Politics of ethnicity and Sub-Nationalism of North East India

Politics of ethnicity and Sub-Nationalism of North East India[2 part study]

Anjashi Sarkar 

A two part study comprising the initial stage of the insurgencies, nationality questions and so on and the Politics of ethnicity and sub-nationalism in North-East India

Ethnic insurgencies, questions of nationality, and demands for regional autonomy are some of the burning issues of present day. From industrially advanced to backward countries, these problems are so common that governments are now very concerned to find out root causes of such problems.

In India, we come across many baffling questions of this nature. More than seventy years on from independence these questions threaten some of the fundamental principles on which the Indian State was founded, with the result that the image of India as nation is at times tainted.

RelatedPosts

Comparative Legal Analysis of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Human Rights Protection

January 19, 2025

স্মাৰ্টফোন, সামাজিক মাধ্যম আৰু শৈশৱৰ ‘ছন্দপতন ৰিষ্ট’?

January 19, 2025

Hindenburg Research Shuts Down: The End of an Era in Activist Short Selling!

January 18, 2025

                On the eve of India’s independence, the goals projected for political unity and social transformation were three in number:

a) welfare state;

b) Secularism as a national policy;

c) and the developments of Indians in all spheres of life.

These issues are still given priority, but India’s situation as it stands today presents a gloomy picture in terms of unity and integrity.

The plan of a secular state has constantly been under threat due to communalism and intolerance in the society and polity. The principle and goal of a welfare state has also been partially discredited due to conflict between the State and the Market, the latter being driven by globalization and liberalization.

Globalised development has had symmetric outcomes, with imperialist countries becoming enormously rich why the people of the third world are left in the grip of poverty and exploitation. The imposition of mechanisms of ‘structural adjustment’ by agents of the imperialists (i.e. World Bank, World Trade Organization, International Monitory Fund) has only added to the tensions between privileged and under-privileged countries.

India, being an underdeveloped country, is a victim of this internationalized tension, which also serves to fuel domestic tensions, ethnic clashes and violence.

                The project we call development has been a matter of serious concern for its protagonists, especially with regard to its planning. Protest has arisen regarding the so called ‘means of development’ for the nation as whole.

At the time of freedom movement, the project of social change and the development was taken up as a national policy of the Union Government, to be implemented trough a participatory democracy. The ultimate goal was, however, to gear up the states’ initiative towards the cause of secularism and welfare of the Indian people.

                The present study focuses welfare in India, the reasons why development has been retarded and how this has given rise to regionalism, ethnic insurgencies and separatism in Indian politics. 

                Over the last few decades, the lives of good number of people have been lost as a result of their involvement in secessionist movements or claims for regional autonomy. Immediately after independence, some ethnic communities like the Kashmiries, Jharkhandies, Sikhs. Nagas, Assamese, Nepalese etc raised demands for separate states.

In recent years, some of these ethnic communities have intensified their demands, bringing political turmoil to many parts of India.

                The most of the movements, the language of protest, and type of slogans, are virtually the same. They demand separation as a means of emancipation, to stop injustices and discrimination that have affected them over many years. It may be noted that the number of movements after independence has increased, and smaller ethnic groups have also come forward with demands for separation.

Among them special mention may be made of the Gorkhaland Movement, and the Kamtapuri Movement which have drawn headlines in recent time.

Identifying these movements as a threat to unity of the nations, the Indian Government, as well some state government and their agents employed their media and machinery to suppress such upsurges and draw public support away from these movements. The results of these measures have been killings, asserts and heavy torture of some alleged traitors, and the entire matter portrays the brutally of the Indians ruling authorities.

  It is in this context that there is a pressing need to understand i) the problem of nationality in India, ii) the classes and category of people involved in such movements and struggles, iii) the class character of the Indian state and its interest in maintaining the unity of the country, iv) the role and interest of the imperial powers involved in the situations, and lastly v) the root causes of the nationality and ethnic problems of India.

