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.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.