Understanding ethnicity-based autonomy movements in India's northeastern region

Abstract

Soon after independence, India's northeastern region was swamped in a series of conflicts starting with the Naga secessionist movement in the 1950s, followed by others in the 1960s. The conflicts intensified and engulfed the entire region in the 1970s and 1980s. However, in the 1990s, following reclamation of ethnic identities amid gnawing scarcities, the conflicts slowly turned into internal feuds. Consequently, alliance and re-alliance among the ethnic groups transpired. In the 2000s, it finally led to the balkanization of ethnicity-based autonomy movements in the region. Unfortunately, the state's ad-hoc measures failed to contain protected conflicts and, instead, compounded the situation and swelled hybrid ethnic identities.

Migration, Ethnicity-based Movements and State’s Response

“…Nevertheless, State launched at least five military operations since 1990 against the ULFA when its armed movement for secession was at its peak level. Though these operations somehow managed to reduce direct armed confrontation between the army and insurgent groups, State failed to contain internal movements, rather incited ethnic conflicts (Singha, 2017b). The GoI has now increasingly realized and this is the reason why they preferred to change their strategy of counter-insurgency operation in the 1990s in Assam, shifted towards the measures of negotiation and granting internal autonomy (Goswami, 2011, pp.…”

“…It is simply constructed by the elites, empowered by modernization and competition (Horowitz, 1985, p. 99). Ethnicity is, therefore, an elastic and highly flexible instrument to serve multiple objectives of the leaders (Dudková, 2013;Horowitz, 1985;Singha, 2017aSingha, , 2017b. In fact, Varshney (2009, p. 282) raised a very pertinent question that though ethnic members are instrumental, why not it be crippled by free rider problems?…”

“…Between 15 December 2003 and 3 January 2004, operation 'All Clear' was conducted on the ULFA's hideouts in Bhutan. Since these operations were conducted under the shadow of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA), army was criticized over human rights violations and side-lining civil administration (Singha, 2017b).…”

“…Since the 2000s, goalpost of the movement slowly shifted towards internal feuds, rendered more vicious by the ongoing rapid multiplication of ethnicities in an already prodigiously heterogeneous society (Singha, 2017a). In the process, following the direction of predatory elites (ethnic leaders who primarily aim for personal gains), the peripheral communities (smaller ethnic groups) have often been urged to re-align with the bigger ethnic groups (Singha, 2017b). Consequently, several ethnic groups made effective use of ethnicity and regionalism for selfrule, greater autonomy and militant actions (Basumatary, 2010;Das, 2009) and compelled to play ethnic cards (Haokip, 2012;Tarimo, 2008).…”

Political stability and its effect on economy: some lessons from Sikkim Himalaya

“…Unlike other states in the region, the secondary sector contributed 55.19% in Sikkim's GSVA in 2020-2021, followed by the tertiary sector with 34.16% and the primary sector with 10.64% (Sikkim State Report 2022). Prior to the NEIIPP 2007, the state had only 16 manufacturing industries, but it jumped up to122 in 2017(GoS 2019Das 2019a). The contribution of the private pharmaceutical industry to the growth of the secondary sector has expanded considerably since 2007, reaching 60% in 2015-2016.…”