Tibetan interests and consequent Tibetan intrigues among the
border tribes were never so serious as in the case of Afghanistan. And, even if there were ever any serious Russian threat in Tibet,
as Curzon seems to have believed, it was effectively nullified by the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1906 and the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. Tibet could, of course, assume as important
a place in Anglo-Chinese relations as Afghanistan in AngLo-
Russian relations, if China proved as serious a threat to British interests in India and Central Asia as did Russia. But except for a brief period from 1910, China's position in Tibet was not con sidered by the British as a source of great danger. Secondly, while Afghanistan had common religious bonds with the tribesmen of the north-west frontier whom she could easily incite with a call for .jihad, the Buddhist Tibetans had no such ties with the non-Buddhist tribes of the north-east frnntier.
Economic factors were primarily responsible for tribal un rest on the north-east frontier. Of these the most important was the dispute between the hillmen and the government regarding the possession of the land at the foot of the hills north of the Brah maputra. This land was of major importance in the economic life of the tribes, since it provided them with forests for hunting
and rubber-tapping, land for cultivation and grazing and rivers for fishing."^ There was of course no* formal evidence in support of the hillmen1 s claim to this land. But occasionally one comes
by some circumstantial evidence in their favour. For instance, after the annexation of Assam the hillmen were found to be in
2
occupation of villages south of the sub-montane tracts. Most probably, taking advantage of the weakness of the later Ahom
rulers, the tribesmen had committed this encroachment and asserted their claims to rights more or less definite over lands lyings in
3
the plains. Early accounts of north-eastern Assam also show that the tribesmen were in the practice of hunting in the forests,
4
and fishing and gold-washing in the rivers at the foot of the hills. All these indicate that they enjoyed an effective power in this tract before the British annexed Assam. Consequently, British ex pansion in -the Brahmaputra valley directly clashed with the tribes men* s interests in this tract.
^Not much direct and systematic evidence is available concerning the utility of this tract in tribal economy. We can only glean some information from casual and scattered evidence. For example, see Dy. Commissioner, Lakhimpur, to Assam, No. 50C., 25 March 1877: I.F.P., Pol., August 1877, No. 512; Mackenzie, History, p.24;
Capt. Maxwell's Report on Aka expedition quoted in Reid, History, p.269.
^D. K. Mukherjee, Final Report on the Land Revenue Resettlement of the Darrang District. 1927-55, p.8.
3
Mackenzie, History, p.7. 4
E. Bengal & Assam to India, Foreign Dept., No. 3923-J., 9 September 1907: P.S.S.F. Vol.13 (1910), 126l/l908.
British territory extended up to the foot of the hills. The Abors at first strongly resisted this demand and claimed all the land from the Brahmaputra to the foot of the hills as their own. It was only after patient persuasion that they accepted the British demand.'1' But'the Abors did not honour the treaties. They persisted
2
in their old claim to the land. One Abor tribe even ate their
3
copy of the treaty to show their contempt for it.
The demarcationof the Inner Line as the northern boundary of effective British administration in Darrang and Lakhimpur was a great blow to the tribesmen’s interests in the land at the foot of the hills. When the government decided to fix this line in Dar rang south of the Aka country, the Kapaschor Akas refused to re cognize the line between the Bhareli and the Khari Dikrai rivers. They claimed an extensive tract on the Bhareli which was cut off
4
by the proposed alignment. This demand was in the long ran re sponsible for the trouble in the winter of 1883 when the Akas seized
^Major Bivar to Assam, No. 146, 27 November 1862: P.P.O., August 1863, No. 37.
^For instance see p. 78 for the Abors1 claim to 600 sq. miles. Further, in 1881 the Government of India admitted that the Abors had entirely ignored their treaty obligations aid openly as serted claims to the land north of the Brahmaputra as their own. See India to the Secy, of State, No. 149, 19 December 1881: I.F.P., Pol., December 1881, No. 146.
3-r ~
I.0.Memo. B.180, Comber to Hopkinson, No. 19P., 22 April 1865: I.F.P., Pol., July I865, No. 80.
4
84.
the Balipara mattzadar. Lakhidhar Kolita, and successfully raided Balipara.^ They bore him a grudge as they had seen him always
accompanying the government ofUceisat the time of the survey and demarcation of the Inner Line; hence they held him chiefly re sponsible for demarcating the Inner Line "as near the hills as feasible". The Inner Line and the gazetting of forest reserves
witAin thatline at once precluded the tribesmen from their pursuits of livelihood in the land at the foot of the hills. They were de prived of what they considered their ancient rights to catch ele phants and tap rubber in the forests at the foot of the hills.
Their grievance was further accentuated by the officers who rigidly enforced the forest rules in the reserves, and even threatened
the hillmen with the loss of their right to a path to the plains 2
which ranthrough what was now a government forest.
The Abor outrages of 1893 which led to an expedition against the Abors in 1894 were also due to this disputed land at the foot of the hills. The Abors of Membu, Padu, Silluk and Dambuk used to cultivate a tract of country between Pasighat on the Lihang and Nizamghat on the Dibang. The Abors claimed this land as their own
and objected to British subjects entering it. But the government 1
Beid> History, pp. 269-270; Mackenzie, History, pp. 367-8. ^Mackenzie, History, p.367; Reid, History, pp. 269-70.
refused to recognize their claim since the land lay in the plains below the foothills. This attitude of the government provoked the Abors whomurdered some sepoys at Bomjur on 27 November and at Kherimpani on 23 December, 1893. After the