From Curzon to the Northeast: How Colonial Borders Still Shape India
In 1907, two years after retiring as Viceroy of India, George Nathaniel Curzon delivered the prestigious Romanes Lecture at Oxford. His chosen theme was Frontiers.
Curzon argued that the idea of rigid, well-guarded national borders was essentially a European invention. Outside Europe, he said, boundaries were far more fluid — they shifted with the power of rulers and faded into neighbouring domains without sharp lines.
That observation rings true when we look at India today. Almost every modern border of India is a colonial legacy, drawn not by local rulers but by the British Empire.
Colonial Lines That Still Define India
Consider a few examples:
- Radcliffe Line (1947): Divided India and Pakistan.
- McMahon Line (1914): Still contested with China.
- Durand Line (1893): Partition-era boundary with Afghanistan.
Even earlier, the British were busy carving boundaries:
- Treaty of Sugauli (1816): India–Nepal border.
- Pemberton-Johnstone-Maxwell Line (1834): Manipur–Burma boundary.
So when we talk of “India’s borders,” we are, in fact, talking about British-drawn maps.
Natural vs Artificial Boundaries
Curzon also distinguished between two types of borders:
- Natural boundaries — rivers, seas, deserts.
- Artificial boundaries — lines drawn by conquest or treaties (most modern borders).
But today, even the idea of “natural” boundaries is fading. Just think of the endless disputes over maritime zones.
The British Playbook: Suzerainty & Protectorates
The British didn’t always annex territories outright. Instead, they invented the concept of suzerainty — keeping princely states formally independent but tightly controlled.
Protectorate states like Tibet became buffers against rival European powers such as Russia in Central Asia and France in Indochina. Curzon proudly described this as a three-layered buffer system. For Britain, it was strategy; but for the region, it was the start of future border disputes.
The Forgotten Populations of the Northeast
One of colonialism’s biggest blind spots was its treatment of what scholar James C. Scott calls “non-state-bearing populations.”
These were small tribal communities in upland Southeast Asia (including much of today’s Northeast India). Living off shifting cultivation and hunting, their loyalties were to clans and villages, not to states. The British annexed Assam in 1826 but left the surrounding “wild hills” largely unadministered, except for occasional punitive expeditions.
To formalise this divide, the Inner Line Regulation of 1873 drew a line separating the taxable plains from the untaxed hills. Over time, these became known as Excluded and Partially Excluded Areas — an administrative model later exported to Burma and Manipur.
Post-Colonial Fallout: Insurgencies & Borders
Fast forward to modern India: many of these tribal populations, once outside the state system, now find themselves divided across hard national borders. Unsurprisingly, this has fueled insurgencies and ethnic conflicts in the Northeast for decades.
The current protests against fencing the India–Myanmar border and scrapping the Free Movement Regime (FMR) are part of this story. Communities divided by colonial lines are resisting today’s hardened borders.
Enter the Westphalian State
Why can’t we just go back to open borders? The answer lies in Europe’s own bloody history.
The Treaties of Westphalia (1648) ended centuries of wars by agreeing that:
- National boundaries define sovereignty.
- Citizenship is based on domicile, not ethnicity or faith.
- States run on taxation and provide services in return.
This model spread worldwide, including to India. And in today’s global system, hard borders are unavoidable.
The Northeast Dilemma
Here lies the contradiction: many Northeast states depend heavily on central transfers rather than their own tax revenue. This weakens the basic tax–citizen relationship that underpins the Westphalian model. Add ethnic loyalties and cross-border ties, and you get today’s tensions.
Still, acknowledging the reality of modern nation-states is crucial. A secular state — where ethnicity and religion are private matters — is not just an ethical position, but a practical survival strategy for diverse societies like India.
The Road Ahead
India may have little choice but to fence parts of its borders, especially with the crisis in Myanmar and China’s growing influence. But fences need not mean walls. Borders can be permeable yet accountable, allowing communities to maintain ties without undermining sovereignty.
Curzon’s century-old reflections remind us that the lines we take for granted were once unknown. Colonial maps have become our modern reality — and navigating that legacy remains one of India’s toughest challenges.