SHORT of actually waging a war with armed policemen and limited firearms, two Indian states, Assam and Mizoram, all but provided a spectacle of a warlike situation over a decades-old boundary dispute. A flare-up occurred just a day after Home Minister Amit Shah spoke to the chief ministers of Assam and Mizoram.

Some districts in Assam share a 164.6 km-long border with Mizoram. The dispute aggravated on July 26. Police on both sides fought a pitched gun battle, resulting in fatalities for the Assam police that filed an FIR against Mizoram’s chief minister.

After all the tamasha, the predictable happened. Tempers subsided and charges on both sides were dropped, and the rhetoric, especially allegations of tolerance of drug menace, was toned down. Assam allowed trucks carrying essential supplies to go over to Mizoram.

The draftsmen of India’s constitution ignored the problem of interstate disputes.

The nitty-gritty of the climbdown was settled by the tribe which it is fashionable to ridicule — civil servants. Rather belatedly, Assam’s chief minister proposed on Aug 2 a judicial remedy.

In truth, the draftsmen of India’s constitution erred grievously in ignoring the whole problem of interstate disputes, especially interstate boundaries. The constitution makes no provision for a swift and binding decision of such disputes. Article 262 is on “adjudication of disputes relating to waters of interstate rivers or river valleys”. There is no comparable provision on disputes on land.

Article 263 refers to an interstate council. It reads thus:

“If at any time it appears to the president that the public interests would be served by the establishment of a council charged with the duty of (a) inquiring into and advising upon disputes which may have arisen between states; (b) investigating and discussing subjects in which some or all of the states, or the Union and one or more of the states, have a common interest; or (c) making recommendations upon any such subject and, in particular, recommendations for the better coordination of policy and action with respect to that subject, it shall be lawful for the president by order to establish such a council, and to define the nature of the duties to be performed by it and its organisation and procedure.“

The council was stillborn. It is convened only when the centre so desires, not when a state calls for a meeting. On the very few occasions it has met, the centre dominates the proceedings. It sets the agenda. The prime minister presides and controls the proceedings. Finally, it can only advise and make ‘recommendations’. They have no binding force.

The States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which established the new linguistic states set five zonal councils, each comprising the chief and two other ministers of each of the constituent states, and a Union minister as chairman. These zonal councils are advisory bodies. They may discuss any matter of common interest and advise the central and state governments on the action to be taken. The zonal councils are specifically empowered to discuss and make recommendations with regard to border disputes and linguistic minorities. No veto is given to the states, or the centre, all questions being decided by a majority of votes. The councils also may appoint committees of their members.

Notwithstanding this, one finds both the centre and the states ignoring the councils and resorting to ad hoc bodies or the party machinery as in Assam, which could not but affect the prestige of the zonal councils. The stark fact is that these infant institutions were never really given a chance. Indeed, the record of the zonal councils all these years is not one of failure but of their utter neglect.

No doubt, conciliation is far preferable to litigation. What is un­desirable, how­­ever, is that deadlock in negotiations is never sought to be resolved by in­­voking the aid of the institutions specifically est­a­blished for the purpose, but by resort to party pressure and pub­lic agitation. As a result, the issue becomes a matter of prestige and what little hope of compromise exists is lost. State loyalties having intensified by the establishment of linguistic states, interstate disputes tend to become almost as intractable as international disputes, exclusive reliance on political methods seems only to exacerbate this tendency and thus undermine the unity of the country.

Recourse to the institutions established by law, on the other hand, would enhance respect for the rule of law, and also strengthen the links that bind the states. Besides, it costs a chief minister less prestige to submit to an adverse verdict than to be a party to a compromise which inevitably makes some concessions to the adversary. Once these disputes are regarded as matters for adjudication rather than agitation, much of the heat they generate will be taken away.

The agitational approach has been tried and found wanting. It is about time the institutional approach was attempted.

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2021