North East strife... rooted in history

This became popular as the Inner Line Regulations because of the name given to the line of control by the author of the Act, Sir Arthur Hobhouse, a member of the Viceroy’s Council. This regulation is also called ‘The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation I of 1873.’ According to this Act, which was to be applicable to the districts of Kamrup, Darrang, Nowgong, Sibsagar, Lakhimpur, Garo Hills, Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Naga Hills, Cachar and Chittagong Hills, a restriction line was laid down to regulate interaction between the tribesmen and the British subjects in the plains; bordering the hills.

This is another reason why the plainsmen and the hilly people never really had time to understand one another. The British rule only perpetuated the segmentation of the population not in the interest of the region but to conserve the distinctions among the people and keep them separated. It is all a part of their divide and rule policy. This line was called the Inner Line and beyond this no British subject was allowed to enter without a formal pass from the concerned authority. The Regulation laid down that ‘any British subject or other person ... who goes beyond the Inner Line ....without a pass, shall be liable on conviction before a magistrate to a fine not exceeding` 100 for the first offence and to a fine of not exceeding` 500 or to simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both for each subsequent offence.’

The Regulation further laid down that, ‘any wood, wax, ivory, rubber or any other jungle products found in the possession of any person without permit, may be confiscated to the government.’ The Act also prohibited the killing or catching of the wild elephants without a license, and laid restrictions on the possession of land beyond this line, by saying that, ‘it shall not be lawful for any British subject, not being native of the district, to acquire any interest in the land or the product of land beyond the Inner Line without sanction of the local government.’

The local government, however, was empowered to suspend or alter these restrictions from time to time. It was also made clear that the Government of India was not to be held responsible for the loss of life or property beyond the Inner Line, of those persons who went there without a permit.

Too much of ad hocism had gone into the drawing of lines, borders and territories and limits keeping in view only the benefit of the Britishers by the authorities then. This led to alienation of land, property and borders at the whim of the Britishers. However, this Inner Line was not a static line and kept changing depending on the purpose it served the British from time to time.

The Inner Line, while allowing the preservation of the tribal culture to a great extent, also meant that the differences among the tribes also remained intact. If a culture is preserved and a tradition remains untouched through interactions, the lines separating one from the other becomes harder.

As far as the positive aspects of the Inner Line are concerned, there cannot be any doubt that this regulation was a well-thought out measure and was not objected to in the last 140 years but, it led to a disparity in the economic conditions. The goods of tribals could be sold in outside markets and they could also purchase goods from the plains but the profits went to the British as they could successfully lure them to buy more of their products with their earnings.

Among such commodities that had been encouraged to be bought was opium. The tribals also did not know where to invest their money for profits as it was not encouraged.

The value of the opium sold to the tribal of the hills amounted to as much as Rs 30,300. The Marwari people regularly traded opium for local products of hill men. Further, this Inner Line Regulation accelerated the process of.

Earlier, in the pre-colonial days, the tribals had access to the markets in China and Tibet and there was free trade among them. With the colonial era, this movement and the trade itself got stunted and slowly ebbed out to the detriment of the local economies of the North East. Alongside the economy, even social and developmental parameters suffered as never before due to the alienation.

Anthropologists could as well term such a condition as primitive to some extent. The tribal economies of North East remained to languish in the hinterland of the colonial economy under the colonial rule. (Does it answer the reliance of the tribals of North East today on the poppy cultivation?).

With no worthwhile study of history done even after independence by the Indian government whose priorities remained elsewhere some emphasis has begun only recently for the transformation of the economies. Even today only the district headquarters could be noticed as a developed area in the States. (It is an entirely different discussion as to what exactly is development vis a vis such regions from ecology viewpoint) Administrative experts in the British Rule did not suggest development of the region precisely. They only pointed to the cost of such a reform and questioned the necessity of the same.

Everyone talks of railway lines being laid by the British and the other developmental aspects of their rule but no one explains the absence of the same in the North East. That points to the deliberateness of colonial rule and the interplay of its interest.