Neglect of Northeast India

Map depicting location of Northeast India region

Northeast India, the easternmost region of India, refers to the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, and Sikkim. This region holds significance due to its unique political, cultural, and strategic characteristics. It is encircled by five international borders, sharing boundaries with Bhutan, China, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Nepal, making it crucial in India's geopolitical landscape. ^[1] The region accounts for 4 percent of the total surface of India and has a population of over 45 million. The region is connected to the rest of India by a 30 km wide passage known as the ‘Chicken’s Neck’. ^[2]

Despite its geographical importance, the Northeast has historically faced the challenge of isolation from the Indian mainland. The region has often faced neglect in terms of political attention, infrastructure, and other resources compared to the rest of India. ^[3]

Origins

Climatic factors, including significant rainfall, snowfall, and low temperatures, have profoundly shaped the conduct of warfare and conquering in Assam, Bengal, and Sindh as far back as the Mughal era. The Northeastern region was first invaded by Mughal soldiers during a brief campaign led by Humayun in 1538–1539 but led to no sustained victories. From 1574 to 1612, the area was gradually and arduously taken over by Mughal troops commanded by Akbar and Jahangir (1605–1627), particularly the regions of Kamrup and Kuch. ^[4]

Much of the area was heavily forested, and modern accounts state that Mughal soldiers faced formidable obstacles when conducting expeditions through these forests. Mughal commander Mirza Nathan said these forests were almost "impassable even for an ant." The main frontier of Assam at the time was the Ahom kingdom, which the Mughals fought four battles against over seven decades, with little lasting success. The Mughals' first attempt to invade Assam in 1615 ended in a military disaster that nearly destroyed their army. Before the arrival of the Mughals, intelligence about the manufacture and use of firearms had reached much of Southeast Asia from China. As a result of this technology transfer as Mirza Nathan noted, during the invasion, the king of Assam greeted the invading Mughal army with "many guns and many fireworks". The Assamese themselves were described as "sick and blood-thirsty". The last Mughal expedition against the Ahoms was launched in 1669, ultimately ending in a Mughal defeat in the crucial battle of Saraighat in 1671. Consequently, the Ahom kingdom became the dominating force in the region as the Mughals withdrew from Assam and subsequently lost control of their domains in Kamrup and Kuch. Northeast India remained distinct and autonomous, standing apart from the greater Indian Mughal empire. This independence had lasting effects in shaping the unique identity and historical trajectory of Northeast India. ^[4]

During the British occupation of the Indian subcontinent, the Ahom kingdom and Assam were officially annexed into the British Empire in 1838. The British in Northeast India generally adopted a non-intervention policy. Despite this, the region had a history of resistance against colonization, with rebellions against tax imposition in 1860 and 1862, and raiding of British posts. During this time, there was an increasing resistance to the dominance of the Assamese language and culture. The economic policies of the British rulers in Northeast India had profound cultural and social repercussions. Their focus on modernising agriculture demanded increased crop cultivation, land reclamation, and the introduction of cash crops like tea, mustard seeds, and jute. To meet labour demands, the British sought an affordable and accessible workforce, leading to the migration of Bengali Muslim cultivators from East Bengal and tribal labourers for tea plantation work.

The British significantly altered land distribution by leasing land to plantation owners and fellow British citizens, leading to a demographic shift as labourers and migrants flocked to the region. A significant portion of Assam's population stemmed from tea garden immigrants. The economic opportunities created through the construction of railways further attracted Marwari and Bihari labourers to Assam. However, the British paid scant attention to the social and cultural consequences of these migrations. The 'inner line' policy was imposed in regions like Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Mizoram, restricting land ownership and population movement. While supporting Christian missionaries, the British government made little effort to address the accompanying societal and cultural changes. Furthermore, during tensions between indigenous people and immigrant Muslims over land rights, the British chose segregation over socialization or adjustment, drawing lines to settle immigrants in separate areas. ^[3] This policy failed to consider the long tradition of socialization between different communities in the region. This economic exploitation, demographic changes, segregation, and a failure to address cultural shifts demonstrate how the neglect of the region was a direct result of the colonial powers' limited understanding and inadequate consideration of the distinctive needs and identities of Northeast India and its people.

India's post-independence neglect of Northeast India can be attributed to several factors. Post-1947, the Indian ruling elite had a Western-oriented perspective due to its colonial ties. Northeast India did not hold much value economically. It was underdeveloped, as were the surrounding Southeast Asian countries until the 1970s, which rendered trade prospects similarly unattractive. India's protectionist economic policies and blocked overland linkages further hindered engagement. Political differences during the Cold War era also strained relations. Many Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia were allied with the US while India was more closely aligned with the Soviets. ^[5]

Effects

"Scheduled" and "non-scheduled" official languages of Northeast Indian states; many of the states don't have scheduled languages.