                It should be noted that the present problem of nationality are internal issues that can be solved within the existing political structure of the country. But during the period of imperialism the whole character of the nationality problem was different. At the time of the nation found its voice and meaning through its fights for self determination and political freedom for the foreign power (namely the British). This could not have been accomplished without a nationalist movement of independence.

                In this post-colonial period, the nationality question is very much related to the same issues as have generated the democratic movements. In this respect, some crucial questions come to mind: i) which Indian people are to be identified as the real oppressor the various nationalities of India?

ii) who has created the essence of Indian nationality? Iii) With respect questions of ‘the national interest’, and national integrity, whose interest in particular is being offered to, and what is that interest? iv) with respect questions, of liberation exactly whose liberation do we mean? v) When question arise regarding national equality and development, who are the parties in this discussion?

                The answers to all these questions lie in the differences between the proletarian views on nationality and those of the bourgeoisie and other oppressive classes. In fact, the working class, the peasantry and toiling masses constitute the major part of any nationality in the present day world, yet they find themselves marginalized with in the nation, and it is this marginalization which gives rise to ethnic movements the very problem of nationality in India arises out of these and related factors.

Precisely speaking it is the centralized state representing the interests of the imperial powers bourgeoisie and feudal landed aristocrats, all of whom are out to retard the process of development and the prospects of the marginalized nationalities under consideration.

                There are many nationalities in India which are in the formative stage, and the contradictions and ambiguities that prevail at this stage at to the complexity of the situation. Nationality is a dynamic social issue, and cannot be regarded as a static reality. A draws a spirit and force from an existing socio-economic and political process in which it develops and get matured.

Due to colonial rule in parts of south Asia, Latin America and Africa, these areas were plundered and exploited by the imperialist through various means. The imperialist rule termed a colony into a multinational centre where the indigenous nationalities were frozen at different historical stages. By this means, the imperial power forcibly prevented the independent development of these nationalities.

                In course of time, particularly after independence, a well planned economic development was launched this process let to the growth of a new national consciousness among some people who amidst the colonial domination against the oppression and exploitation in South Asian countries like India-different from classical social movements which enabled them to demand rights according to their aspirations.

It is a tragic fact that while the developmental process encouraged the liberation of the aspirations of the powerless, it has utterly failed to satisfy those aspirations through the society that has been established.1

Thus, the powerless and economically backward sections have been betrayed by the nationalist bourgeoisie who captured powered by collaborating with their colonial masters. In this way, a ‘neo-colonialism’ of exploitation has been legitimized. They have taken the responsibility of the government in the erstwhile colonies under the guise of psudo-nationalism.

The role they played in the name of ‘national interest’ was in reality nothing but as agents of the imperialists. In this context, the bourgeoisie who serve the imperial powers- whether at the central or state level- have now become the target of the backward and marginalized nationalities of India.

                In the decades following independence, symptoms of this crisis in nationality developed and found expression in different forms at the regional and national levels. At the national level, the focus was on language problems – a controversy ensued between Hindi and non –Hindi people working in the offices.

This issue reflected a deeper problem, because a good number of Indian people did not accept the dominance of Hindi over non – Hindi speaking people, even if Hindi was suppose to be a national language. The matter has been settled by an understanding or compromise, but the intensity of the problem shows how an ethnic issue had the power to move India’s leaders.2

                At the regional level there were movements for autonomy based on regional languages these involved efforts to unite social groups such as Tamil, Telegu, Marathi and Punjabi, on the basis of language settlements. These problems were shorted out by the formation of separate provinces after independence.

                Recent nationality disputes had similarly being connected with demand by some nationalities and ethnic groups for separate states, along regional and linguistic lines. Economic deprivation, social degradation, lower caste dissatisfaction are some of the factors which cause these groups to question the rites and privileges enjoyed by the dominants groups in post – independent India.

