Assam-Mizoram Border Dispute Leads to Clashes; Houses Torched, Many Injured

Reported by

Sarup Sinha

Published on

January 4, 2021

January 4, 2021

Updated on

January 4, 2021

Location of Conflict

Vairengte Village, Mizoram

Lailapur Village, Assam

Kolasib

Reason or Cause of Conflict

Border Dispute

(

)

People Affected by Conflict

101

Land Area Affected (in Hectares)

131830

ha

Starting Year

1994

State

Mizoram

Sector

Land Use

Assam and Mizoram share a 164.6kilometre interstate border that runs along Cachar, Hailakandi and Karimganj districts in Assam and Kolasib, Mamit and Aizawl districts in Mizoram. The interstate border consists of several flashpoints, owing to contested territorial claims, where disputes arise sporadically. Two events, both in October 2020, heightened the tension along the disputed border. The first incident occurred on October 9 when a scuffle broke out on the border of Karimganj and Mamit districts after two huts belonging to Mizo locals were torched. The local authorities were able to deescalate the situation, preventing casualties. The second incident occured on October 17, 2020. Clashes broke out between the residents of Lailapur village in Cachar district and Vairengte village in Kolasib district. The immediate trigger for the violence, according to Kolasib district Deputy Commissioner H. Lalthlangliana, was an episode of stonepelting at Mizo residents and police personnel by some people allegedly from Lailapur. He added that despite the imposition of Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and presence of police personnel in the area, a large mob had assembled to retaliate against the stonepelting, which resulted in the clash. According to a note released by the Government of Mizoram, seven Mizo civilians were injured in the attack, and makeshift stalls, shops and huts were torched. Schools were bombed on July 10, October 24 and November 6 in 2020 and on February 3 in 2021. The current dispute stems from historical reasons. Longstanding territorial claims have been made by both the states since 1972, when Mizoram ceased to be a part of Assam and became a Union Territory. In 1987, Mizoram achieved full statehood following the Mizoram Peace Accord, 1986, which brought an end to the decadeslong insurgency in the state. Both Assam and Mizoram disagree on the demarcation of the interstate border. While Mizoram considers the boundary between Lushai Hills (now Mizoram) and Cachar district – delineated during the colonial times by the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873, as the authentic border, Assam recognises the 1933 demarcation line between Lushai Hills and Manipur as the actual boundary. Mizoram officials refer to an earlier agreement according to which both Assam and Mizoram had agreed to ensure status quo in the border area considered nomans land. The violation of status quo has often resulted in confrontation in the past. Mizo officials claim that it was in one of these disputed spots that a makeshift hut, allegedly used by local volunteers guarding the interstate border, was demolished, leading up to the incident on October 9, 2020. Assam officials, however, maintain that while Mizos have traditionally resided and cultivated in the area, the land in question falls under Assams jurisdiction as per records. Parimal Shuklabaidya, a politician from Cachar, told a news agency that such incidents happen in the area every year as people from both sides cut trees illegally. Meanwhile, Lalrintluanga Sailo, an MLA from Mizoram, alleged that the disturbance may be politically motivated. L. Sailo and Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP), the apex Mizo student body, have also decried the presence of alleged illegal Bangladeshi immigrants at the border while objecting to the Assam governments inaction. A resident of Varingte village told LCW, on the condition of anonymity, that people in the border areas stay in close contact with each other and though public opinion often differs from those held by Mizo civil organisations such as the MZP, residents generally share their disapproval of alleged illegal Bangladeshi immigrants residing in the border.  Following the 2020 violence, both Assam and Mizoram have deployed additional security in the affected areas. Mizoram Chief Minister Zoramthanga and Assam Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal also had a telephonic conversation wherein they emphasised the need to make joint efforts to solve the dispute amicably. The Union Ministry of Home Affairs also initiated talks with Mizoram and Assam. Home Minister Amit Shah has held separate conversations with both the chief ministers. On October 18, 2020, a meeting was chaired between the chief secretaries of Assam and Mizoram by Union Home Secretary Ajay Kumar Bhalla. The ministry urged both the states to maintain harmony, abstain from aggressive posturing and ensure steady supply of goods along the interstate border. However, the opposite happened as the movement of trucks along NH306 – the foremost supply route of Mizoram – stopped twice because of road blockades. The first blockade, initiated by Lailapur residents in response to the clash on October 17, 2020, lasted for four days. Vehicular movement resumed on October 22, 2020, under police protection despite attempts by the MZP to impose a similar blockade in Mizoram. After a brief calm, the blockade was enforced again on October 28, 2020 by Lailapur residents demanding the withdrawal of Mizo forces from the disputed border areas. On November 8, 2020, the Union governement called for truce in the region and on November 11, the blockade was finally lifted when the Mizoram government, which had earlier remained adamant, agreed to partly withdraw its forces. Vehicular movement then returned to normalcy. However, following the bombing of a school on February 3, 2021, 50 houses were burnt and 30 persons were seriously injured in a clash at the border on February 10. This led to the beefing up of security in Hailakandi and Kolasib districts, where the clash happened. In March, Mizoram Home Minister Lalchamliana stated that the border dispute is yet to be resolved.

Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

No items found.

Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community

Settlement of border dispute; Mizo groups have demanded the detection of illegal immigrants in the border area

Region Classification

Urban and Rural

Type of Land

Common

Type of Common Land

Forest and Non-Forest

Total investment involved (in Crores):

Type of investment:

Year of Estimation

Page Number In Investment Document:

Has the Conflict Ended?

No

When did it end?

Why did the conflict end?

Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict

Constitutional Law, Central/State Government Policy

Legislations/Policies Involved

North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971
Section 6, Section 8 [These sections are applicable because they constituted/re-constituted the States of Mizoram and Assam]
State of Mizoram Act, 1986
Section 3 [This section granted full statehood to the State of Mizoram from a Union Territory]
Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873
Sections 1 and 2 [These sections prescribe the application of the law to the said border areas, which are the epicentre of the conflict]
Notification No. 2106 A.P., Government of Assam dated March 9, 1933
  1. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  2. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  3. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  4. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  5. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  6. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

  7. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.

Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute

What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community? What was the decision of the concerned government department?

Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:

Land record discrepancies

Lack of legal protection over land rights

Legal Status:

Out of Court

Status of Case In Court

Whether any adjudicatory body was approached

What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?

Name of the adjudicatory body

Name(s) of the Court(s)

Case Number

Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:

Torching of houses

Physical attack

Whether criminal law was used against protestors

Reported Details of the Violation:

Clashes started between residents of Lailapur village in Assam’s Cachar district and residents of Vairengte village in Mizoram’s Kolasib district. The trigger was an episode of stone-pelting at Mizo residents and police personnel by some people allegedly from Lailapur. Several people were injured, and makeshift stalls, shops and huts were torched. This was only the first of events. Several human rights violations followed in the next few months.

Date of Violation

October 9, 2020

Location of Violation

Near Vairengte Village

Nature of Protest

Property damage/arson

Blockades

Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:

Ministry of Home Affairs, Cachar district administration (Government of Assam), Kolasib district administration (Government of Mizoram)

PSUs Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?

Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached

Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:

Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?

Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:

Mizo National Front, Bharatiya Janata Party

Resources Related to Conflict

  • News Articles Related to the Conflict:
  • Documents Related to the Conflict:
  • Links Related to the Conflict:

Image Credit:  

Image Credit:  

Documented By

Text Link

Reviewed By

Text Link

Updated By

Text Link

Edited By

Text LinkLand Conflict Watch
X

Support our work

Your contribution ensures continuity of this crucial project.

As a member, you will get exclusive access to special reports, policy papers and research projects undertaken by Land Conflict Watch and behind-the-scenes interactions with the writers and researchers about their work.
Contribute Now