The status quo principle governing the Disputed Area Belt (DAB), in place since Assam’s 1989 Supreme Court suit, remains active, and unilateral actions against alleged encroachers in many places risk being seen as premature.
By Demo Megaskratia
The ongoing eviction drive launched by the Government of Assam in Golaghat district since July 29, 2025, targeting settlements in and around the Rengma and Doyang Reserve Forests, has allegedly disrupted the fragile balance in the long-standing Assam–Nagaland border dispute. While Assam presents the operation as a “forest reclamation effort,” critics argue it may undermine legal processes and ancestral claims. The status quo principle governing the Disputed Area Belt (DAB), in place since Assam’s 1989 Supreme Court suit, remains active, and unilateral actions risk being seen as premature. Nagaland continues to contest the colonial-era 1925 notification cited by Assam, asserting that the affected areas fall within ancestral Naga domains.
Settlers as State-Instrumentalized Communities
The term “illegal encroachers” allegedly obscures the historical context in which many of these communities were settled. Reports suggest that successive Assam governments in the late 1970s and 1980s may have encouraged settlement in these zones as demographic buffers. Villages were reportedly established with state-backed security formations, including Village Defence Parties, as early as 1979. Rebranding these populations as infiltrators raises concerns about shifting narratives and alleged state-driven demographic strategies.
Assam as the Alleged Aggressor, Not the Victim
From the Naga perspective, the encroachment is allegedly more pronounced from the Assam side. The colonial transfer of Naga-inhabited lands in 1925 remains contested, and the formation of Nagaland in 1963 did not resolve these historical grievances. Allegations suggest that Assam’s forest department and police actions in these areas may be perceived not merely as governance but as attempts to consolidate control under the guise of conservation.
Humanitarian and Security Fallout
The eviction of approximately 1,500 families—impacting nearly 15,000 individuals—has allegedly triggered a humanitarian crisis in a sensitive border zone. Many of those affected reportedly possess valid Indian citizenship documents. Observers warn that such actions could escalate tensions and evoke memories of past clashes, such as the Merapani incident of 1985. Alleged bypassing of border peace committees and central mediation mechanisms raises concerns about the potential for renewed conflict.
Silence of Nagaland’s Leadership
The absence of public statements or visible action from Nagaland’s leadership has drawn criticism. Deputy Chief Minister Y. Patton, who holds the Home and Border Affairs portfolio, has yet to issue a formal response. Similarly, the constituency MLA, Achumbemo (NPF), has remained more or less silent. This lack of political engagement is allegedly unsettling for affected communities and raises questions about representation and accountability.
Political Expediency and Regional Implications
The eviction drive may also be viewed through the lens of regional politics, particularly with Assam heading into the 2026 elections. Allegations suggest that such actions could be part of a broader strategy to assert sub-nationalist narratives and reshape demographics in contested zones. This pattern, some argue, reflects a wider trend across the Northeast, where state power is allegedly used to redraw boundaries at the expense of indigenous identities.
Deeply Injurious to Fragile Peace
From Nagaland’s standpoint, the eviction drive is allegedly provocative and detrimental to the fragile peace along the Assam–Nagaland border. Critics argue it violates legal norms, distorts historical narratives, and exacerbates humanitarian concerns. The perceived inaction of Nagaland’s leadership further compounds the situation. A constructive resolution may require:
- Immediate suspension of unilateral evictions in the Disputed Area Belt.
- Central government intervention to uphold the status quo and initiate dialogue.
- Recognition of Naga historical rights and a settlement that transcends colonial-era boundaries.
Until then, the situation remains tense, with Assam’s actions allegedly viewed by many in Nagaland not as forest protection, but as a continuation of contested territorial claims.