In the initial years after independence, the Indian government had to respond to the demands for regional autonomy on a linguistic basis. By 1952 Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru , the first Prime Minister of India was ready to concede some specific cases in this regard, but suddenly changed his mind and decided against reshaping the map of India along linguistic lines.

Successive insurgencies among the masses, as well as a fear of gradual decline among the support base for the Congress Party, however, prompted the national congress leader to comply with the demands for separate linguistic states.3

The creation of Andhra Pradesh in 1953 and the recognition of statehood for Haryana and the Punjab in 1966 are glaring examples of this point. By these actions, the Indian government accepted the ethnic demands for autonomy through a policy of consensus.

The State of India had been based on principles which accepted and even glorified its regional, linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity, all of which in turn became supporting elements for the demands of regional autonomy. According to some4, from 1947-1964 Nehru’s leadership provided the ‘core’ for state operations, but after his death no strong leader emerged, which may be the region why the state became ‘porous’ to societal forces ‘at least up to 1970’ which impinged upon the political system and tried to entire into the state system.

Elements of the State concept, such as ‘State building’ which were felt essential just after independence, dropped out, and super- state counter forces like regionalism and sub-nationalism have instead taken their place. The first such case was the secessionist demand of the shikhs (Khalisthan) which was curbed by ‘Operation Blue Star’ during Indira Gandhi’s premiership.

It was perhaps the first case after independence when the apparatus of the Government of India had to enter into an open conflict with the non – government forces. The demand for Khalistan has not been materialized, but it has been followed by other similar demands which can be categorized as i) as movements for independence of nationalities which from historical times had never been with in India but were annexed to the Indian Union by the colonialists; ii) movements among more developed ethnic groups for deferent language-based states; iii) movements among emerging nationalities and ethnic groups for separate statehood or regional autonomy.

                On the basis of the above consideration, we have an intention to present here a discussion of politics of ethnicity and sub-nationalism of the North-east.

                During the British period, the entire Northeast was under a single administrative unit. Prior to the British rule, the tribes of these areas had never been under any ruler of North India. The British conquest and domination of the North East began with the subjugation of Assam in 1826.

If the Assamese are define as the people of Assam then we find that whole the culturally elite Assamese have close with India, the peasantry at large had and still retains closer affinity with the cultural traits of the Mongoloid people of this region. The people of Manipur, in spite of their close tie with Hindu tradition, had historically never been a part of India. An at present the do not heisted to consider the Indians as ‘foreigners’.

                Soon after independence, the backward and politically submerged nationalities of this region slowly woke up and in course of time were drawn closer to the main stream of Indian politics. In the words of Hiren Gohain, “there was a massive outbreak of peasant unrest under the leader ship of CPI and RCPI and this had both as social (i.e. agrarian) and a national content”.5 

  This took place in 1948-52 and was, in fact, an extensive anti-feudal armed struggle organized by the peasants under the guidance of the communists.

It was also the first militant expression of the democratic sentiments of the peasantry of this region. For the first time in the history of the region the suppressed tribal’s and semi-tribal people of Assam and Tripura found a rare opportunity for self expression in the programmes of the communists.

But this tribal consciousness and the leadership of the communists to guide them was a very alarming to the Assamese middle class who instantly aligned with Central Government in order to safeguard their privileges and property. The Union Government was also happy to find a dependent force for its own interests in the Northeast.

The educated middle class of Assamese society, too, were greatly relieved by the union government assurance of their inter interests. In the long run this resulted in a gap between the surrounding tribal’s and the middle class Assamese people concerned.

 In the above development, the tribal’s of Assam and its surrounding regions received a shock how they were treated by the Central Government and the middle class Assamese people. It is nothing new that the tribal areas of Assam and elsewhere were and are still backward and completely neglected in respect of development.

During the anti British movement the loyalty of this tribal were greatly appreciated by the national leaders. However, in the following years and particular after 1947, their role was not only forgotten but also steps were taken to derail their development and sidetrack the problems of the tribal’s.

