Brahmaputra,
Imphal and Surma valleys with surrounding
mountains and hills are the geo-political
boundaries of Northeast India. Comprising of
seven States Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram,
Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur and
Tripura, with a collective area of 255,088
sq. km. (about 8% of the country's
territory) include two third of hills and
forests and one third plains. Bounded by
Bhutan and China (Tibet) in north, Myanmar
in east and south and Bangladesh in south
and west, the region is connected with about
4000 sq. km of porous international borders
and touching the two ends of only a 20km
wide corridor (Siliguri Corridor) in west
with the rest of India.
With a combined population of about four
crores (38,495,089 -2001 Census), which
includes 209 Scheduled Tribes (Arunachal
Pradesh -101; Manipur -29; Assam - 23;
Nagaland - 20; Tripura - 18; Meghalaya - 14;
and Mizoram 53) - Northeast is a most
diversified region. States with overwhelming
tribal population are Meghalaya, Arunachal
Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram whereas those
having more than one third tribal population
are Manipur and Tripura (Women and Changing
Power Structure in Northeast India - Ashok
Kumar Ray - Rajendra Prasad Athparia, 2006).
Contrary to the general perception these
tribes constitute below 30% of the
population of the entire Northeast. While
Assam, Tripura and Manipur are dominated by
about 60% of non-tribal population, the rest
of the states are having a tribal majority
ranging from 60 to 90 percent. The area
being the abode of various ethnic groups
like Ahom, Naga, Lusai(Mizo), Meitei, Garo,
Khasi, Koch, Hajomg, Rabha, Kachari, Tippera,
Chakma, Abhor, Bodo, Miri and hundreds of
other tribes for centuries - remained the
isolated corner of Indian sub-continent and
away from the larger civilisational masses.
Contented in forests and hills, the tribes
of the Northeast viewed anyone entering in
their territory as outsiders. With a
definite territory, kinship, social
structure, distinct tradition and mostly
having non-monarchical character, they
remained away from the influence of
Sanskritisation for centuries and preserved
their exclusivity till the annexation of
their territories by the British in the
nineteenth century. Except for Nagas and the
Mizos most of others were however, under the
domain of some princely kingdoms like Ahom,
Manipur, Tripura and Khasis. Nagas and Mizos
were constant problems for these rulers.
The British annexed the Northeast at
different points of time like Assam plains
(1826), Cachar plains (1830), (Khasi Hills
(1833), Jaintia plains(1835), Karbi Anglong
or Mikir Hills (1838), North Cachar Hills
(1854), Naga Hills (1866-1904), Garo Hills
(1872-73) and Mizo Hills (1890) (Autonomy
Movements in Assam - Documents by P. S.
Datta, 1993, Page 5-6). All these areas
formed parts of Assam Province of British
India. But the colonial power with a view to
keep them excluded from the ministerial
jurisdiction of Provincial Government
declared these hill districts as Excluded
Areas under the exclusive administrative
control of Chief Commissioner of the
province. They introduced inner line permit
to prevent the entry of outsiders in this
area without valid permit. This permit
system debarred the hill people from
interaction with the larger masses of Indian
mainstream and from the socio-political
influence of the outside world. Manipur,
Tripura and Khasi States (Now Khasi Hills in
Meghalaya) remained as Princely States under
Brtish control.
The Christian missionaries followed the
British and established their foothold in
the region. Converting the tribes from their
indigenous faith to Christianity, they
robbed off their traditional identity and
imposed on them a new socio-religious
identity based on Christian traditions. Such
socio-religious transformation was though
contrary to their respective ethnic
traditions, over the years the converted
tribes accepted it as the generic identity.
Christianization and basic education helped
some of them to get middle to lower level
jobs in Church and British administration
which gave birth to a middle class; a new
social phenomenon in tribal society. This
new class of people, who came into contact
with the people outside their area -
gradually developed identity consciousness.
