Inter-state agreements brokered by the Union are emerging as a pragmatic substitute for formal boundary settlements. Examine in light of recent Northeast accords.

India's inter-state boundary disputes, like Assam–Nagaland (pending before the Supreme Court since the 1960s), resist formal redrawing under Article 3. Instead, the Union now brokers operational agreements — pragmatic instruments that manage frictions without resolving borders.

How they function as pragmatic substitutes

• Sidestepping deadlock: the tripartite Assam–Nagaland mineral-oil MoU (2026) unlocks a long-frozen hydrocarbon belt through joint governance and 50:50 revenue-sharing, without prejudicing either state's territorial claim [1].
• Cooperative federalism: the Centre acts as honest broker between states — the Assam–Meghalaya pact (2022) settled 6 of 12 disputed areas [2].
• Speed and flexibility: executive agreements avoid protracted litigation and Article 3 legislation.
• Confidence-building: the Assam Rifles land transfer to Mizoram (2025) defused a fault line and aided development [3].
• Together they advance energy security, the AFSPA drawdown, and Northeast peace.

Why they are no true substitute

• They are workarounds, not settlements: the Assam–Nagaland boundary remains sub judice [1].
• Success hinges on political alignment between cooperating governments — fragile across electoral cycles.
• Shared zones leave administrative and revenue ambiguities.
• Bypassing the legislature and courts defers, rather than delivers, legal finality.

Union-brokered accords are effective interim devices that deepen cooperative federalism and stabilise the Northeast, but they complement rather than replace formal settlement. Institutionalising them through the Inter-State Council (Article 263), alongside eventual constitutional resolution, would convert pragmatic peace into durable peace.