Recurrence of skirmishes along the inter-State boundaries between Assam and its neighbouring States of Mizoram, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and Meghalaya over prolonged boundary disputes speak volumes about the yawning gaps in the coordination mechanism among these States. States maintaining the status quo till disputes are resolved is critical to protecting the lives and properties of thousands of people living on both sides of disputed inter-State boundaries. The matter is pending before the Supreme Court ever since the Assam government filed a civil suit in 1988 which says a lot about the legal complexities. The apex Court directed the States to maintain the status quo till the pending cases are disposed of. Assam has been insisting on constitutional boundaries that are defined in the acts passed by the parliament when Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram were carved out of it as full-fledged States. The neighbouring States disputed the constitutional boundaries and are insisting on constitutional as well as historical boundaries for settling the inter-State boundaries. The recurrence of skirmishes, which sometimes snowball into full-blown conflicts pushing state police forces to rush and deploy additional contingents, even when these States are run by either the same parties or their political allies, is baffling. Often talks at the official level follow after major incidents of skirmishes along the disputed boundary and the States agree to put in place a mechanism for regular coordination to prevent such incidents and to prevent a flare-up when it occurs. Such mechanisms are multi-tiered from Chief Ministers-level down to the border magistrate level. These meetings, however, fail to undertake a comprehensive review of the coordination mechanism and what went wrong that led to violation of the status quo or flare up in the situation. Once a skirmish occurs, formal coordination at the Chief Ministers level is the most effective channel to quickly activate coordination mechanisms at all the tiers to prevent it from assuming a full-blown conflict. In the age of digital communication and video conferences, waiting for a physical face-to-face meeting at Chief Ministers-level or Chief Secretaries-level to discuss such matters which require urgent interventions to defuse crisis is a meaningless exercise. Differing perceptions about the boundary make discussions at the coordination meetings a challenging task as both sides seek to stick to their positions.
The Central government pushing for ending such inter-State boundary disputes before the 75th Independence Day has triggered hopes for early resolutions of the disputes. The issue is expected to be discussed at length during a meeting of all Chief Ministers of the north-eastern States to be chaired by Union Home Minister Amit Shah tentatively later this week. The Central government can play the most effective role of facilitating regular coordination at frequent intervals at the Chief Ministers' or Chief Secretaries level. Putting the issue of addressing the development and welfare activities for people living along the disputed stretches of the boundaries on the table during Shah's meeting with chief ministers is of paramount importance. The Central Government shouldering the responsibility of undertaking development projects of setting up schools, hospitals and other healthcare institutions, building roads and bridges through schemes and projects of North Eastern Council or the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region can be explored to ensure that people in these areas do not remain deprived of basic amenities due to boundary disputes. Most of the boundary disputes result from States concerned objecting to setting up a development infrastructure along disputed boundaries by the neighbouring States due to differing perceptions of the notified boundary. Even if the NEC or DoNER Ministry is entrusted such a responsibility could be a stop-gap arrangement till the boundary disputes are resolved and created infrastructure can eventually be handed over to the respective State government once the boundary is settled and demarcated. A school, a hospital or a safe drinking water supply project or irrigation project along the inter-State boundary, for instance, can benefit people from both States. These infrastructures are important to sustain age-old interdependence among the communities living along inter-State boundaries for trade, commerce and other people-to-people exchanges. Such a mechanism could also help the States to keep the differing perceptions confined to the precincts of coordination meetings and not spilling to disputed sites through their unilateral action or activities. Inter-State boundary disputes leading to heavy deployment of police and paramilitary forces in the region sends a conflicting message of hardened boundaries within the region to neighbouring countries with which India seeks to engage under 'Act East' and 'Neighbourhood First' policies under various sub-regional architectures with Northeast at the core of such policies. When States in the region are expected to cooperate more to derive maximum benefits from such foreign policy initiatives of the Central government, recurrence of skirmishes over pending boundary disputes is harming the region most.