Gogoi favours third party's involvement to solve border dispute

Aizawl, Aug 14 (UNI) Assam Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi has been quoted as saying that he would welcome a third party to solve the boundary dispute between Assam and Mizoram.

Mizo Zirlai Pawl (students association) president P C Laltlansanga today quoted Gogoi as saying that talks between the two chief ministers would not result in a permanent solution to the boundary dispute.

Therefore, a third party's involvement was required, either the Supreme Court or a boundary commission.

Mr Gogoi said it would be his duty to hand over the Forest Reserve Area to Mizoram's Forest department, if the third party said so.

The MZP leaders had met the Assam chief minister at his residence in Guwahati on August 10 to discuss the boundary issue.

In the meeting, the MZP claimed that the original inhabitants of Cachar valley were actually Mizos or Lushais, as they were then known.

Later, the Britishers had demarcated the boundary line in the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act 1875, based on an agreement between the then Cachar DC in 1871.

The student leaders also claimed that the Inner Line Forest Reserve of 509 square miles was carved out of Mizoram in 1877 without the consent of Mizo Lalte (chiefs).

The MZP leaders also told Mr Gogoi that Assam police and Cachar Forest officials behaved unmannerly along the border causing trouble to Mizo villagers and urged him to check their activities.

They pointed out the recent incident where Assam police arrested labourers working at the farm of former Mizoram chief minister Ch Chhunga and seized their bulldozers.

They also cautioned that such behaviour of Assam police towards Mizo villagers would invite border tension.

Besides the boundary issue, the MZP also highlighted how illegal Bangladeshi immigrants created tension in the Northeastern region, which also posed threat to national security.

Mr Gogoi assured the Mizo student leaders that he would take necessary steps to prevent untoward incidents along the border in future.

He, however, repeated that just talks would not be successul in resolving the boundary dispute.

UNI