The social reformers of mainland India
practically remained indifferent of this
development and did not make any effort to
counter it. Similarly, the leaders of
freedom movement due to lack of rapport with
hill people - failed to instill among them
any emotional feeling towards India. Thus,
in the absence of socio-cultural intercourse
with the plains of India the isolated tribes
developed a centrifugal tendency against
mainland Indian sub-continent.
In the backdrop of the historical reality,
when freedom knocked the door of the country
and the British declared the lapse of its
paramountcy over Indian States, it placed
the national leadership in a complex
situation. Being confronted with the problem
of preventing further balkanization and the
task for integrating 562 Princely States -
they failed to appreciate the new political
awakening in tribal society (Integration of
the Indian States by V. P. Menon, 1985, Page
485).
The tribal masses accepted many imposed
changes, which were against their
self-governing character and heterogeneous
system of pristine institutions but had not
anticipated their future political identity
because of non-participation in the freedom
movement. Therefore, even with provision in
Indian constitution for preservation of
their traditions a section of vested
interest with the investigation of foreign
forces sought independent existence outside
India. Ironically, those, who with a view to
preserve their independent identity had
fought decades after decades against the
British before their subjugation - were in
the forefront of secessionist demands on a
plea of imaginary danger to their forcibly
imposed religio-cultural identity. But the
Mizos under the influence of Mizo Union,
Garos under the banner of Garo National
Council and most of the other tribes favored
integration of their territories with India
with more tribal autonomy and thus, the
entire region of the northeast became the
integral part of Indian Union.
It is a known fact of history that in a
federal polity the national objective cannot
be achieved without regional support for
which the Indian core was expected to
appreciate the unique geo-social problem of
the region. It needed an organic
relationship with its diverse ethnic groups
particularly the hill tribes. The national
leadership however, failed to develop any
mechanism for their emotional integration
with the national mainstream. In stead of
breaking the legacy of imperialist rule,
undoing the arbitrary and irrational British
method of administration and formulating a
coherent nation-centric policy to build up
an organic relation between the tribal
masses and rest of people in India, they
took them for granted. Ignoring the
alienated mindset of these people, they
provided opportunities to the forces of
vested interest to fish in troubled water.
Taking advantage of the situation, the
imperialist forces while establishing their
operational bases in different parts of
South East Asia began playing the divisive
game in Northeast. (Insurgency in Northeast
India by S. K. Sareen, 1982). While China
with its eye on this oil, tea and mineral
rich region tried to unite its people for an
umbrella of Mongoloid movement, Pakistan and
Bangladesh with Muslim League agenda of 1906
for Islamic expansionism promoted Muslim
infiltration in the region and helped the
secessionist forces against India. Church is
regarded one of the four arms of western
powers besides Infantry, Air Force and Navy
(Dr. J. C. Kumarappa's quote from 'What ails
North-East' by Bhanu Pratap Shukla) and
hence the Christian Missionaries, with a
view to maintain religio-cultural hegemony
in the region also helped them through
western powers.
Against the background of the unique
situation, India has been facing the
challenge of autonomist and secessionist
demands at different places in Northeast at
different points of time but ethno-political
violence in the region was often greatly
exaggerated in the media. India is a country
where caste, creed, language and religion
dominate the political discourse and
therefore, the centuries old isolated region
cannot be an exception. If we look into the
on going movements and revolts in number of
regions in the country, it appears that
entire India is passing through a whirlpool
of competitive and violent politics as seen
in Northeast. Maoists, Sikh extremists and
the movements for new States like Telangna,
Bundelkhand and Harit Pradesh are nothing
but a continuous search for new political
identity by the diverse groups in the
country.