After gaining independence, the Indian government grappled with the challenge of integrating the tribal communities of Northeast India into the national framework. Proposed policies advocated for political, economic, and administrative inclusion within a culturally pluralistic framework, allowing minorities to preserve their linguistic, religious, and cultural identities. The "Nehru–Elwin policy framework" was implemented in the Northeastern region of India. This framework emphasized five cardinal principles to guide governance and development:

1. 1“People should indulge in developmental activities as per their own capabilities and we should avoid imposing anything on them. We should encourage in every way their own traditional arts and culture.
2. Tribal rights in land and forests should be respected.
3. We should try to train and build up a team of their own people to do the work of administration and development. Some technical personnel from outside will, no doubt, be needed, especially in the beginning. But we should avoid introducing too many outsiders into tribal territory.
4. We should not over-administer these areas or overwhelm them with multiplicity of schemes. We should rather work through, and not in rivalry with, their social and cultural institutions.
5. We should judge results not by statistics of the amount of money spent, but by the quality of human character that is involved.” ^[6]

These principles reflected the government's commitment to the self-development of tribal communities in the region. Despite these efforts, the neglect of Northeast India in precolonial and colonial periods had lasting consequences. The region experienced numerous ethnically charged movements, both peaceful and violent. Assam, in particular, underwent several territorial reorganizations, often losing land in the process. Between the early 1960s and the early 1970s, Assam lost significant territory to the formation of new states within its borders, leading to the emergence of the Bodo Movement in the 1980s, characterized by significant violence. This movement represented the Bodo tribes, who spoke the Bodo language and identified as the Kachari people, with 5.3% of the Assamese population speaking Bodo. ^[7]

The neglect of tribal issues during the formation of the Northeastern states exacerbated the challenges faced by the region. The defeat in the 1962 Sino-Indian War triggered a shift in governance, focusing on strategic security and defence in what was considered a frontier region. The developmental aspects of the people received less emphasis. Aspirations for autonomy among various tribes led to the creation of new states without adequate consideration of financial and economic viability, further compounding the region's problems. This culminated in the emergence of armed struggle movements.^[3] One such struggle was the rise of the Naga National Council(NNC) which asked for independence outside of the Indian Council. Nehru was adamant that the Nagas were a part of the union. This caused a stalemate, which led to the Nagas declaring their independence on the 14th of August 1947, a day prior to Indian independence. As a show of strength, the Nagas conducted a plebiscite on the 16th of May 1951, which reported that 99% voted in favour of Naga independence. Fighters for the NNC started referring to their land as ‘Nagaland’ in 1952. Remarking, ‘We [the NNC youth] would write a letter and on the envelope we would write ‘Ms Imtila Naga’, and underneath that ‘Nagaland’ and would post it into the post office without a stamp.’ ‘The letters didn’t go anywhere. We knew that they wouldn’t get anywhere but we were hopeful that the letters would be delivered to the people it was addressed to with ‘Nagaland’ written on it. We were following Phizo’s idea of ‘Nagaland’ that he envisioned as a ‘country’. This was a time when statehood was not even discussed and people had no idea about ‘statehood’. At that time, Phizo would write ‘Nagaland’ in all his letters and even Nehru did not object to it. So it happened like that.’ ^[8]

Recognizing the region's lack of political representation and the need for economic development, the Indian government shifted its policy towards a development paradigm. Despite these shifts, Northeast India continues to face significant challenges. Three-quarters of a century after independence, six of the seven state capitals in the region remain disconnected from the railroad system, while Itanagar, Kohima, and Shillong still lack proper airports. The region imports essential goods worth nearly Rs. 2,500 crore annually due to outdated agricultural practices, despite being a major contributor to India's tea, plywood, and oil production. Vital sectors like education, healthcare, and communication remain underdeveloped. Neglect is also evident in the allocation of funds, with the region receiving disproportionately low support from All India Financial Institutions, leaving many states heavily in debt, such as Assam, which carries a staggering internal debt of Rs. 6,000 crore. ^[9]

References

1. Singh, B. P. (1987). "North-East India: Demography, Culture and Identity Crisis". Modern Asian Studies. 21 (2): 257–82. doi:10.1017/S0026749X00013809. JSTOR   312647. S2CID   145737466 – via JSTOR.
2. Dikshit, K. R.; Dikshit, Jutta K. (2014), Dikshit, K.R.; Dikshit, Jutta K (eds.), "Population of the North-Eastern States of India", North-East India: Land, People and Economy, Advances in Asian Human-Environmental Research, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 421–456, doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7055-3_12, ISBN   978-94-007-7055-3 , retrieved 2023-11-23
3. Das, Nava Kishor (2009). "Identity Politics and Social Exclusion in India's Northeast. A Critique of Nation-Building and Redistributive Justice". Anthropos. 104 (2): 549–558. doi:10.5771/0257-9774-2009-2-549. ISSN   0257-9774. JSTOR   40467193.
4. Nath, Pratyay (2019). Climate of conquest war, environment, and Empire in Mughal North India. New Delhi, Delhi: Oxford University Press.
5. Strachan, Anna Louise; Kang, Harnit Kaur; Sinha, Tuli; Sikri, Rajiv (2009). INDIA'S LOOK EAST POLICY: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT: Interview with Amb. Rajiv Sikri (Report). Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies.
6. Prime Minister, and Verrier Elwin, A philosophy for NEFA § (1959).
7. Goswami, Sandhya (2001). "Ethnic Conflict in Assam". The Indian Journal of Political Science. 62 (1): 123–137. ISSN   0019-5510. JSTOR   42753657.
8. Longkumer, Arkotong (2020-06-26), "Indigenous futures: The practice of sovereignty in Nagaland and other places", Indigenous Religion(s): Local Grounds, Global Networks, Routledge, pp. 89–119, retrieved 2023-11-23
9. Gokhale, Nitin A. “The Neglected States of the Nation.” https://www.outlookindia.com/, February 3, 2022. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/the-neglected-states-of-the-nation/220206.