76 & 78: The Skipped Pillars

Seram Neken *

A border marker at the Indo-Myanmar border in Moreh as of December 7 2013 :: Pix - Deepak Oinam

The civil society organizations & people of Manipur may ask the difference between Border Fencing and Security Fencing?

During the President's Rule in Manipur in 1971, the authorities of the two countries signed the agreement on border arrangement in the absence of two pillars – pillar numbers 76 and 78. These two pillars were not there in the list of boundary pillars on India-Burma border signed by representatives of both India and Burma on 28 November 1971 during the period of Lt. Governor D.R Kohli.

The controversial missing of the two pillars has probably created the present imbroglio. Territory that Indians claim is located at the place between pillar number 75 and pillar number 77, while the territory that Burmese claim falls in between pillar number 77 and pillar number 79. It is a big riddle why did the then surveyors skip the Pillars numbering 76 and 78.

The present impasse is the outcome of such an irregularity on the part of the governments of the two neighboring countries. People of Manipur and the state government were totally ignorant of what was happening in the border during that time, as there was no elected government in 1971. Earlier, the demarcation was done by the Joint Boundary Commission formed by the two neighboring countries after signing an agreement in 1967.

The controversy in Manipur-Myanmar boundary has been between Border Pillars No. 64 and 68 at Tuivang (Molcham area), Border Pillars No. 75 and 79 at Tamu (Moreh area) and Border Pillars No. 88 and 95 at Choro Khunou.

Border dispute between India and Myanmar is over 171-kilometre long and around 137 kilometres is within Lohit sub-sector of Arunachal Pradesh. The demarcation of 1472 kilometres out of the total 1643 kilometres of Indo-Myanmar boundary has so far been completed.

When the controversies along Manipur-Myanmar boundary cropped up, the State government resolved to set up a Cabinet Sub-Committee on December 17 1999 to settle the border dispute. Subsequently, the State Home Department formed the Cabinet Sub-Committee as per the resolution of the State government on January 6, 2000 with the then Deputy Chief Minister Dr L Chandramani as the Chairman. However, the Cabinet Sub-Committee failed to take any definite resolution and it did not make any fruitful recommendation.

Later on 29 July 2000, the State Home Department constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee to look into the controversial area of Kabow Valley Sector and the report was to be submitted to the State Cabinet within two months. The Committee again failed to take a resolution.

At the fag end of last year, the state media highlighted the controversial border fencing undertaken by the Border Roads Organisation at India-Myanmar boundary. The political and civil society bodies later took up the issue with the highest concern. High ranking officials also made a spot inquiry on the instruction of the Union Home Minister.

In early December last, the Prime Minister assured representatives of political parties that not a single inch of India's land would be gifted away. Later, the Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde asked the Border Roads Organisation to suspend the border fencing construction till an amicable agreement is reached.

The Myanmarese army had allegedly constructed a bunker at Hollenphai village of Manipur claiming that it is within Myanmar territory. On the other hand, the Myanmarese army asked the Indian authorities to stop construction of the integrated check post at Moreh contending that the area is within Myanmar. Recently, border residents of Myanmar along Moreh border staged a rally from Namphalong to Tamu alleging Indian encroachment into their territory.

The State government has been neglecting the border issues for quite a long time. The present government has also not taken up any concrete measure to address this sensitive issue of border dispute. There is also the apprehension that the border issues might be settled by the Indian government with Myanmar without any consultation with the State government.

Although border fencing is necessary for controlling drug trade, women & child trafficking, insurgency and infiltration, it needs to be done with proper consent of the state government respecting the views of residents on the border.

Meanwhile, the State Home Commissioner stated that the controversial fencing was not on the international boundary, it was just security fencing. State BJP President alleged that the state government had given permission for the ongoing construction works at the disputed site. If the BJP allegations are true, then the state government has committed a gross mistake in allowing security fencing construction on the disputed boundary.

Now, the state government needs to respect and consider the voice of border residents who have been protecting the state’s natural boundary for a long time. Besides hearing the voice of border villagers on the natural boundary of Manipur, the existing civil society bodies that have been ceaselessly protecting the integrity of Manipur need to do an academic exercise on the statements given by the authorities to bring about a consensus.