By Sanchet Barua
The Manmohan Singh government’s decision to carve Telangana out of Andhra Pradesh has given fresh impetus to statehood demands across India but nowhere has the effect been more divisive than in eastern India. At least four ethnic groups have begun to press their claims for separate sates to be carved out of Assam. The Bodos, the Karbi, Dimasas and Koch-Rajbongshis are up in arms in support of their respective demands. The Northeast home to 220 ethnic groups and an equal number of dialects make it a hugely diverse region. But the simple fact is that these cries for statehood are not only ill advised but also untenable and impractical.
For one, the territories being demanded by the different groups in pursuit of their own ethnically, homogeneous provinces actually overlap with one another. Besides, Assam’s own territorial issues with more than one of its neighbouring states remain unresolved. Third, these conflicting and often competing political aspirations make for a toxic cauldron, predicated as they are on the dangerous assumption that it is not possible or desirable to create multi-ethnic or multicultural provinces in which the rights of ethnic, linguistic and cultural minorities are constitutionally guaranteed and administratively ensured.
Whatever the trigger, the present unrest highlights the urgent need for administrative systems that can help meet regional, developmental and identity aspirations. This can be done by strengthening the autonomous, administrative divisions in Assam established on the basis of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Currently, these are the Bodoland Territorial Council, the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council and the Dima Hasao Autonomous District Council. In addition, there are six notified tribal autonomous councils where the territory has not been specified.
One of the sticking points with regard to the latter group relates to dual authority owing to the simultaneous existence of panchayati raj structures. This needs to be addressed suitably. The experience in Tripura over the past decade and more has shown that the implementation of appropriate autonomy packages could prove to be an effective salve, and an aid to development.
As in Tripura, the functioning of democratic processes at grassroots level ought to be ensured in Assam. The sensitive handling of grievances over funding, and the protection that needs to be extended over issues of language, culture and lands are essential. Powers and functions consistent with local customs, traditions and needs have to be conferred on tribal autonomous systems. The fair and practical long term solution to the turbulence in the region lies along this path. But at the end of the day, as chief minister Tarun Gogoi has repeatedly said, Assam and its people should “live together” by making peace among themselves.
0000
From northern West Bengal to Assam, Tripura, Nagaland and Meghalaya, there are several simmering demands for new states within the Indian union. Some have seen a flare-up following the UPA government’s endorsement of Telangana to be carved out of Andhra Pradesh.
While the Darjeeling hills in West Bengal have been on the boil with the renewed movement for a Gorkhaland, the movement for a Kamtapur state has been renewed in both West Bengal and Assam.
In Tripura, those demanding a tribal state have called a rally later this month. Meghalaya has been hit by protests for a Garoland state. While none of the demands are secessionist, experts feel creation of new states could not be a panacea for all the ills.
Development is a prime concern behind the demands, but not always. The question of ethnic identity is a prime issue at times. In a multi-ethnic country like India, you cannot have exclusive zones for each and every community. For instance, so many Nagas live in Mizoram. If you yield to a Gorkhaland state, communities like Lepchas or Rabhas may also want their separate state by dividing Gorkhaland.
In Assam, the All Bodo Students Union (ABSU) the Bodoland Peoples’ Front (BPF) and several other socio-cultural groups have called a Assam shutdown and rail blockades in the past. The demand for a Bodo state is genuine and it is a right of Bodo people. In Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts of Assam — governed by autonomous district councils – protesters have set ablaze government offices and properties of political leaders and called for shutdowns to raise the pitch for separate states.
The All Koch Rajbongshi Students’ Union (AKRSU) – a students’ body of the Koch Rajbongshi communities – had called for road and rail blockades for a Kamatapur state on the basis of the historical Kamatapur kingdom comprising some Koch Rajbongshi-dominated areas of lower Assam and West Bengal districts.
The demand for Garoland is reverberating in the Garo Hills of western Meghalaya. The statehood demand is on the linguistic lines. The demand for a Khasi-Jaintia state in Meghalaya was first raked up by the Hill State People’s Democratic Party supremo Hoping Stone Lyngdoh in 1987. For over two decades, the party has campaigned for Garoland.
In Tripura, the tribal-based Indigenous People’s Front of Tripura (IPFT) has occasionally demanded a separate state by upgrading the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC).
The TTAADC, a socio-economic development body for tribals, has jurisdiction over two-thirds of the state’s geographical area. Tribals form a third of Tripura’s 3.7 million people. The IPFT has so far failed to garner support even from the tribals.
The NSCN (I-M) (National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah), one of the oldest militant outfits in India’s northeast, earlier fought for an independent Naga homeland. This was scaled down to a Greater Nagaland, which the NSCN (I-M) proposed to be formed by merging Naga populated areas of adjoining states with Nagaland. The demand is opposed by Assam, Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh. INAV