The Mizo Zirlai Pawl (MZP), Mizoram’s apex students’ body, on Tuesday submitted a memorandum to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the long-standing issue of Assam – Mizoram border dispute .
In the memorandum the MZP reiterated that the boundary line demarcated in 1875 under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873 during the British rule is the only boundary between Assam and Mizoram accepted by the Government and the people of Mizoram.
“The boundary line established during the British rule in 1875 under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873 is accepted as the international boundary between the British and Lushai territory (Mizoram). The 46 boundary pillars erected in the border to demarcate the territory/boundary of Mizoram and Cachar (Assam) during the British rule is still considered as the Inner Line; besides this Inner Line there is no proper border stone to demarcate Mizoram-Assam border. Thus, the Mizo people want to go back to the original boundary marked in 1875,” the memorandum stated.
The MZP stated that the area where it planned to construct a rest shed called Zofate Chawlhbuk, that triggered fresh tensions over the border issue last month, is “well within Mizoram.” The memorandum stated that the plot of land belongs the first Chief Minister of Mizoram, late Ch Chhunga (L).
“Even a Land Settlement Certificate (LSC) record has been maintained since 1987. Tax has also been paid to the Mizoram Government with the latest payment on March 5, 2018,” the memorandum stated. The plot of land was donated to the MZP by Lalrothangi, the widow of Ch Chhunga.
The MZP maintained that its plan to construct a rest shed at the place, which is under Mizoram territory, is not illegal.
The memorandum further stated that the residents of Hailakandi district in Assam where the disputed area lies are mostly illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. It can be proved from the report made by the National Register of Citizens (Prime Minister Vision Report).
communities. The Zeliangrong Baudi (Assam, Manipur and Nagaland) termed the decision of the NSCN (I-M) “arbitrary” and called the consultative meeting to discuss the issue.