caption: |
extension of the Control Area to the Patkoi Range |
text: |
Extract from note accompanying Deputy Commissioner's D.O. no. nil dt. 11/11/41: I think the control area should be extended at once to the Patkoi Range on the East. |
text: |
As villages in the control area get more civilized there comes a time when they realise how far better off and happier the administered villages really are. The outstanding example is the Sangtam villages just to the east of Mokokchung, which were first administered in about 1927. At that time they were so poor that they used to work for the Aos during the harvest and other busy seasons and in their external relations were dominated by the Changs, now Chare the largest Sangtam village is one of the chief sources of the supply of rice to Mokokchung Station. |
text: |
Instead of the male population spending half their time on sentry duty they can work in the fields and trade and work in the plains in the cold weather. |
text: |
The rest of the Sangtam tribe is continually clamouring for administration and accordingly the proposal of which a copy is attached was submitted in 1939. The reason for the postponement is that it would violate the constitution Act. This was discussed in Shillong and I understand that my view that the Patkoi, and not the existing district boundary, was the Assam boundary was to be further examined. |
text: |
The Sema villages between the Tizu and Tsutha or Tita Rivers are also fit for administration. These two extensions would not involve any fresh outposts of Assam Rifles. |
text: |
As regards the extension of the administered area the great difference between this area and the Sema-Sangtam area which I have recommended for inclusion is the number of guns owned by those in the control area. For this reason only an extension is necessary. It should start with the taking over of the Chi and Totok villages who in spite of all Government orders continue to use guns in tribal warfare. But this cannot be done until there is a Sub-Division at Wakching. |