In absence of a sense of pan-Indianism among
them, hill people of Northeast, who had more
proximity with the people and cities across
the international border than rest of India,
were not expected to overcome their
political confusion overnight. With arms
left by Japanese army in the region during
Second World War the Nagas under the banner
of Naga National Council led by Angami Zapu
Phizo therefore, fired the first shot for
liberation of this territory from Indian
occupation just on the eve of Independence
on August 14, 1947. Though, the revolt was
suppressed and Phizo was arrested in 1948,
his arrest made him the supreme leader of
the Nagas. Gradually he succeeded in
accomplishing Naga unity irrespective of
their division in over a dozen of
sub-tribes. He even consolidated the Nagas
residing in the contiguous areas of Assam,
Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and even in
foreign territory of Myanmar and now the
insurgents are demanding Greater Nagaland,
which includes all the Naga inhabited areas.
The poisonous virus of Naga revolt disturbed
the political climate of entire Northeast
and subsequently encouraged other ethnic
groups like Mizo, Bodo, and Meitei for
similar demands.
The Unique geo-political situation of
Northeast with long international border is
vulnerable from the security point of view.
Moreover, instigating hand of foreign
enemies further complicated its problem. The
British granted political asylum to Z. A.
Phizo, the legendary Naga rebel and extended
helping hand to Mizo insurgent Laldenga.
Pakistan, China and Bangladesh on the other
hand were supplying arms to various
insurgent groups regularly. Baptist
Christian Missionaries like Michel Scott
meddled in tribal politics. These known
misdeeds of foreign forces are enough proof
to suggest that had the Indian establishment
countered the evil designs of foreign
adversaries effectively, the on going
insurgency would not have persisted. Forced
migration of Hindu refugees from East
Pakistan reduced the aboriginal natives of
Tripura to minority and Assamese also became
scared of similar fate due to the politics
of Muslim infiltration. Despite these
developments the national leadership
remained contended and paid little attention
to study the problem dispassionately. Even
re-organization of states in mid 1950s was
carried out without looking into this dark
area.
The dialogues maintained by different
insurgent groups in northeast with
Government of India are continuing since
independence. In the process some of them
gave up their secessionist demand and also
joined the politico-economic mainstream of
the country. But there are still a sizeable
number of insurgents particularly in
Nagaland, Manipur, Assam and Tripura where
widespread ethnic conflict has kept the
entire northeast disturbed for decades.
Over the years the Government of India with
a view to pacify the secessionist and
autonomist ethnic groups, reorganized Assam
and created Nagaland (1963), Meghalaya
(1972), Mizoram (U.T. in 1972 and
full-fledged statehood in 1987), Manipur
(1972), and Arunachal Pradesh. Creation of
smaller States on the basis of ethnic groups
opened a Pandora box as the state leadership
in the region have not fulfilled the
political aspirations of over 200 hundred
tribes, who have been in inter-ethnic
conflicts for centuries. In Manipur various
aboriginal ethnic groups like Meitei, Nagas,
Kukis, and Hmars are fighting against each
other under their respective insurgent
leaders. In Meghalaya too, Garos and Khasis
do not have smooth relation. In Assam the
Bodos, Kacharis and a number of other tribes
are demanding their separate States or
independence. Even though peace is restored
in Mizoram, Chakmas in this State are not at
all comfortable with the Mizos.
The background of all the secessionist
movements in Northeast is different but
ironically, a section of media, academics
and social scientists are trying to combine
them together and have made the problem more
and more complex. Blaming the Centre for the
neglect of the region they plead that the
former is treating its people as if they are
not the citizens like rest of India.
Mahasweta Devi, a well-known litterateur
while answering to a question on unrest in
Northeast said, "I think the area has been
neglected for years. We have not treated
them as part of India so it has resulted in
unrest" (Pioneer dated January 16, 2006).
Such academic assessment suggests that the
genesis of the trouble has emanated from the
neglect of the region.
Movement for preservation of ethnic identity
in India has been an important issue of
political discourse for decades. There is
nothing wrong if such discourse is meant for
the progress of the society without negating
the nation building process. In Northeast it
is however used by wide network of
self-serving and anti-people corrupt
politicians, Government officials, drug and
arm smugglers and lumpen elements with the
help of instigating hands of neighboring
countries.
