By Hirokjeet Roy
How shall we identify ourselves? What are the bases and social structures on which we identify ourselves? As a social human being living in a so called cosmopolitan material world which is very much real to us can we think a life without identifying ourselves? Of course in this postmodern and cosmopolitan world people have come across through a long transition of culture, language and habits. But why, still the people think and curious about their ‘self’ identity? Why the people still fight, confront or even negotiate and re-negotiate concerning their Identity? Identity related questions often come when people face a challenge within and around themselves finding their space and recognition in a so called multiple-identical world. Identity related question emanates from our social reality which shapes our way of living too. Since time immemorial the human social entities always tried to articulate ‘self’ identity by mnemonicising their past as well demonstrating reality of their present which is hiding within and inside them which might not have been recognized as well as classified by the state or other social entities. Amartya Sen who prefers multiple-identity in a materialistic way, might remark that, “We belong to many different groups, in one way or another and each of these collectives can give a person a potential important identity”(2006:24), yet the people throughout the world claim and demonstrating mnemo-cultural movements for their self identity which would defend their primordial basis.
A community who are known by a variety of name like Khasi, Koch Rajbanshi, Bengali, Asomiya, Jaintia, Mizo, Naga, Bodo or Garo etc. each and every community have their distinctive identity, socio-cultural practices as well as more or less same economic life. Do they prevail without the larger socio-political boundary of a nation-state or are they confined by narrow (??) space of their own culture and identity? In one hand the very presence these communities are the result of their own idiosyncratic identity, culture, belief, value, practices, memory so on and so forth, on the other hand very destiny or future of these communities also rest in the hand of the nation-state who classify or recognize their language, culture, identity etc. under its constitutional purview. When the constitution or government policies do not undertake such communities under its purview declining their very culture or identity communities are bound to assert their so called constitutional rights which they think they should have.
In Assam the very demand of JanaJatikaran (Schedule Tribe Status) by six communities, particularly the Koch Rajbanshis have provoked me to think these identity related questions as to why the government is declining their demand of tribal status. According to the Registrar General of India these communities do not fulfil the very five criteria (According to the Centre, any community that fulfils the five criteria i.e., indication of primitive traits, distinctive culture, geographical isolation, shyness of contact with community at large and backwardness – will be treated eligible to get Schedule Tribe status) for which these communities cannot be classified under the schedule tribe status, whereas these communities make their self assertive evaluation that they fulfil all the aforesaid criteria which have been undermined by the centre.
The Indian constitution and government policies which are believed to be the millstones of our life cycle often play superior role in classifying different communities through most of its inherited policies from ‘colonial masters’. The British ruler, based on their academic research used these criteria to determine Schedule Tribe’s (ST’s) however they did not have any political expediency. But after the independence the Indian state awfully have been politicising the issue of ST for its political purpose and for which the indigenous people have been harassed, becoming hostile to each other and even developing hatredness amongst themselves. In Assam, before every election take place whether it is assembly or general, political leaders’ makes their promises (entirely for their political purposes) to scheduling these communities under tribal status. Subsequently movements for tribal status of these groups become silent. But as the election passes the leaders become silent stones and again these groups starts their demonstrations.
Koch Rajbanshi socio-cultural identity has come across a long transition over the periods. Over the time and space it has taken different contour. It is perhaps one of the identities which have experienced temporality as well as spatial continuity since time immemorial. Still the identity Koch Rajbanshis remains like ‘Alice in wonderland’ which finding its space within the multicultural social configuration of Indian nation-state that have been contained by other dominant cultural entities. However the recent emergence of identity as well as ST movement in Assam shows its deep resentment against the government as well as other dominant cultural entities that have for a long been paying no heed to its cultural and socio-political privileges as well as resisting its demand of ST respectively. Today the very demand of ST status by the Koch Rajbanshis in Assam has opened up a theoretical space for one of the most marginal and oppressed groups to confront and re-negotiate with the identities like Bengali and Assamese that have for a long time been the dual identity of this community. The community feels that for long they have been subjugated and oppressed by the dominant cultural entities in Assam as well as in Bengal.
In Assam, the movement for Scheduled Tribe status for the Koch Rajbanshis began in 1968. In the All Assam Koch Rajbanshi Kshatriya Sanmilani convention held at Chautara in Kokrajhar, on 7 & 8 February, 1969, this demand for ST became part of the formal agenda of the Koch Rajbanshi movement. In 1996, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Bill to provide for inclusion of the Koch Rajbanshi in the ST list was introduced in the Lok Sabha. Then the house referred the bill to a 15-member select committee, which also endorsed inclusion of the community in the ST list. As Parliament was not in session at that time, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Ordinance, 9 of 1996 was promulgated to give effect to scheduling of the Koch Rajbanshi community in ST (Plains) list of Assam. The said ordinance was re-promulgated three times, but the bill never went for voting and since then the issue is hanging. The community enjoyed ST (P) status for one year. The Tribal Research Institute of the Assam government, in its study, found adequate justification for inclusion of the Koch Rajbanshi community in the ST list in 1994. Based on the said report, the Registrar General of India had also given ‘no objection’ to the inclusion of the community in the ST list of Assam subsequently. Recently, the furore over delay in granting ST status has led to agitations by various organizations representing the community. The Demand is not been addressed with sincerity and from the perspective social justice by both Central and State Government, which resulted in feeling alienation even among the community people. As the ST movement seems fail to yield the results, frustration and deep sense of betrayal crystallized into a major articulation for revival of their erstwhile Kamatapur as a separate state. The demand of Kamatapur has given another new impetus to the present ethnonational movement in India. This very demand of Kamatapur is essentially a manifestation of their claim of ‘Janasampadic’ move towards on an ‘imagined homeland’.