7.4. The North-East

In the North-East, regional aspirations reached a turning point in 1980s. This region now consists of eight States. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Meghalaya, which earlier constituted the North-East region, are often called “the seven sisters”. Sikkim, which has been added to the list is–referred to as the ‘Brother’ to those seven states. The region has only 4 per cent of the country’s population but about twice as much share of its area. A small corridor of about 22 kilometers connects the region to the rest of the country. Otherwise the region shares boundaries with China, Myanmar and Bangladesh and serves as India’s gateway to South East Asia.

The North-East of India is a unique region that includes eight states, often referred to as the seven sisters with Sikkim being the brother. This area, while only home to 4% of India's population, occupies a significantly larger portion of the land. Geographically, it is quite isolated, with just a narrow land corridor connecting it to the rest of India, while it shares international borders with three countries. This geographical context sets the stage for understanding the complex social and political dynamics at play in the North-East.

Think of the North-East like a small island that is connected to a large continent by a narrow bridge. While the continent (rest of India) is vast, the island has its own unique cultures, issues, and resources. Just like islands can have distinct identities and challenges due to their isolation, the states in the North-East have developed their unique political and social aspirations.

The region has witnessed a lot of change since 1947. Tripura, Manipur and Khasi Hills of Meghalaya were erstwhile Princely States which merged with India after Independence. The entire region of North-East has undergone considerable political reorganisation. Nagaland State was created in 1963; Manipur, Tripura and Meghalaya in 1972 while Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh became separate States only in 1987.

Since India gained independence in 1947, the North-East has undergone significant changes. Initially, several areas were princely states that later merged with India. This led to political reorganization with new states being created to accommodate diverse cultural identities. For example, Nagaland was formed in 1963, followed by Manipur, Tripura, and Meghalaya in 1972, while Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh gained statehood in 1987. Each change aimed to address the unique aspirations of different communities in the region.

Imagine a school where students from various backgrounds are grouped together. Over time, the school recognizes that some groups work better as separate classes rather than being combined. Just like forming different classes helps students learn better in their preferred environment, creating separate states for different cultural groups in the North-East helps accommodate their unique identities and aspirations.

Three issues dominate the politics of North-East: demands for autonomy, movements for secession, and opposition to ‘outsiders’. Major initiatives on the first issue in the 1970s set the stage for some dramatic developments on the second and the third in the 1980s.

In the North-East, three primary political issues persist: communities' demands for greater autonomy, calls for independence or secession from India, and resistance against outsiders or migrants perceived as threats. The 1970s saw significant movements advocating for autonomy, setting the foundation for more intense struggles in the 1980s, including aspirations for complete independence and tensions with those seen as invading migrants. Each of these issues is tied to the region's unique demographic landscape and historical grievances.

Think of a community garden where the original members feel overshadowed by new members who come in and start changing things. The original members might demand their own corner of the garden to plant what they like and might even feel the need to form their own group if they feel overwhelmed. This reflects the sentiment in the North-East, where local communities express their desires for self-determination and control.

At independence the entire region except Manipur and Tripura comprised the State of Assam. Demands for political autonomy arose when the non-Assamese felt that the Assam government was imposing Assamese language on them. There were opposition and protest riots throughout the State.

After independence, most of the North-East was included in Assam, leading to tensions as non-Assamese populations felt suppressed by policies that favored the Assamese language and culture. Protests erupted as various communities sought recognition of their identities and autonomy, highlighting the larger struggle for cultural representation and political power.

Imagine a group project where one student dominates the discussion and expects everyone else to adopt their ideas. Over time, the less vocal members start to feel excluded and demand that everyone have a chance to contribute equally. Similarly, in the North-East, communities felt they needed their voices and languages recognized to ensure their cultural survival.

Demands for autonomy were easier to respond to, for these involved using the various provisions in the Constitution for accommodation of diversities. It was much more difficult when some groups demanded a separate country, not in momentary anger but consistently as a principled position.

While the Indian government found it easier to negotiate for autonomy through constitutional provisions, secessionist movements posed a greater challenge. These movements were grounded in a deeply rooted belief among some groups that they deserved independence from India, often resulting in lengthy and violent conflicts. This highlights a distinction between managing demands for autonomy and addressing calls for complete separation from the nation.

Think of a family where one sibling feels consistently neglected and wishes to live separately. The parents may work hard to accommodate the sibling’s needs but find it much harder when the sibling insists on moving out completely. In the political context of the North-East, while some groups wanted their needs met within India, others felt they could only attain their goals through complete separation.

The large scale migration into the North-East gave rise to a special kind of problem that pitted the ‘local’ communities against people who were seen as ‘outsiders’ or migrants. These latecomers, either from India or abroad, are seen as encroachers on scarce resources.

Migration has significantly impacted the North-East, leading to tensions between local populations and newcomers, who are often viewed as competitors for resources like jobs and land. Such sentiments have fueled political movements and conflicts, as communities strive to protect their economic interests and cultural identities, often resulting in violence and unrest.

Imagine a small coffee shop that once had a loyal customer base. A new franchise opens nearby, attracting many customers away. The original customers may feel threatened and protective of their local space, expressing their concerns about how the new franchise takes away both their business and their identity. This represents how local communities in the North-East feel about migration and the impact it has on them.

At the time of independence, Sikkim was a ‘protectorate’ of India. It meant that while it was not a part of India, it was also not a fully sovereign country. Sikkim’s defence and foreign relations were looked after by India, while the power of internal administration was with the Chogyal, Sikkim’s monarch.

Sikkim, at independence, held a unique status as a protectorate, meaning it relied on India for defense and foreign affairs but retained internal governance. However, as the local population pushed for greater democratic representation, they sought integration with India. The process that followed involved a referendum and widespread support for joining India, although the Chogyal opposed it. Sikkim's integration illustrates the conflict between traditional power structures and democratic aspirations.

Consider a small club where members feel that management decisions are made by a few, and thus push for a more democratic approach. When given a choice, if the majority decides for a more inclusive model, they may successfully integrate it, despite opposition from the existing leaders. This shows how democratic aspirations can lead to significant changes in governance structures, as seen in Sikkim.

These cases have shown us that even after 75 years of independence, some of the issues of national integration are not fully resolved. We have seen that regional aspirations ranging from demands of statehood and economic development to autonomy and separation keep coming up.

A continuing theme in India’s journey of nation-building is that regional aspirations are often unresolved, even after decades of independence. The quest for autonomy, statehood, and recognition of cultural identities highlights the ongoing dialogue and struggles within Indian society. Recognizing and addressing these aspirations remains crucial for maintaining unity and addressing the diverse needs of different communities.

Think of a multi-colored quilt. Each patch represents a different culture or region, and while they all come together to make a beautiful blanket, if one patch is ignored, the quilt won't be as effective. Similarly, India must ensure that all regional aspirations are considered to maintain a cohesive national identity.

--