The North-East

The North-East is a region where regional aspirations reached a turning point in the 1980s. Today it consists of eight states. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Meghalaya — the original seven — are often called “the seven sisters”. Sikkim, added later, is referred to as the “brother” to those seven states.

The region holds only 4 per cent of the country’s population but about twice as much share of its area. A narrow corridor of about 22 kilometres connects it to the rest of India. Otherwise, it shares boundaries with China, Myanmar and Bangladesh, and serves as India’s gateway to South East Asia.

Historical and political reorganisation

Since 1947, the region has changed dramatically. Tripura, Manipur and the Khasi Hills of Meghalaya were erstwhile princely states that merged with India after Independence. The entire North-East underwent considerable political reorganisation:

• Nagaland became a state in 1963.
• Manipur, Tripura and Meghalaya became states in 1972.
• Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh became separate states only in 1987.

The Partition of 1947 reduced the North-East to a landlocked region, cutting it off from the rest of India and affecting its economy. It suffered developmental neglect, and its politics remained insulated. At the same time, most states in the region underwent major demographic changes due to an influx of migrants from neighbouring states and countries.

The isolation, complex social character, and backwardness compared to other parts of the country produced a complicated set of demands from different states. The vast international border and weak communication with the rest of India further added to the delicate nature of politics there.

Three dominant issues

Three issues dominate the politics of the North-East:

1. Demands for autonomy
2. Movements for secession
3. Opposition to ‘outsiders’

Major initiatives on the first issue in the 1970s set the stage for dramatic developments on the second and third in the 1980s.

---

Demands for autonomy

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

Leaders of the major tribal communities wanted to separate from Assam. They formed the Eastern India Tribal Union, which later transformed into the more comprehensive All Party Hill Leaders Conference in 1960. They demanded a tribal state carved out of Assam.

Instead of one tribal state, several states were carved out of Assam. At different points, the central government created Meghalaya, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh out of Assam. Tripura and Manipur were upgraded into states too. The reorganisation of the North-East was completed by 1972.

But this was not the end of autonomy demands. In Assam, communities like the Bodos, Karbis and Dimasas wanted separate states. They worked for this demand by mobilising public opinion, popular movements, and even insurgency. Often the same area was claimed by more than one community. It was not possible to keep making smaller and smaller states. Therefore, other provisions of the federal set-up were used to satisfy autonomy demands while remaining in Assam. Karbis and Dimasas were granted autonomy under District Councils, while the Bodos were recently granted an Autonomous Council.

---

Secessionist movements

Demands for autonomy were easier to respond to, because they involved using constitutional provisions for accommodating diversity. It was much more difficult when some groups demanded a separate country — not in momentary anger but consistently as a principled position. The country’s leadership faced this problem for a very long time in at least two states in the North-East. A comparison of these two cases offers a lesson in democratic politics.

The case of Mizoram

After independence, the Mizo Hills area was made an autonomous district within Assam. Some Mizos believed they were never part of British India and therefore did not belong to the Indian Union. But the movement for secession gained popular support after the Assam government failed to respond adequately to the great famine of 1959 in Mizo hills.

The Mizos’ anger led to the formation of the Mizo National Front (MNF) under the leadership of Laldenga. In 1966, the MNF started an armed campaign for independence. Thus began a two-decade-long battle between Mizo insurgents and the Indian army. The MNF fought a guerrilla war, got support from the Pakistani government, and secured shelter in what was then East Pakistan. The Indian security forces countered with a series of repressive measures, of which common people were the victims. At one point, even the Air Force was used. These measures caused more anger and alienation among the people.

At the end of two decades of insurgency, everyone was a loser. This is where the maturity of political leadership at both ends made a difference. Laldenga came back from exile in Pakistan and started negotiations with the Indian government. Rajiv Gandhi steered these negotiations to a positive conclusion. In 1986, a peace agreement was signed between Rajiv Gandhi and Laldenga. As per this accord, Mizoram was granted full-fledged statehood with special powers, and the MNF agreed to give up its secessionist struggle. Laldenga took over as Chief Minister. This accord proved a turning point. Today, Mizoram is one of the most peaceful places in the region and has taken big strides in literacy and development.

The case of Nagaland

The story of Nagaland is similar to Mizoram, except that it started much earlier and has not yet had such a happy ending. Led by Angami Zapu Phizo, a section of the Nagas declared independence from India way back in 1951. Phizo turned down many offers of negotiated settlement. The Naga National Council launched an armed struggle for the sovereignty of the Nagas. After a period of violent insurgency, a section of the Nagas signed an agreement with the government of India, but this was not acceptable to other rebels. The problem in Nagaland still awaits a final resolution.

---

Movements against outsiders

Large-scale migration into the North-East gave rise to a special kind of problem that pitted ‘local’ communities against people seen as ‘outsiders’ or migrants. These latecomers — either from India or abroad — are seen as encroachers on scarce resources like land and as potential competitors for employment and political power. This issue has taken political and sometimes violent form in many states of the North-East.

The Assam Movement (1979–1985)

The Assam Movement is the best example of such movements against ‘outsiders’. The Assamese suspected that there were huge numbers of illegal Bengali Muslim settlers from Bangladesh. They felt that unless these foreign nationals were detected and deported, they would reduce the indigenous Assamese to a minority. There were economic issues too: widespread poverty and unemployment in Assam despite the existence of natural resources like oil, tea and coal. It was felt that these resources were drained out of the state without any commensurate benefit to the people.

In 1979, the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), a students’ group not affiliated to any party, led an anti-foreigner movement. The movement was against illegal migrations, against domination by Bengalis and other outsiders, and against a faulty voters’ register that included the names of lakhs of immigrants. The movement demanded that all outsiders who had entered the state after 1951 should be sent back. …