accept the decisions of tribunals.

Cauvery water dispute: the history behind.

Introduction.

Kaveri river flows in South Karnataka and then to Tamil Nadu. The sharing of waters of the river Kaveri has been the source of a serious conflict between the Indian states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. 

• The genesis of this conflict, rests in two controversial agreements—one signed in 1892 and another in 1924—between the erstwhile Madras Presidency and Princely State of Mysore. 

• The 802 km Kaveri river has 32,000 sq km basin area in Karnataka and 44,000 sq km basin area in Tamil Nadu. 

• The state of Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due share of water from the river as does Tamil Nadu. Karnataka claims that these agreements were skewed heavily in favour of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable sharing of the waters". 

• Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. 

• The Governmentof India then constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the next 16 years, the tribunal delivered its final verdict on 5 February 2007. 

Background of the Conflict.

During middle of the 19th century, numerous plans were drawn up for the utilization of the Kaveri waters by the Princely State of Mysore and the Madras Presidency, of which Tamil Nadu was a part. However, the drought and subsequent famine in the mid-1870s put a hold on the implementation of these plans. The plans were revived by Princely State of Mysore in 1881.

Mysore's plans to revive the irrigation projects met with resistance from the Madras Presidency. Mysore state made a representation to the then British government, after which, a conference was held in 1890 and the Agreement of 1892 was signed.

Agreement of 1892.

This recognised the need for an agreement which would on the one hand allow Mysore reasonable freedom in dealing with its irrigation works and also give Madras practical security against injury to its interests.

In June 1891, Mysore forwarded a set of rules to Madras defining the limit within which no new irrigation works were to be constructed by Mysore across the 15 main rivers without previous reference to Madras.

Some minor changes in the rules suggested by Madras were accepted by Mysore which later resulted in the 1892 agreement which vested prescriptive rights to Madras in sharing the waters of Cauvery.

Construction of dam.

Things came to a head in 1910 when Mysore, under Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar as the king and Sir. M.Visvesvaraya as Chief Engineer came up with a plan to construct a dam at Kannambadi village (in Mysore) to hold up to 41.5 TMC of water. 

• The dam was planned to be built in two stages. In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envisioned, while in the second stage the full capacity was set to be realized. 
• Madras however, refused to give its consent for this move as it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC.

After a reference to the Government of India, permission was accorded to Mysore, but for a reduced storage of 11TMC. During construction, however, the foundation was laid to suit the earlier desired full storage. This raised Madras' hackles and the dispute continued.

• The then British Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 Agreement. The Kaveri dispute thus had come up for arbitration for the first time.

Award of arbitration was given on 12 May 1914. The award upheld the earlier decision of the Government of India and allowed Mysore to go ahead with the construction of the dam up to 11 TMC.

Madras appealed against the award and negotiations continued. Eventually an agreement was arrived at in 1924 and a couple of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and 1933. The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years.

Agreement of 1924.

The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years. As a result of these agreements Karnataka claimed that Mysore was forced to give up rights to over 80% of the Cauvery waters. However both Mysore and Madras were able to complete their projects at Kannambadi and Mettur respectively. According to the Agreement of 1924, Mysore Government constructed the Krishnarajasagara dam at Kannambadi to a capacity of 45 TMC, Madras Government built the Mettur dam to hold 93.5 TMC. If the 1892 agreement could last only for 32 years the 1924 agreement which should have been declared no more operative in 1947 continued till 1974.