Ruata Lungchuang
Every now and then, Northeast India makes it to national newspapers and the digital media space, not for racism towards Northeasterners or sporting achievements by people from the region, but over issues involving land, the Union Government and opposition from local tribal groups. Northeasterners often receive the sympathy of their fellow countrymen west of the Siliguri Corridor over the former issues, but when it comes to land, development projects and opposition to them, the same understanding is hard to find. This is understandable, given how these issues are sensitive, often concern a foreign country and appear divisive. The framing by the media and groups with vested interests does not help either.
Whenever such issues arise, Northeastern people are caricatured as people who do not want development, keep complaining and oppose everything. The recent Arunachal Pradesh issue has once again brought out narratives ranging from “only converts are bothered” to “not wanting development but crying all the time”, going by the distressing and cringeworthy posts and videos made by influencers from other parts of the country, most of whom have likely never even visited the Northeast.
What everyone needs to remember is that the Northeastern states are not damsels in distress waiting to be saved, nor are they showpieces for the country to display to the world whenever a racist post against India appears on Reddit or Instagram and someone comments, “This is not Switzerland, this is Arunachal or Meghalaya.” Northeast India is a real place, with its own deep-seated political problems, unique issues and governance systems, inhabited by people whose realities are very different from those of the rest of India. This seems to have been lost on many people from outside the region. Instagram, as much as it has helped connect the country digitally, has also created an idealistic image of the Northeast as a beautiful paradise, devoid of character and incapable of having its own opinions.
When the government or a corporation undertakes a large infrastructure project anywhere in the world, including India, the expectation is that the people affected will be adequately compensated. Some may even argue that Northeasterners should be exceedingly well compensated whenever such projects are undertaken in the region. People generally want Northeasterners to have what is good in life. But the plain reality is that in the Northeast, things do not end with compensation, and many people west of the Siliguri Corridor fail to see this. They think, “They are being compensated, so why are they protesting? Are they against development or national security?” Let us introduce you to the concept of a homeland in the Northeast.
Northeast India has a very unique history within India. Its people were historically isolated and enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy from outside state-building empires, while also having their own state-building kingdoms and political institutions. Every tribe and every ethnic group has its own homeland, one that is tied to its existence as a people, its culture and its legitimacy. Consider the Khasi Hills. They are part of India and fall within Meghalaya, but they are undoubtedly the homeland of the Khasis and are directly tied to their identity and existence as a people. The fact that the Khasi Hills are part of Meghalaya does not make them any less the homeland of the Khasis.
The Constitution of India has also bestowed several rights upon tribal communities, which is another subject altogether. For now, the focus is on this important concept of homeland and how sensitive it is in the Northeast.
When an ethnic group's homeland is subjected to major transformation, particularly one that involves the displacement of a significant portion of its population, equitable compensation is no longer the central concern. The possibility of losing one's homeland, or a significant part of it, becomes the most important question, and an extremely difficult one to address.
Suppose, hypothetically, that a tribe named Zaru exists. It has a small population, but like every other indigenous ethnic group in the Northeast, it has a cluster of small villages considered its homeland within a particular state. Now a development project is proposed in the region, requiring the acquisition of its ancestral land. Every household is offered prime real estate and a bungalow on Marine Drive in Mumbai. On paper, this is an incredibly sweet deal. The state and the country benefit from the project, while the people are handsomely compensated and become owners of property in one of India's most valuable locations.
But the tribe is unlikely to accept it. As poor and underdeveloped as their original settlements may have been, that was their homeland, a place to which they had a legitimate ancestral claim. Marine Drive may be beautiful and offer excellent financial returns, but it will never be Zaruland.
One might then ask, if they are so particular about where they live, why not resettle them within the same state? But where in the state? That becomes the next question. The state does not belong to them alone. Every other tribe has its own homeland and territory. They could, of course, be resettled in the unoccupied northern part of the state, but the north is the homeland of the hypothetical Tikha tribe.
All of them are Indian citizens and, as Indians, have the right to live in that part of the country. But just as with the Marine Drive example, no matter how generously they are compensated, the new settlement will never be Zaruland. It will remain Tikha land. The Zaru may own property there, but in customary terms, and in the eyes of both communities, the area will continue to be Tikha land. If the Zaru make any attempt to associate that territory with their own identity or homeland, the Tikha are likely to oppose it tooth and nail. In the end, the state could be left with a never-ending cycle of land conflicts.
Land is identity for ethnic groups in the Northeast. The existence of a people is directly connected to the existence of their ancestral land. While where one lives or what property one owns matters a lot, belonging, history, customary rights and the continuity of a people in the place they call home matter more.
No one likes to be, metaphorically, a landless people with nothing but the government to fall back on for legitimacy. Many ethnic issues in the Northeast are born of this struggle for homeland, and many are also solved by the acquiring of an ethnic homeland. Considering how small the populations of Northeastern tribes and ethnic groups are, and how little voice they have in the Union, can anyone really blame them for treating land as their biggest source of legitimacy?
Of course, the example given above is a hypothetical story, slightly exaggerated to help those who are not familiar with the context understand it better. Nevertheless, this has happened in the past in the region.
Consider the Chakmas of Bangladesh. A large portion of their population was displaced by the construction of the Kaptai Dam, forcing many to flee into India. The subsequent Chakma question, including the ongoing disputes over their citizenship and identity, and misunderstandings with other ethnic groups, particularly in Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram, where the issue has been especially contentious, is a real issue. It needs to be examined and understood. Let us not question the intelligence of Northeastern people, who are much better at reading the room when it comes to the Northeast, which is their region after all.
The issue of ancestral land and development in the Northeast is a difficult one, whichever way we look at it. Development is necessary, infrastructure is important, and the region should not be denied opportunities that are available elsewhere in the country. Neither are people suggesting that tribes in the Northeast will be subjected to the same thing that happened with tribals in Bangladesh.
There are no easy answers, and every situation has its own political, historical and social complications. What is important is that concerns of tribal communities and their intelligence is not dismissed as opposition to development, nor can every development project be expected to be abandoned without considering its wider implications.
In the Northeast, one wrong decision can crack open a Pandora’s box of ethnic, territorial and political conflict that outlasts the people who made it. Yet the region’s fate is being debated by people who couldn’t find Aizawl on a map. The Northeast needs understanding, not armchair experts and their recycled “all converts” and “anti-national” reels, performed for likes by people who will never bear the consequences.