A particular situation came up after 1947, when a vast track of land in the tribal belt was allotted to the refugees from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and then later on the, Muslim immigrants who came to settle in Assam and elsewhere.

 In this circumstance, there also developed a new phenomenon in the political scenario, first experienced in the 1970s, and particularly in the year 1971. According to the analyst, “the year 1971 marks a watershed for South Asia in the fifty years in its history after partition”6

The ‘watershed’ in the history of the region what’s the triumph of ‘ linguistic nationalism’ over religious nationalism which was to become a moving force in South Asian State System for decades. While both Indian Pakistan still have to tackle the resurgence of religious extremism, a new trade to India, more militant than in Pakistan, was found in the form of linguistic and ethnic sub-nationalism challenging the territorial integrity of the country.7

In this context, we can mention the rise of the Naga people under the Naga National Council lead by Phizo, and the Mizo people by Lal Danga who revolted against the Indian Government. This was followed by the Meities or Manipur, Tripuries of Tripura, who also took recourse to the course of struggle against the union government. 

According to the report “For the tribesmen like the Nagas and Mizos, greater Assam was only and against of Delhi providing a Framework for illegal occupation of their homelands”.8

 Now it was the turn off the Indian government to respond to the situation. Surprisingly enough, it’s sought solution through military force and in some cases political adjustment. In the given situation the Central Government to begin considering separate statehood if the demands of the tribals was directed towards this end.

In this matter Nehru perhaps influenced by  Verrier Elwin who developed some models for tribal’s development.8a in the considered formula, a process of Breakup of the ‘Greater Assam’ started and the first stepping- stone in this direction was the creation of Nagaland in 1963.

This was followed by the creation of more states in North East India. According to a study, “what started off with the creation of Nagaland, culminated in the entire reorganization of the Northeast within a decade. The Khasi, Jayantia, Garo Hills became the separate hill state of Meghalaya with the incorporation of Shillong from ‘Greater Assam’.

In the wake of an instruction at Mizoram, it was given a status of union territory along with Arunachal Pradesh, which was once known as NEFA and both became full-fledged States namely Nagaland and Meghalaya in 1987. Manipur and Tripura why are not lagging behind and in a situation of insurgencies, they got the status of state and were merged with the Indian Union afterwards”.9 

So gradually Assam became territorially  divided and was reduced to a small state, geographical shorter than that of 1947.

 With the division of Assam in the post – 1947 period10 the whole province was going through the ordeal of insecurity and the people of the region were also feeling insecure about the future course of the state. This was the background which prompted the people to search out various means of survival.

To add fuel Do the fire the issue of economic injustice which has been pursued in Assam right from the British period. This predicament has rendered, in fact, people more backward and also alienated from the Indian people at large. Thus, report it appears that Assam has to supply 60% crude oil in exchange for 3% of the royalties from the Central Government.11

As it tea producing region, Assam’s position is not better. While it produces 55% of the country’s supply, the ownership of the major tea gardens and the profits of the business are under the control of the outsiders. A meager percentage of tea production is sold through auction in Assam.

Again from a source we come to know that Assam’s share of royalties for tea amounts to less than half of that of West Bengal. In the same way the deprivation of the state can be seen in its supply of 60% plywood in exchange for a minimum return for this item. The central government, moreover, takes texts in various items from this state a large proportion of the state’s income goes to the exchequer of the centre.

The net result is that Assam has to bear the brunt of unequal distribution on the question of economic development. Naturally it has to suffer from the evils of an underdeveloped economy with the addition burden of intruders and foreign nationals. Incidentally this is the background wherein lies the causes of the Assam Movement of 1979-1985.

Furthermore, what is alarming is that, Assam being one of the leading suppliers of valuable commodities like crude oil, plywood, tea bamboo etc. has always to face budgetary deficits every year. For example, in the year 1981-83, Assam had to remain satisfied as a deficit state when most of the states of her standard had a revenue surplus.12

                Amidst all these grievances, the level of national assistance and associated grants from the Central government is another issue of objection to the people of Assam. Thus, the circumstances have been created where the victims could not find any alternative but to take recourse to the path of movement.

