The
formation of Telangana opened a Pandora’s Box. A number of demands for newer
states shook the nation. In the Northeast which is home to around 220 ethnic
groups along with an equally high number of linguistic groups, demands for
separate statehood for Koch Rajbongshis, Bodos, Karbis, Garos etc came up with
renewed vigour after Telangana.
While for many political
commentators, the decision on Telangana was driven by political expediency, the
demands in the Northeastern region claim to be legitimate. Various ethnic
groups talk of their economic aspirations being throttled, outsiders
encroaching their land causing a threat to their unique identity.
The movements for separate states
spurred violence in the region as well. Groups called on strikes, blockades
etc. bringing normal life to a standstill. The response of the state government
has been pacificatory whereby the Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi decided to take up
the issue with the centre. Another crucial development is the divisive
tendencies of these demands that came to the forefront. In all the affected
areas, the non-tribals came up with their own stand opposing the demand for
separate statehood which would render them minorities as well as outsiders in
newly formed states on ethnic lines. The demands pitted one group against
another and one demand against another.
The demands are not secessionist in
nature. They also should not be dismissed. While CM Tarun Gogoi in his
Independence Day speech talked of his government providing for Autonomous
Councils for these tribes to ensure development, there is a need to look into
the reason for these persistent movements. The demands of these groups are
embedded in narratives of alienation and marginalisation that these groups have
felt for a long time.
There is a need to historically
contextualise these demands. One needs to go back to the first State
re-organisation of 1956. While the entire country was re-organised on
linguistic lines, the Northeast was bypassed. The SRC committee wanted status
quo and continuation of undivided Assam. The demand for a composite state in
the form of hill state was dismissed as colonial hangover of areas under Inner
Line Permit pressing for continued segregation. Such status-quo in Northeast
left a state with 45% minority tribes.
The SRC’s failure to accommodate the
tribe’s demands paved way for movements that finally initiated the
reorganisation of Northeast by 1972 breaking up the erstwhile state of Assam
into seven states completed by 1987. This hurried job was more or less based on
ethnic identity of the people. This was a move away from linguistic lines and
it paved way for ethnic homelands. Along with reorganisation, the North Eastern
Council was also formed in 1971 to ensure a co-ordinated development of a
region lagging behind the rest of the country. The newly formed smaller states
bounded by international boundaries did not seem feasible administrative units.
But after four decades the
underdevelopment scenario in the region has improved only marginally. The
reorganisation of Northeast put in place a vicious circle of unending demands
for ethnic homelands. As members of a single tribe may live in more than one
state, border disputes are common in the region. Greater Nagalim is a cause of
constant conflict between Assam, Nagaland and Manipur. The government put in
place Scheduled Status for areas as well as Autonomous District Councils to
give voice to people whom reorganisation left out. But these mechanisms fell
short of delivering the goods.
The demands cite neglect and
underdevelopment as the root causes. The way northeast was reorganised put in
place an essentialised linkage between homeland and security and development.
But the experience of smaller states as well as Autonomous Councils does not
give any specific pattern. While Chhattisgarh is doing well, Jharkhand has been
a site of exploitation by MNCs. The benefits do not percolate to the poor in
most cases.
The original roots of these demands
are genuine grievances that leave out people of development process. But
formation of newer states may not be a panacea for all ills. The
majority-minority, insider-outsider dichotomies will continue to be
re-entrenched and new states may carry on the stigma of victimising the
minorities. What is needed is to rethink why development leaves out enclaves of
underdevelopment and how to decentralise the benefits of development. Lets
think out of the box and look for solutions which are not within the sanctified
discourse of ethnic homelands. Rather there is a need to strengthen grass root
democracy and make people stakeholders in policy formation for the region.
(This article was originally published in The Assam Tribune on 26th August, 2013.)
0 Comments