Shillong, September 21, 2026: Residents of Maikhuli in Ri-Bhoi district held a public meeting at the village football ground on Monday to protest the alleged entry of Assam Police and government officials into the area and the reported dismantling of part of the ground’s boundary wall on September 19.
The residents alleged that repeated actions by Assam authorities had created fear and uncertainty in the border village. They expressed concern that their ancestral land could gradually come under Assam’s control if the Meghalaya Government failed to intervene.
Representatives of several pressure groups attended the meeting and expressed solidarity with the villagers.
Speaking at the gathering, Confederation of Meghalaya Social Organisations (COMSO) Chairman Roy Kupar Synrem praised the residents, particularly women, youth and elders, for standing up to protect their land.
Synrem assured the villagers that COMSO and its constituent organisations would stand “shoulder to shoulder” with them in efforts to safeguard their ancestral territory.
“Not even an inch of land belonging to the people of Maikhuli and inherited from their forefathers should be taken away,” he said.
The COMSO chairman criticised successive Meghalaya governments for allegedly failing to permanently resolve the inter-state boundary dispute, despite Meghalaya attaining statehood 54 years ago.
Referring to previous incidents along the Meghalaya-Assam border, including the clashes at Langpih and Mukroh, Synrem questioned whether authorities would act only after another violent incident occurred at Maikhuli or elsewhere along the boundary.
He also alleged that the border dispute had repeatedly been used as an election issue, with political leaders making assurances before elections but failing to deliver a permanent solution.
Synrem strongly opposed the 2022 Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Meghalaya and Assam governments to resolve six of the 12 areas of difference. Maikhuli falls under the Khanapara-Pilangkata sector, one of the sectors covered by the agreement.
He claimed that residents of Maikhuli and neighbouring areas were dissatisfied with the settlement, alleging that a substantial portion of land historically associated with Meghalaya had been transferred to Assam.
According to Synrem, approximately 2.5 square kilometres of disputed land were involved in the area, of which Meghalaya received around 0.5 square kilometres under the settlement.
He argued that the agreement should not be accepted if it does not adequately reflect historical records, the views of local residents and their longstanding possession of the land.
Synrem also pointed to the existence of local institutions in the area since the early 1950s as what he described as evidence supporting Meghalaya’s claim. He questioned why proper demarcation had allegedly not been completed four years after the agreement.
He alleged that the absence of clearly marked boundaries had contributed to disputes, including the reported entry of Assam officials into the football ground and their claim that the area fell under Assam’s jurisdiction.
“The land does not belong only to the present generation. It must be protected for the children and grandchildren of Maikhuli,” Synrem said, urging residents to remain united against any alleged attempt to take over their land.
He also cautioned the Meghalaya Government against following what he described as a similar approach in negotiations over the remaining six areas of difference, some of which involve sensitive stretches of the interstate boundary.
The meeting demanded immediate intervention by the Meghalaya Government, proper demarcation of the boundary and adequate security for Maikhuli residents. It also called for a review of the 2022 settlement based on historical records and the views of the affected indigenous population.
