People Beyond Binary and Continuum: Understanding Ethnic Politics in the Northeast

 

At the core of the political issue in the region is the conceptual confusion about how we categorize caste and tribes as distinct social groups. In India, tribes have been officially defined by certain traits since the 1950s, including being primitive, having a unique culture, being geographically isolated, being hesitant to interact with outsiders, and being considered backward. However, the way “tribe” is defined in Indian sociology and politics does not align with its global understanding. There is a tendency to view tribes as “static” and “timeless” despite the fact that many of their traits have changed significantly over time. Instead of seeing tribes and castes as a simple binary or as a continuum, Sumit Guha, in his book Tribe and State in Asia, argues that tribalism is a recurring political phenomenon throughout history, not just a relic of the past. He emphasizes the need to reject notions of linear social progress and simplistic views of tribes as “peaceful” and “primitive” groups. He points out that while tribes might appear vulnerable to state power, states themselves are also fragile and subject to collapse, which can lead to the reemergence of tribal organizations. Guha further highlights that new tribes and tribal territories have repeatedly surfaced in South Asia. These groups sometimes establish their own states or even challenge existing ones. He describes tribes as “dynamic political organizations that can be reactive, defensive, or offensive” and argues that the concept of the tribe continues to evolve.

To better understand these dynamics in the Northeast, we can use a “tribe-nation spectrum” in which these political organizations evolve and collapse into tribes, castes, kingdoms, empires, ethnicities, and nations. In India, some of them remain “isolated” and “shy” and are classified as tribes, while others have transitioned into caste systems like the Ahoms. Others demand recognition as tribes, such as the Adivasis in Assam and the Meiteis in Manipur. Yet others, like the Bodos and Zo groups, have become ethnicities, and the Nagas and Mizos have articulated themselves as nations. This perspective encourages a better understanding of social organization and political dynamics in the region. Keeping in mind that tribes are not static but dynamic socio-political organizations, we briefly outline the ethnic politics in the Northeast.

Most literature on ethnicity in India examines the constitutional provisions, political institutions, and public policies that have successfully addressed or failed to resolve ethnic issues. Ethnic issues can be categorized into three main areas: conflicts involving ethnonationalist movements seeking autonomy or independence, the establishment of a federal State to represent ethnonational groups and ensure power-sharing, and the broader issue of ethnicity vis-à-vis India’s vast diversity in terms of religion, language, caste, tribe, and region.

The Northeast region transitioned from a colonial frontier to a postcolonial borderland following Indian independence in 1947, and it experienced a complex, contested relationship with the Indian state. Many ethnic communities in the region felt marginalized within the newly formed nation-state, leading to the rise of ethnonationalist movements parallel to the Indian state-making/nation-building projects, and sought greater autonomy or even secession. At the time of independence, Manipur and Tripura were two princely States, and many tribal areas were classified as partially excluded or excluded regions, which were incorporated into the districts of Assam. Their response to India’s national integration varied. In Tripura, the tribal king willingly agreed to join the Indian Union. However, the situation in Manipur was more controversial, as King Bodhchandra was pressured to sign the Instrument of Accession in 1949. In Manipur, the struggle over political integration was not just about joining the Indian Union. Armed groups in the valley opposed the merger of the princely States with India, while the tribal communities in the hill areas wanted to break away from Manipur. Similar developments were taking place in other parts of the region, like the Naga and Lushai Hills. Later, such ethno-nationalist and autonomy movements started in the Brahmaputra valley in the form of Assam and Bodoland Movements from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s.

By the early 1970s, six new States had been created in the Northeast, either as full States or as Union territories. However, the following decades witnessed even more ethnic fissures and political counter-mobilization among smaller ethnic groups at the State level, demanding separate States and greater autonomy. Movements like those of the Bodos and other tribal groups directly responded to or were intensified by Assamese nationalism. Additionally, other groups demanded autonomy to preserve their way of life, feeling dominated and neglected in terms of political power-sharing and development. These movements include demands for a separate Eastern Nagaland, Kukiland in Manipur, a Chakma region in Mizoram, and a Mon Autonomous Region in Arunachal Pradesh. Most of these movements have remained peaceful. While some tribal areas in Assam and Mizoram have been granted autonomy under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, other movements are still striving for tangible results.

Another significant ethnic issue in the Northeast is inter-group conflict based on tribal or religious lines, often driven by competition for land and resources. These conflicts frequently lead to violence as groups vie for control. Notable examples include the Naga-Kuki and Meitei-Kuki violence in Manipur, the Assamese-Bengali conflict in Assam, and the Tripuri-Bengali conflict in Tripura. Religious violence also plays a role, often intertwined with larger ethnic movements and demographic insecurities. In Assam and Bodoland, violence has occurred against Muslims, while in the Imphal valley, Pangal Muslims and Kuki Christians have faced attacks. The state typically addresses these conflicts as law-and-order issues. Beyond direct violence, there are other forms of ethnic mobilization aimed at identity formation and recognition. For instance, Arunachali mobilization against Chakma refugees and movements for tribal recognition under the Scheduled List in Assam and Manipur reflect ongoing struggles. These issues often arise from perceptions of both minor and major differences along ethnic and national lines.