The educated elite among the hill peoples
with their share in political power emerged
as a new feudal class that changed the
socio-economic scenario in the in tribal
society. Usurping the traditional right over
land and forest of their own people and
dividing the tribal society between rich and
poor, they created class rivalry, which was
unusual for tribal society. Ironically,
despite the deep-rooted inter-tribe
contradiction, tribal intelligentsia, who
failed to share political power, is in
unending search for larger identity on the
plea of ethno-nationalism, which is the
common ideology of all the secessionist
groups. Their so-called quest for identity
related insurgency is simply a pressure
tactics for more and more political
concessions.
The State leaders are saleable commodities
at the hands of the ruling party at Centre.
They change their loyalty overnight if there
is change in Centre as they are more
interested in seeking Central fund than to
change the secessionist tendencies of the
people. The national leadership overlooks
the siphoning of public fund to the
insurgents for the sake of their respective
party's interest. Media reports suggest that
the insurgents extort huge amount from
ruling party leaders in their respective
States. "The Outlook magazine carried a
story that Ibobi Singh, Chief Minister of
Manipur paid Rs. 1.5 crore to some
Revolutionary Peoples' Front. Former
Governor Lt. Gen. (Retd) V. K. Nayyar
leveled similar charges against two former
Chief Ministers in the State, besides a
number of other politicians" (Pioneer dated
February 9, 2006). In spite of the known
nexus between the various anti-people forces
and the insurgents, to put blame only on
Centre may not be fair.
Above all, the ground reality also suggests
that the failure of the Central Government
to manage the international boarder with
firm hand to counter the unfriendly designs
of our neighbors is the prime reason behind
the unrest. Except Bhutan no other country
across the border took tough action against
the insurgents. If trans-border migration of
insurgents is prevented, they may not
survive for long. Ever Since Jawaharlal
Nehru, the first Prime Minister of the
country was trapped in the 'Hindi-Chini Bhai
Bhai' slogan and faced humiliating defeat in
1962, his successors continuously maintained
soft attitude towards undesirable
developments along the northeastern borders.
Failure of the Centre in 1962 War gave rise
to centrifugal forces in Northeast to
accelerate secessionist demands.
The insurgents groups have covered a long
way in fighting for the independence of
their territories and some of them
strengthened their striking power due to the
sanctuary and help from across the
international border but the common masses
are not with them. They are fed up with the
disturbances, which have only increased
their miseries. They are more interested for
development than to support them. It is a
historical fact that rise of any country is
closely linked to the emotional integration
of its diverse regions and accordingly,
contrary to the general academic perception
the post-colonial leadership of India always
accepted the people of the region as equal
partners in nation-building process. But it
is unfortunate that they are facing the
trauma of insurgency for over half a century
at the hands of a group of their own people.
As discussed above, their owes are factually
linked with the deep nexus between the
insurgents and corrupt politicians and State
officials, who allow unabated
black-marketing of essential commodities and
drug smuggling and not with identity crisis
as is often highlighted by the media.
One can understand that the hill people of
the region were under historical isolation
from the socio-cultural interaction with the
larger civilisational masses for centuries
and were therefore apprehensive against the
imaginary danger to their ethnic identity.
But had such historical background been
reason behind insurgency, why did the
Assamese, who had centuries old
socio-cultural link with the rest of Indian
sub-continent and had taken an active part
in freedom movement also now pose challenge
against their assimilation with Indian
State?
