‘Statesman’ Sarma lines up border talks, opposition says better slow than sorry

The eminence grise of the Northeast under the BJP, which now governs most of the region by itself or in alliance, Sarma clearly sees a chance to add another rung to his stature.

Assam Border Affairs Minister Atul Bora says the Sarma government is putting special focus on resolving inter-state boundary disputes. “Every year, there is some trouble at the borders, leading to loss of lives, violence and law and order problems. That is why the CM is focusing on this issue with such urgency.”

During British rule, Assam included present-day Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya besides Mizoram, which became separate states one by one. Attempts to resolve the boundary problems that linger on have failed consistently.

Bora, who belongs to BJP ally AGP, said this time things are different. “We have identified the problem areas, and we are sure to see results.”
However, the Opposition sees it as another example of the BJP regime’s oversell.

Soon after Sarma and Sangma unveiled their recommendations last week – of the total 36.79 sq km disputed area, to give Assam 18.51 sq km and Meghalaya 18.28 sq km — the Opposition questioned the “haste”, asking why it was being done without consulting the Assam Assembly. Local bodies like the Asom Sattra Mahabha, an apex body of influential Sattras (influential Vaishnavite monasteries), alleged that Assam was surrendering territory to Meghalaya “without a proper survey”.

The Congress’s Debabrata Saikia pointed out earlier examples where Meghalaya had not agreed to recommendations to solve the border dispute. “Governments prior to this one have all tried hard, through discussions and understandings, but they never worked out. We all want an amicable solution but this ‘give and take’ land swap approach, as has been recommended with Meghalaya, seems hurried,” said Saikia.

The developments were just a ploy by the BJP government “to show the Himanta Biswa Sarma can solve anything”, he added.

Others pointed out that the issue with Meghalaya was comparatively easy to resolve, unlike, for example, Arunachal Pradesh (where there are 1,200 points of differences with Assam), and Nagaland (where previous episodes of violence have led to loss of lives). Some of the disputes are currently in the Supreme Court.

Others wondered if Sarma’s flurry of border talks was dictated by the clashes along the Mizoram border in July last year, which had led to the death of six Assam policemen.

A BJP politician from a northeastern state admitted this, while refusing to identify himself, saying Sarma realised his initial “aggressive missteps” in Mizoram. “This triggered a lot of misgivings among neighbouring tribal states. It was clear that Sarma took a decidedly aggressive stance and that backfired, since for tribals, land is everything. Our identity is based on our land,” said the politician.

The development is also a setback as Sarma has built his politics as a leader with great political instincts and an administrator who can get things done – even when he was not CM and even when he was still in the Congress. He has fronted the BJP’s push in the Northeast, and in an acknowledgement of this, he remains the convenor of the BJP-led North Eastern Democratic Alliance (NEDA) of non-Congress parties for the past six years.

Criticising the Meghalaya recommendations, Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi said Sarma just wanted to “protect his influence as leader of NEDA”.

Sanjib Baruah, Professor of Political Studies at Bard College, who has written extensively on the region, said the move to seek political solutions for the border disputes was welcome, but the road ahead may not be easy.

He pointed out that among the list of “mutually agreed principles” quoted in the Assam-Meghalaya recommendation are “ethnicity of local population” and “peoples’ will”. Citing the example of the Assam-Nagaland border, many parts of which is a reserve forest, he pointed out that a large number of people with diverse ethnic ascriptions have settled there.

“The local population may not have the papers for those lands since these are not legally sanctioned settlements. Once CMs agree on such an area being part of one or the other state, it might involve regularising informal settlements. Is the Assam government prepared to do that? Or if an area comes under a ‘hill state’ like Meghalaya, would the Meghalaya government recognise a person who is not a Khasi Pnar or a Garo as a legitimate resident?”

Despite these problems, the politician from the tribal state pointed out that Sarma’s focus on the border was “positive”. “It will take some time but he is making a consistent effort, unlike his predecessors,” he said, adding that all states were keen to solve the border issues.

A senior government official involved in the matter said there was a vital difference between earlier attempts and this time: the problem had now been “broken down to chewable bits”, and the low-hanging fruits had been identified first.

Hence Meghalaya, he said. “Among the four states, it was the softest to handle and the six areas taken for study did not have large differences.”
The frequent meetings among the two CMs (Sangma and Sarma have met as many as eight times since July) also went a long way towards significant progress in the talks.

Minister Bora pointed out: “For Meghalaya, regional committees were formed, we made several trips to the site, kept in mind local sentiments, people’s will… All of it was carefully considered.” He also dismissed the argument that the Mizoram flare-up had made Sarma change course, saying he held his first meeting with Sangma before July last year.

The BJP’s Pijush Hazarika, who was part of the border resolution committee for Meghalaya, said the Opposition was attacking the talks as it “did not want a solution”. “They are not concerned about the people who continue to suffer. At least we are taking steps and trying to solve the issue,” he said.