Nagaland Post

Border row: JAC seeks CM’s intervention

March 12, 2014 | by admin

Joint Action Committee (JAC) comprising of members from border villages in Dimapur-Karbi Anglong border area have sought the immediate intervention of Nagaland chief minister over the situation prevailing in the area.
In a joint representation signed by JAC convenor Hetokhu Awomi and seven other representing the committee and Rangapahar, S. Hukavi Zhimomi Colony, Sangtamtila Village, Muruse Village and Thahekhu Block 7, JAC said the governments of Nagaland and Assam had agreed that the inter-state border area was a disputed land and made a joint declaration in 1971 and the same was re-affirmed in 1979.
Pointing out that the matter was still pending in the court and a decision was yet to be taken, the JAC claimed that “Karbis, Gurkhas and Bangladeshis” have established more than 40 villages in and around the disputed land. The committee said that the dense forest under the disputed area was left under the supervision of Assam forest department and has been completely destroyed.
JAC alleged that the entire area was been “occupied by these groups of people” leaving no free space and the same activities were being carried out under the “patronage/protection of Assam police and government.
JAC also appealed the chief minister to withdraw the promulgation of Section 144 of CrPC immediately and instead asked for the deployment of at least one company of IRB/NAP personnel in the disputed area as the Assam government has already deployed its police force. This, the JAC said was to protect the Nagas from constant harassment by Assam authorities. The committee also asked the chief minister to initiate a move for the deployment of “neutral forces” if the state could not send in its forces as per the agreement between Nagaland and Assam governments.
JAC also warned that of the state authorities failed to take measures, the committee would be compelled to take its own course of action like “flushing out these groups of people living in Nagaland” and in the disputed area as they had no “locus standi” to claim or occupy the land.

RELATED POSTS

View all

view all