These people have highlighted another discriminative policy exacted on the ‘ son of the soil’ over the years. This is the found in the Administrative structure where in the Assamese speaking personnel are outnumbered by ‘outsiders’ who are set to supply 62% of the state service.

People of Assamese origin in Central services posted in Assam number not more than 10% of the total number of employees. The gloomy picture is no doubt sufficient to foment the people belonging to educated and Middle classes to unite together to stop the imbalance.

In their consideration, there is an undue encroachment in respect of employment opportunity and loss of control over state administration. These factors also serve to draw them into a movement. In such circumstances, they consider it a fight for democracy rather than seclusion.13

It is the impression of these people that prior to Independence it was the British imperialists who control the major lucrative industries of Assam, and on the other hand, the big bourgeoisie dominated trade and Commerce of Assam. At present, the only difference is that the British people have been replaced by the Indian comprador class who seem to have forged relation with the foreign capitalists.

                Looking at the scene of Tripura we come across the protest of the tribals against Bengali domination. It is said that the native tribals have been reduced to a helpless minority of 28.5 % of the total population as per 1981 census. This situation led the Tripuris to organize Tripura National Volunteers (TNV), All Tripura Tribal Forum etc. to fight for their rights as ‘ son of the soil’.

But even then the Central Government as well as the State Government has not shown any interest in stopping the influx of Bengali migrants and to heal the wounds of the tribals of Tripura. Under this treatment, they not only became Furious, but also have strong reason to believe that the policy by the ruling authority. Is a clear denial of political and social rights to the people in their homeland?

                A further striking feature of this situation can be seen when the nationality and liberation questions of other nationalities are compared with those of the North-east. In the former case one may feel the presence of some local bourgeoisie. Whatever the nature of association and commitment, this section of people joined the National Movements at times as core leaders and were hailed by the pigeons and the workers.

In case of North East, the bourgeoisie is almost absent and the major participants are from the awakened tribals, workers and the educated middle class who have gained national consciousness to fight against justice and discrimination. It is perhaps for this reason that the movements of this region are militant and uncompromising.

                We have already stated that the Nagas, the Mizos and the Manipuris have started their movement for independence from India immediately after 1947. By the 1980s the rest of the nationalities also began realizing that they would never be able to fulfill their aspiration in the existing political setup.

So they decided to launch militant fights to the clutches of the comprador and big bourgeoisie of India. They cannot bear with the situation when the valuable resources of their region are taken away on some excuses. This policy, as they believe, is pre-planned to subjugate them economically and even culturally.

This may be the reason why some people are concerned about identity crisis and question of existence leading to a series of political turmoil’s. Though there has been a temporary set-back to the Mizo problem and that of the Manipuris, there is an atmosphere of new upsurges in the nationality movements in northeast in recent years.

The struggle of Assamese under the banner of ULFA ( United Liberation Front of Assam) since the 1980’s is a significant development of such a situation. Incidentally, the Killing of 22 Bihari Muslims and Nepalis on 27.10.2022 at Kokrajhar district, bordering Bhutan, by militants belonging to the banned National Democratic Front of Bodoland (The Statesman, dated 28.10.2002) is a case in point to realize the nature of the activities of the Bodos in this region.

                Added to this, another major development has occurred in the North East where the militant nationalists have been trying to spread their span of activities far and near to fulfill their demands. The Government of India is, however, not indifferent to these new phenomenon and is sufficiently allowed to take necessary step to put down their activities.

In such circumstances, there is a growing realization on the part of the various struggle people that they have to organize a concerted struggle to defeat the far superior and well equipped enemy. They had thus started establishing links with one another, and even beyond the border, in order to form a common front to fight any opposition.

