Anomalous Borders, Geographical Knowledge, and the Inner Line in India
This article examines the Inner Line system in British India’s northeastern frontier to show how borders are historically produced and dynamic. Introduced through the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873, the Inner Line operated as an internal administrative partition that nonetheless function...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/angles, |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Sprache: | Anglais |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Angles
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
openedition-oai:revues.org:angles_11161 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
openedition |
| collection |
OpenEdition Journal |
| language |
Anglais |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/OpenEdition Journals/ |
| topic |
colonialisme Ligne intérieure frontières territoire limite colonialism Inner Line frontiers territory boundary |
| spellingShingle |
colonialisme Ligne intérieure frontières territoire limite colonialism Inner Line frontiers territory boundary Ghadyalpatil, Charuta Anomalous Borders, Geographical Knowledge, and the Inner Line in India |
| description |
This article examines the Inner Line system in British India’s northeastern frontier to show how borders are historically produced and dynamic. Introduced through the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873, the Inner Line operated as an internal administrative partition that nonetheless functioned as the practical limit of sovereign authority in a region where the external border remained undefined until 1914. What existed beyond the Inner Line, therefore, was a zone where sovereignty was fragmented and where law remained mired in ambiguity.Over time, the Inner Line was repeatedly redefined, becoming a key element of colonial governance in the region – all the while remaining indefinite, almost by design. It enabled extra-legal colonial interventions and institutionalised a civilizational distinction between the hill and valley populations. The article traces various spatial and ethnological discourses that framed the hills as an unruly frontier. This representation underpinned the Inner Line and was developed over the 19th and 20th centuries through surveying, mapping and ethnological classification to naturalise a new colonial territorial order. It argues that the line was not just a geographical division but a mechanism that reshaped the region’s patterns of mobility and association to fit within the imperial economic and administrative order. Previous studies on northeastern India have analysed how colonial interventions framed the region’s geography, agrarian structure, and security concerns. This article builds on such scholarship, situating the Inner Line within wider discussions on frontiers in British India. By tracing how the Line was repeatedly redrawn, amended, and circumvented, the article emphasises its fluidity and its role as a flexible technology of power that regulated mobility, economic extraction, and administrative reach. Finally, I show how, in post‑colonial India, the Inner Line has acquired new and often competing meanings — becoming at once a security instrument, a mechanism of indigenous protection, and a site of political contestation. |
| author |
Ghadyalpatil, Charuta |
| author_facet |
Ghadyalpatil, Charuta |
| author_sort |
Ghadyalpatil, Charuta |
| title |
Anomalous Borders, Geographical Knowledge, and the Inner Line in India |
| title_short |
Anomalous Borders, Geographical Knowledge, and the Inner Line in India |
| title_full |
Anomalous Borders, Geographical Knowledge, and the Inner Line in India |
| title_fullStr |
Anomalous Borders, Geographical Knowledge, and the Inner Line in India |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Anomalous Borders, Geographical Knowledge, and the Inner Line in India |
| title_sort |
anomalous borders, geographical knowledge, and the inner line in india |
| publisher |
Angles |
| publishDate |
2026 |
| container_title |
URI:https://journals.openedition.org/angles |
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.4000/1630o https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://journals.openedition.org/angles/11161 |
| _version_ |
1877291726712864769 |
| spelling |