In view of the multiplicity of large number
of ethnic groups, who are now aspiring to
have their respective independent States or
sovereignty on the plea of their pre-British
status and separate nationality, the problem
is getting multiplied day by day. The belief
of the hill people that they were sovereign
entity before their annexation by the
British is applicable to a number of ethnic
groups in the country. After departure of
British over five hundred Princely states
which had sovereign status merged under one
democratic geo-political boundary and the
Hill districts of Assam also became a part
of Indian Union. Thus, harping on
Pre-British status will only add to the
prevailing socio political tension in the
region. With growing number of militant
outfits, if independence were granted on the
basis of ethnic identity, there would be
endless fight for hundreds of States or
nations in the northeast. This is neither
practicable nor feasible. However, being a
region of competing ethnicity of a large
number of tribes and sub-tribes, North-East
needs a lasting solution in totality through
a revolutionary nation-centric policy.
Academics, political analysts, social
scientists and tribal intelligentsia are
pondering over only the economic neglect of
the region and their pre-British identity as
primary reasons behind the insurgency. But
if one looks into the overall economic
structure of the country Northeast is also
in the continuing process of development
particularly in fields of education,
communications, rural electrification and
cottage industries. The level of development
in this region may not be at par with
relatively higher developed states like
Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat,
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu but in comparison
to BIMARU States, from where crores of
populations are migrated for search of
livelihood, Northeast is much better off. An
ambitious plan of a grand Asian high way to
connect India to Myanmar, Thailand and China
through Assam, Manipur and Nagaland is
already in pipeline, which will provide
economic boom to the region once it is
through. Thus, the blame on Centre for
economic neglect of Northeast may not be
fair. In fact the Indian establishment
provided respectable and proportionate place
in the political map of the country also to
the people of Northeast. But with greater
number of western educated people than many
of Indians in plains, they expect larger
share in political power.
Despite political and administrative
corruption, the increasing participation of
the people of Northeast in the development
process of their respective States and
significant changes in their socio-political
behavior have sent a positive signal that
they are working as equal partners in the
nation-building exercise. Sending larger
number of their representatives in
Parliament from national parties like
Congress, BJP and CPM and participation of
the people of entire region in elections
prove their commitments towards the core of
Indian Union. Laldenga, the Mizo rebel
leader ultimately joined the mainstream
politics under India's constitution and
Mizoram is practically free from the menace
of insurgency. Similar is the case of
Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh. Therefore,
the apprehension of the dismemberment of
Northeast from India through the so called
co-ordinated challenge to the Indian core is
far from the ground reality. Only some
misguided sections in Nagaland, Manipur,
Tripura and Assam are working for India's
inimical neighbors and anti-Indian forces
only for their self-serving interest. They
need to be handled with a strong political
will as the rise of a sovereign state
depends upon the integration of its diverse
regions under a centripetal pull. Once the
forces of disintegration are allowed to grow
it will be the beginning of its decline.
Bibliography:
Insurgency in North - East India -S. K.
Sreen, 1982.
India's North - East in Flames - V. I. K.
Sarin, 1982.
North-Eastern Frontier of India - A. C.
Sinha, 1994.
Integration of Indian States- V. P. Menon,
1985.
Thirty Years of Naga Insurgency - M. Horam.
India and North - East India -Sajal Nag,
1998.
Hill Politics of Northeast India -S. K.
Chaube.
Women and Changing Power Structure in
Northeast India - Ashok Kumar Ray - Rajendra
Prasad Athparia, 2006.
Tribal Identity and Tension in North East
India - B. Datta Ray, 1989.
The Periphery Strikes Back - Challenges to
the Nation - State in Assam and Nagaland -Udayon
Mishra, 2000.
Rites of Passage - Sanjoy Hazarika, 2000.
General Election in India (2004) - M. L.
Ahuja
Anatomy of Revolt - S. Gurudev, 1996.
Echos from North Eastern India - S. K. Ghosh
- Prabha Chopra, 1960.
Autonomy Movements in Assam - Documents by
P. S. Datta, 1993.
*** The author can be reached at
ramashray60@rediffmail.com
*** The
article was originally published at
www.saag.org
*** The article has been published with due
permission from South Asia Analysis Group (SAAG),
a non-profit and non-commercial think tank.
*** You
may visit
www.saag.org for further
readings. |