The collaboration of the ULFA, KLO and the Kamatapuris of North Bengal is a development of this deal. This perhaps the logical conclusion of such a situation because as Greater Assam lost its tribal belt, and a sense of marginalization replaced the confidence of overlords amongst the Assamese elites, the occasional anti Bengali outburst of the fifties and the sixties gave way to a mostly well organized ethnic mass movement of independent India in the late seventies.13a

In the subsequent years, another new situation has developed which is being exposed in the form of ‘ethnic separatism’ dominating the politics of the region in the current year.13b

                The consequence of the above-mentioned development of the north east is, however, visible in the activities of some minor groups of nationalities who have started movement for comparatively smaller autonomous state in various parts of the northeast. In this respect, the demands of the Autonomous State Demand Committee (ASDC) of Karbi Anglong and North Kachar Hill for an autonomous state with reference to the article 244 (A) of the Indian constitution may be cited here.

Although these organizations did not take a violent method of redress their demands, yet there was a threat of insurgencies in the beginning.14 In this trend, other tribes like the Rabhas, Mismis, Lalungs have raised the demand for separate states following the demands of the Bodos and the Karbis.

In the face of the situation, when the Bodoland Autonomous Council was founded in 1993, some half-hearted assurances of autonomy were given to a few tribes involved in movement for separate statehood.

                It was not only in Assam that the new autonomy movements were going on in the 90s of the last country, but its waves spread to some other parts of the Northeast also. Mention may be made here about the Hmars of North Mizoram who demanded separate identity.

They were followed by the Lushais of Jampui Hills bordering Mizoram who made the demands of a separate regional council in Tripura area, and also the Zeliangs who demanded a separate state out of Manipur, Nagaland and Assam. Further, we have a record that the Garo National Council of Meghalaya is now demanding a separate Garo State on the logic that the “Hill State experiment has failed”.15

                 Thus it is a big question now whether there will be change in the map of the northeast and whether the reconstruction of the region will be undertaken as per the boundaries fixed up in 1987, or whether the Union Government is to take up measures to form a few new states in the days to come.

Here it is relevant to note that after a violent movement the Bodo leader agreed to enter into a settlement and consequently an autonomous Council has been established. But for the last few years the successive government in the centre or in Assam has not been able to checkout a dependable boundary for the so called Bodoland Autonomous Council.

Over the above the old issue of the controversial anti foreigners’ Movement in Assam lead by AASU and Gana Sangram Parishad are yet to wait for an amicable solution. By this time the creation of the new states in India named Chhattisgarh (2000), Jharkhand(2000) and Uttarakhand (2000) have definitely sparked the aspiration of the leaders involved in national movements of the region. But however these demands for separate state autonomous Council is practicable is yet to be decided.

There may be an investigation into the obstacles to a solution and a debate about the logic that half million Mizos and other tribes deserved a separate state in the Northeast then more than two-million Bodos surely have the right to get a separate state. But it is a no less surprising that in such movements of sub-Nationalism in spite of stiff resistance from the government and efforts of suppression, public opinion extends its support to these movements.

But why does such a situation arises? And, if the spirit of the movement is to be termed as separatist then why the people involved are not isolated and rejected by the majority people of our society?

Leaders are not only enjoying mass support but also explore new dimensions of agitation and movement. In this respect Sanjiv Barua’s explanation of social space theory which has given birth to ‘ national political community’ in a modern state may be relevant.16 

In order to locate the genesis of sub Nationalism in Assam vis-à-vis the Northeast he present as all India picture of the situation and in the context of Assam in particular Barua says that “…..in India what would conventionally be called modernization – urbanization, expansion of communication, literacy, newspaper and magazines, educational institutions of the electronic revolutions… have brought about a social space that has proven to be unexpectedly useful, friendly to the reproduction of sub-nationalism. It has linked villages with towns and cities; and the cultural and literary elites and the newly educated youth with Assamese peasantry and the urban middle and working classes.