openedition-oai:revues.org:angles_11161 https://doi.org/10.4000/1630o urn:doi:10.4000/1630o en https://journals.openedition.org/angles/11161 2026-04-16T02:00:00Z info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess article info:eu-repo/semantics/article urn:handle:20.500.13089/1630o https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Anomalous Borders, Geographical Knowledge, and the Inner Line in India Angles Société des Anglicistes de l'Enseignement Supérieur info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/2274-2042 URI:https://journals.openedition.org/angles Ghadyalpatil, Charuta colonialisme Ligne intérieure frontières territoire limite colonialism Inner Line frontiers territory boundary This article examines the Inner Line system in British India’s northeastern frontier to show how borders are historically produced and dynamic. Introduced through the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation of 1873, the Inner Line operated as an internal administrative partition that nonetheless functioned as the practical limit of sovereign authority in a region where the external border remained undefined until 1914. What existed beyond the Inner Line, therefore, was a zone where sovereignty was fragmented and where law remained mired in ambiguity.Over time, the Inner Line was repeatedly redefined, becoming a key element of colonial governance in the region – all the while remaining indefinite, almost by design. It enabled extra-legal colonial interventions and institutionalised a civilizational distinction between the hill and valley populations. The article traces various spatial and ethnological discourses that framed the hills as an unruly frontier. This representation underpinned the Inner Line and was developed over the 19th and 20th centuries through surveying, mapping and ethnological classification to naturalise a new colonial territorial order. It argues that the line was not just a geographical division but a mechanism that reshaped the region’s patterns of mobility and association to fit within the imperial economic and administrative order. Previous studies on northeastern India have analysed how colonial interventions framed the region’s geography, agrarian structure, and security concerns. This article builds on such scholarship, situating the Inner Line within wider discussions on frontiers in British India. By tracing how the Line was repeatedly redrawn, amended, and circumvented, the article emphasises its fluidity and its role as a flexible technology of power that regulated mobility, economic extraction, and administrative reach. Finally, I show how, in post‑colonial India, the Inner Line has acquired new and often competing meanings — becoming at once a security instrument, a mechanism of indigenous protection, and a site of political contestation. Cet article analyse le système de la « ligne intérieure » (Inner Line) à la frontière nord‑est de l’Inde britannique afin de montrer que les frontières sont des constructions historiques et mouvantes. Instaurée par le règlement de 1873 relatif à la frontière orientale du Bengale, la ligne intérieure dessinait une division administrative interne qui, toutefois, fonctionnait comme une limite pratique de l’autorité souveraine dans une région où la frontière extérieure resta indéterminée jusqu’en 1914. Au‑delà de cette ligne s’étendait ainsi un espace où la souveraineté apparaissait fragmentée et où le droit demeurait ambigu.Au fil du temps, la ligne intérieure a été redéfinie à plusieurs reprises, devenant un élément central de la gouvernance coloniale dans la région, tout en restant fondamentalement indéterminée, presque à dessein. Elle a permis des interventions coloniales extra‑légales et a institutionnalisé une distinction civilisationnelle entre les populations des collines et celles des vallées. Cet article retrace les différents discours spatiaux et ethnologiques qui ont représenté les collines comme une frontière indisciplinée. Cette représentation a soutenu la ligne intérieure et s’est précisée aux XIXe et XXe siècles à travers l’arpentage, la cartographie et la classification ethnologique, contribuant à naturaliser un nouvel ordre territorial colonial. Il montre que cette ligne n’était pas seulement une division géographique, mais un dispositif politique qui a reconfiguré les schémas de mobilité et d’association de la région pour les intégrer à l’ordre économique et administratif de l’empire.De précédentes études consacrées au nord‑est de l’Inde ont analysé la manière dont les interventions coloniales ont façonné la géographie, la structure agraire et les enjeux sécuritaires de la région. Le présent article s’appuie sur ces travaux en replaçant la « ligne intérieure » dans le cadre plus large des débats sur les frontières dans l’Inde britannique. En suivant comment cette ligne a été à plusieurs reprises redessinée, modifiée et contournée, l’article met en évidence sa fluidité et son rôle de technologie de pouvoir souple, qui régulait la mobilité, l’exploitation économique et la portée de l’administration. Enfin, je montre comment, dans l’Inde postcoloniale, la Ligne intérieure a acquis des significations nouvelles et souvent contradictoires, devenant à la fois un instrument de sécurité, un mécanisme de protection des populations autochtones et un lieu de contestation politique. |