Namsai declaration

What is the Namsai declaration? What is the background behind the Namsai declaration? What are the Key Highlights of the declaration? Why do inter-state border disputes remain unresolved? Read further to know more.

To settle boundary conflicts, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh signed the “Namsai Declaration.”

Out of 123 contested villages along the boundary between the two states, 37 places have been resolved as of the date of the declaration.

What is the Namsai declaration?

• The Namsai Declaration, which aims to reduce the inter-State border dispute affecting 123 villages, was recently signed by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and his Arunachal Pradesh counterpart Pema Khandu.
• On December 26, 2007, Arunachal Pradesh presented a local commission with a list of these villages.
• The proclamation states that the only border disputes between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh will be those brought up before the regional commission in 2007.
• The Assam and Arunachal Pradesh interstate boundary will be realigned as the two states strive to resolve their long-standing border issues. The boundary realignment will be based on a line drawn by a committee in 1960.
• The Namsai district in southern Arunachal Pradesh is headquartered in Namsai.

The background behind Namsai declaration

• The controversy stretches back to the British Empire, when they introduced inner line control in 1873.
• The North-East boundary tracts were eventually referred to the British-delineated planes and frontier Hills in 1915. Today’s Arunachal Pradesh is made up of these Northeastern boundary tracts.
• In 1954, the administrative authority was transferred to Assam, and the frontier tracts were given the new name Northeast Frontier Agency (NEFA).
• However, a subcommittee led by the chief minister of Assam issued several recommendations regarding the management of NEFA in 1951.
• According to the committee’s report, Assam’s Darrang and Lakhimpur districts received 3648 sq. km. of the plain region that had previously been in Arunachal Pradesh. This notification’s rejection by Arunachal Pradesh has become a point of contention.
• In 1954, it was given a new name—North East Frontier Agency—and given to the Central government.
• Arunachal Pradesh, which became a union territory in 1972, has a complaint that Assam was arbitrarily given control over a number of forested tracts on the lowlands that had historically belonged to hill tribal chiefs and clans.
• Present-day The North East Frontier Tract, which became Arunachal Pradesh in February 1987, was governed by the Governor of Assam on behalf of the President of India.
• A tripartite committee was established following the statehood of Arunachal Pradesh in 1987, and it made recommendations for the transfer of several Assamese regions to Arunachal Pradesh.
• The boundary between the two states is 804.1 kilometres long. The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in this case after Assam objected.
• The boundary between Arunachal Pradesh and Assam will be realigned in order to settle a long-running conflict using the line drawn on 29 topo-sheets by a high-powered committee in 1960.

Also read: Assam-Meghalaya Border Dispute: Recent Developments

Why did the demarcation become a bone of contention?

• According to Assam, the delineation set forth in the 1951 announcement is legitimate and constitutional.
• However, Arunachal Pradesh maintains that its residents were not consulted prior to the move. It was arbitrary, flawed, and no Arunachal Pradesh tribal leader was contacted. The tribes also paid taxes to the Ahom kings, and AP had customary rights over these areas.

What steps were taken to handle the boundary dispute between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh?

• Out of 800 km in 1983–1984, 489 km were marked as boundaries. The suggestions were rejected by Arunachal Pradesh, preventing further demarcation.
• In 1989, Assam brought a lawsuit before the Supreme Court exposing encroachment by Arunachal Pradesh. In 2006, the Court established a commission. In its report, which was submitted in 2014, the commission urged debate and consensus-building as a means of resolution.