In Assam’s fast growing urban space there is evidence not only what modernization theories would have predicted, but also a mode of urban living that reproduces and intensifies ties of family and kinship – both imagined and real”.17

                It is a fact that the ruling Authority of India has taken several measures to appease the leaders of the struggle and to that extent has initiated some reforms to cool down the spirit and force of the nationality movement.

But for the moment it suffices to say that if there is a setback in the face of repression or diplomatic mechanism, there is an invariable chance of emergency of new leadership with a volume of more effective struggle. Unless a clear cut policy based on constructive principle is adopted, more political fragmentation or a few drops of reforms will only encourage tribalism and perpetuate tension into the feature.

Ultimately, it may turn out to be  “the ethnic- tinder-box” that constantly threatens the Indian nation.

Notes and References:

1. For details see Contemporary Social Movement in India: Achivements and Hurdles, edited by Sebasti L. Raj. Sj and Arundhati Roy Chaudhury, New Delhi, 1998.

2. See Jyotindra Das Gupta – Language Conflict and National Development – Berkely, 1970 for detailed information.

3. In addition to the creation of Andhra 1953, the division of Maharastra and creation of Gujrat in 1960 and the emergency of Punjab and Haryana as to separate states in 1966 also exemplify this point.

4. Shaileja Upmanyu, State in the Indian Political System, New Delhi, n1997, p.225.

5. Hiren Goshain, Assam: A Burning Question, New Delhi, 1985, p. 124.

6. The North-east – Fifty Years after Partition, an article by Shabir Bhoumik in Reflection on Partition in the East, ed. By R. Samaddar, Calcutta, 1977, p142.

7. Ibid.

8. Subir Bhoumik’s interview with T. Muivah, General Secretary of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), published in Sunday, dated 16.6.1996, under the caption, ‘ Never Say Die’.

8a. For details K.S. Singh, Ethnicity, Identity and Development, New Delhi, 1990, pp.7-15.

9. Subair Bhoumik, Fifty Years after Partition, p. 145.

10. British colonial control of Assam from 1826 gradually expanded by incorporating new areas, including it in the province of Bengal, separating it from Bengal in 1874, redesigning it is a part of separate Muslim Bengali problems in 1905, and then reconstituting it in 1912. In 1947, it lost the district of Sylhet to Pakistan (now Bangladesh ) and since then the formation of unit like Nagaland, Meghalaya, of the state. For details see Myron Winer’s Sons of the Soil: First India Impression, 1988, Oxford University Press, pp. 84f.

11. For details, Mahes Joshi, Assam: The Indian Conflict, New Delhi, 1981.

 12. From a report we come to know that Assam’s revenue deficit was 180 million rupees in 1981-82, the corresponding deficit in 1981 -82 and 1979 -80 were 66% and 40% million rupees respectively. This can be compared with the revenue surplus in the same years registered in the two other equality underdeveloped states of India namely Bihar and Orissa, See Statistical Outline of India (n. 21).

 13. Atul Kohli(ed.), India’s Democracy: An Analysis of Changing State – Society Relations, Orient Longman, Indian edition, 1991, p158.

13a. Amalendu Guha, ‘Little nationalism turned Chauvanist Assam’s Upsurge, 1979-80’ in Economic and Political Weekly, special No. 1980.

13b. For details see Monirul Hussain, Assam Movement: Class Ideology and Identity, Delhi, 1993.

14. Jayanta Ronpai, Autonomous State Deemands Committee, Member of Parliament, Press Conference at Guwahati, Karbi Bhawan, dated 20.05.1992.

15. Shilong Times, dated 23.05.1995.

16. Sanjib Barua, ‘Politics of Nationalism: Society versus State in Assam’, in Partha Chaterjee (ed.), Society and Politics in India, OUP, 1997, pp.496-520.

Sanjib Barua, op.cit, p.511.   

# [  Anjashi Sarkar, Ph. D Research Scholar in History, Jamia Milia University, New Delhi

Email-anjashisarkar@gmail.com, Phone+919873384018]

For more on insurgencies in North-East India click here.

[Images from different sources]

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com ( For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary)