Seminar on: Troubled Diversity: The Political Process in North-East India

The Institute organized a national Seminar on Troubled Diversity: The Political Process in North East India at Gauhati in collaboration with the Department of Political Science, Gauhati University from 29 February to 2 March 2008. The Seminar held over three consecutive days had seven sessions where a total of twenty-four papers were presented.

Professor Sandhya Goswami, Convenor of the Seminar, while welcoming the participants  hoped that the scholars from diverse disciplines would add greater depth and meaning into the understanding of the issues concerning the theme of the Seminar and that it would lead to the opening up of new horizons of social relevance.

In his inaugural address, the Vice Chancellor of Gauhati University, Professor Amarjyoti Choudhury, outlined the need for looking out for remedial forces resolving conflicts by taking a cue from the diverse yet harmonious forces that existed in nature. By declaring the Seminar as an important step in that direction. He said that academic discussions should play an important role in solving societal problems and reiterated the need to be meaningful to the society surrounding us, by drawing out possible roadmaps for resolution of problems.  

Professor D.P. Borooah, former Vice Chancellor of Gauhati University, in his keynote address gave a scholarly account to the notions of diversity and ethnicity particularly in relation to the North East India. Through his deliberation he arrived at the question as to how to design a workable federal system in the context of the proclaimed federal polity and its troubled North East with the end in view of achieving a fair amount of peace and stability. He opined that reviewing and restructuring the Constitution, repealing of draconian legislations like the Armed Forces Special Powers Act and resolution of political issues raised by militant organizations through dialogue and discussion. He also observed that an extended democracy with greater decentralization in real equality could perhaps provide an answer to existing and emerging problems of ethnic assertiveness.

In his presidential address Professor Peter Ronald deSouza, Director of the Institute, said that a seminar was essentially held in order to explore an idea, identify a set of issues, articulate a developed argument or view and then share it with others who hold contesting views. He observed that diversity being a capacious concept, it was important to de-link it from the common rhetoric of ‘unity in diversity’. Region was looked at here as one of the axis of diversity and within that the focus was on the political. He said that the term troubled expressed academic anxieties and allowed one to say many things. It helped introduce theoretical ambitions into the issues of identity taking it to a comparative framework and then to a point where policy interventions could venture. But most importantly the idea was to take it beyond to discussions on understanding the meta-theoretical issues like the self and the other. 

In the first session technical session of the seminar three papers were presented.  Patricia Mukhim in her presentation on “Political Ideology, Regional Loyalty and National Vision’ asserted that the centralized policy of the government undermined the desires of the indigenous people. She began by questioning how far the North Eastern states were in a position to create their own models of development with the center playing the role that of a financier. She raised doubts on the role of centralized agencies like the NEC and DONER and stated that there was an increasing feeling that states themselves have no role in determining their own needs giving rise to a feeling of being internally colonized. This led to weakening of revenue generation as value additions were taking place elsewhere.  

Professor Nandana Dutta, in her presentation, ‘Constructing and Performing Diversity and Contemporary Processes in North-East India’ looked at diversity as a concept which is sometimes disguising and not without problems. Labeling the term Diversity as almost a ‘cliche’, particularly in a region like the North East, she said it effectively disguised fractures and fissures within its complacencies. She outlined the colonial constructions of the term and its incorporation into later discourses on tribes, tribal cultures and identities particularly the way 20^th century socio-political developments like the Assam Movement contributed to the strengthening of tribal identity and aspirations especially in resistance to the identity and articulated aspirations of the dominant community.

Dr. Sanghamitra Mishra, in her paper ‘Whose Frontier? Border Identities and the Kabindra Mahabharata’ outlined the politics of linguistic nationalism in the borderland area between the provinces of colonial Assam and Bengal, through a discussion of some of the tensions involved in the recovery and production of a text from the region, the Kabindra Mahabharata. She argued that the spatial strategies used in the ‘recovery’ and location of the text by the local elite had strong connections with the construction of a borderland identity.

During the second session, three papers were presented. Professor Amit Prakash in his paper ‘Post Colonial Indian State and Tribes: Nationalist Discursive Structures and a New Hegemonic Consensus’ started off with the Gramscian understanding of power and hegemony and the continuity of colonial discourse. Using the tools developed by the stream of colonial discourse theory he examined the operations of the dominant strand of colonial discourse in India and the emergence of a nationalist and later, a sub-national discourse with reference to the tribal identities.

Professor A.K. Roy in his paper ‘Nation, State and Ethnicity: The Discourses in North East India’ showed the modes by which little traditions were incorporated in the great tradition with a view on the historical retrospection of state formation in the region. Post-colonial institutional power of the state gained primary making the ethnic discourses much more critical and in the North East the image of the Indian state was built around the framework of internal colonization. Ethnic groups competing among themselves made the situation even more critical and increased the polarity between the Indian nation state and the ethnic groups.

Professor Niru Hazarika traced the growth of ethnic divisions in the North East of India, which she termed as a new phenomenon in her paper ‘Ethnic Diversity and Administrative Multiplicity in North East India’,  The relative lack of tolerance, which was present in the traditional societies, was the problem in so far as issues of language illegal immigration and territoriality was concerned. The concept of maximum autonomy for ethnic communities remained an unending problem for the region, she added.

Professor Priyankar Upadhyay in his paper on ‘Managing Diversity Peacefully: Banaras Experience’explained ethnographic exercises, based on a field survey of popular festivals in and around Banaras.

In the third session Mr. Ajay Mehta, in his paper on ‘Role of Voluntary Organization in bringing about Social Togetherness and Self-governance’ laid emphasis on the need to strengthen civil society. Unlike in the pre-independence period the role of the people and the civil society was not clear with the state becoming all-powerful. This was however challenged during the Emergency and more recently with the advent of globalization and liberalization. The ongoing rights discourse has not been able to empower the people and in spite of Panchayati Raj Institutions being operational in India self-governance was missing.  

Mr. Lalit Kumar Barua, in his paper ‘India’s North-East Frontier: Policy and Perspective’ pointed out the overarching presence and the impact on colonial legacy in the administration as a feature of political and administrative control in the North Eastern region. The concept of unvarying regulatory framework over the years largely stood in the way of creating an alternative paradigm for the administration of the region.

Dr. Barnalee Choudhury in her paper on ‘Diversity and Development: A Case Study of Pagladia Dam Project Assam’ dealt with two aspects one was the concept of development itself and second was the linkage between development and diversity. In the light of the proposed Pagladia Dam she pointed out the ecological imbalances, which such a development initiative would result in. Besides displacing a large number of people it also had the potential of bringing about community conflicts.

In the fourth session first presentation was jointly by Urmila Sengupta and Professor Anurada Dutta on ‘Conflicting Diversity: Lessons from Assam’. The paper concerned the issues relating to the BTAD are and the resultant failure of the state to resolve the specific problems. After giving a detailed account of the causes of ethnic clashes between the Bodos and the non- Bodos  the immigrant Muslims and the Adivasis, she argued, that diversity per say was not a constraint to nations integration but its mismanagement on the part of the decision makers was.

The next presentation was on ‘Misnomered Tribal Nomenclatures and Diversity in Arunachal Pradesh’ by Dr. Asan Reddi. He argued about the controversy of the nomenclature of tribes, practiced by the British and later also followed by the Government of India who tried to distinguish and categorise the Tani tribes into various smaller tribes. As the Tani tribes, which were known by different names but shared a lot of commonalities began to be conscious of their distinct characteristic features which emerged due to constant isolation from one another, they began to emphasis on their heterogeneity.

Dr. Mangi Singh in his paper on ‘Inter Group Contests with Komrem Community’ highlighted the plight of the Komrem Community in Manipur which was a conglomeration of six tribes which was being simultaneously claimed by the Nagas and the Kukis, the community itself not wanting to align with either. This he stated led to the larger question of the uneasiness of smaller tribes being sought to be assimilated within bigger tribes. He also pointed to the growing interaction of the militant wing of the Komrem people with the other insurgent groups.

Dr. Nani Gopal Mahanta in his paper ‘When Diversity becomes Troubled: A View from Human Security Perspective in North East India’ argued that the ethnic groups by themselves are not prone to clashes. The issues of human insecurity and economic inequality between these groups as well as struggles over political power, land etc led to violent situations. The common referent point for all the movements he stated was the Indian State from where they want to derive maximum allocation of resources and benefit.

In his paper ‘A New Approach to Conflict Resolution: Divided we Stand’, Dr. Arup Jyoti Chaudhury referred to the deficiency syndrome on the part of the Indian state making it unable to assert itself revealing the inherent limitations in its structure. He pointed out that the people wanted the state to address the issues and problems and not suppress them. He suggested some survival strategies which were the restoration of the genuine federal character of the state, transfer of power to the grassroots not in a cosmetic manner but in a way such that there is a republic in the grassroots described by him as a ‘nano’ republic.  

Fifth session started with Professor Bhagat Oinum’s presentation on ‘Conciliatory and Re-conciliatory Engagements: Towards a Politics of Moral’. He pointed out the need to retrospect the way our present polity works and to analyze where the problems lie in spite of us being a vibrant democracy. Irrespective of the fact that there were certain historical experiences which were beyond the control of the Indian state there was a need to think of maintaining its integrity he added. Professor Oinum suggested moralizing or spiritualizing of the Indian polity by way of a more human form of politics taking a cue from the Naga Hoho’s initiative in this direction. This he suggested would engage the idea of sharing of space and concern characterized by a sincere and open engagement to dialogue. He put forward the acts of conciliation and reconciliation as continuous processes to be a viable alternative to evoke a sense of moral in both the state and the non-state actors

Dr. Joseph Bara mooted the idea of a tribe as dynamic and not static through his paper ‘Tribe, Tribalism and Tribal Self-Consciousness’. The idea that all cultures should be accepted in their context and mutually appreciated was lacking in our social science discourses. He outlined the three phases, which had shaped the understandings of tribes and tribal cultures starting from the pre-colonial period to the British understandings to the post 1900’s.

Dr. Alaka Sharma in her paper titled ‘Self Assertive Movement: A Contextual Study of Ethnic Problem in Karbi Anglong District’ pointed out how cultural identity acquires a political character. She mentioned how certain groups emerge as dominant and their demands take the form of political demarcation as they want to avoid absorption into the dominant culture and want to maintain their own cultural identity. 

 Dr. Meeta Deka in her paper titled ‘The Identity Question of the Adivasis of Assam’ pointed out the background of the demand of the Adivasis for an ST status, looking at their identity question in the process from a historical perspective. Making the beltola incident of 24th November 2007 as an entre point in her analysis, she pointed out the British policy of mapping out land and mapping out people as playing an important role in their search for an identity.

The last presentation of the day was by Mr. Francis U. Hrangkhwal on ‘Population Change and Community Conflict Role of the State’. His highlighted the demographic change in Tripura and the changing trends in its population size owing to large scale influx of refugee from Bangladesh. This greatly increased agrarian pressure initiating ethnic conflicts and diversity in the state. Such dramatic demographic shifts, he pointed out, turned a predominantly tribal state into a non-tribal state within a span of a few decades.

The last technical session of the seminar started with Dr. Noor Ahmed Baba’s presentation on ‘North Eastern Predicament/Problems: A view from Kashmir’. He found a number of similarities in the nature and the constituent of problems in Kashmir and the North East created by artificial boundaries and a plurality of social groups. What was needed in the context of plurality as in the North East was to develop frameworks for reconciling social diversity and allowing each one to live in peace, security and tolerance with regard to the other, he argued.

Professor Jyoti Prakash Tamuli made his presentation on ‘Drawing on our Diversity: From Multilingual Education in North East India’. His paper centred on the linguistic dimension of diversity, linguistic plurality of the North East and its implications for an educational programme. He mentioned the difficulty in keeping ethnic identities and linguistic identities completely separate. Mapping the various linguistic groups in Assam he draws attention to the concept of domains within which languages are at play. The role of indigenous knowledge he mentioned was coming to the fore and communities should be consulted at the grass root level while framing any policies concerning them.  

Dr. Akhil Rajan Dutta in his paper on ‘Troubled Trajectory of a Struggle for Life and Livelihood: Narratives of Doyang-tengani Movement in Assam’ talked about a micro movement the Doyang-tengani movement of forest dwellers of the Golaghat district of Assam

Dr. D. P. Sharma in his paper on ‘Demand of Tea- Tribes for Scheduled Tribe Status in Assam: A Review’ tries to examine whether the ST demand of the tea tribe community can be justified. This demand according to him has received wide support from various organizations in Assam. He infers however that any move to include tea tribes in the ST list would meet with severe opposition from the indigenous tribals. This has therefore remained a thorny issue in the state’s political scene.

At the end of the technical sessions, Professor Peter Ronald deSouza, highlighted the various issues that came up during the seminar. He pointed out that the presentations mostly looked at causes that were located within the colonial and the postcolonial state. Most of the papers he remarked engaged with the state and its functioning focusing primarily on policy. He also pointed out that certain weighty questions and issues did not figure in the presentations like the role of local elites and also the issue of proximity to Bangladesh and the problems thereof. In the end he outlined various ways of looking forward and gave valuable suggestions in this regard.