The Formation Of Indian Nation State And The Future Of North East
- Part 1 -

Prof. J.J. Roy Burman *

Map of NE India

Almost all historians and scholars like D.D. Kosambi, Amartya Sen, Sudipto Kaviraj wrote about the idea of India in terms of an ancient civilization or a political boundary formed after British colonization. In their writings they mentioned prominently about Gandhi, Nehru, Tagore and Bankimchandra. Bankim's writings do not mention anywhere about India, Bharat, Hindustan or Bangali. He rather wrote about arming the Hindus for their resurgence.

Nehru could not discover the Mizos and Nagas in his treatise – Discovery of India. None seem to be conscious of the fact that the Indian nation state we know today was formed on 15th August 1947 or rather founded on that day with the withdrawal of the British. Historically the area covered by British India included the present day Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Prior to that there was Mughal empire which did not include any part of South India or North East India.

Before that the political boundary of Ashokan empire stretched from Persia to parts of South East Asia. The seats of Indus valley civilization, Mahenjodaro, Harappa and Taxilla of which Indians take pride of are located in Pakistan. Majority of the 500 princely states that merged with India did not join the anti-colonial struggle and rather had sided with the British. The Nizam of Hyderabad or the king of Manipur barely fought the British and resisted only when India tried 'forced merger'.

At the time of partition 67.4 per cent of the tribes of Chittagong Hill Tracts voted in the referendum to join with India, but the British agent Radcliffe arbitrarily clubbed them with erstwhile East Pakistan (May be with sinister designs blocking a direct access to the blue waters through Chittagong port). On the other hand the Nagas refused to do so as they stated that they were never subjugated by India and rightfully feared that they will get marginalized in Indian nation-state with the departure of British. But they did not realize that there never existed any India in history as we know today and that all the constituent states of it formed an union without any historical precedence.

The Nagas are not to blamed as they had seen nationalist leaders like Tilak professing Hindu nationalism and even Gandhi sticking to rigid Hinduism and singing Hindu psalms and following vegetarian food habit which is anathema for the Dalits and tribals. They had watched states being formed in British India on the logic of population. Right now Nagaland has one seat in the Lok Sabha against a house of 545 members.

Some of the intellegentsia from Manipur argue that the British cut out the political boundaries with the intention of exploiting natural resources and not population logic. I wonder which natural resources did the British exploit from United Provinces and Punjab. The resource base was rather located in many of the princely states predominated by tribal peoples ( Most of which are now the Fifth Schedule Areas) – on the fringes of state borders covered with forests that offered buffer zones between kingdoms. The dense forest zones of north east were deliberately kept out of a political expediency and not resource exploitaton. In the tribal predominated states like Jharkhand and Chattisgarh tribes are spread of a larger terrain but numerically outnumbered by the non-tribals mostly inhabiting the urban centers. Demographic marginalization has seen outsiders controlling the State power.

The overwhelming majority of the Indian polity without realizing the historical truth formed a parliament on the basis of population logic – a colonial legacy. While the eight states of North East have 25 seats in the Lok Sabha, Uttar Pradesh alone has 80 seats. This automatically results in a North Indian hegemony. (It is on record that Mulayam Singh Yadav, a non BJP, parochial leader, without the vision of Indian nation-state advised Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the then PM, to deliver his speech in Hindi when Bill Clinton was invited to address the Parliament. Vajpyee himself made a statement earlier as a Foreign Minister citing the example of erstwhile Soviet Union which had Russian as State language and so he justified the case of Hindi in India. (Russian language could not stave off its dissipation into pieces.). It is often not realized that India is a political- economic entity and not a cultural state. In a newly formed nation-state, a just confederation should have led to equal representation in the Lok Sabha or an apex Confederational body.

I am sure if this position be accepted, the different peoples of North East including the Nagas will find it acceptable for a political future with India. Significantly, similar demands from other states are likely to emerge as we find Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal has already publicly appealed for a just federation with India, a short while ago.

As a caveat it must also be realized by the Naga leadership that a Greater Nagalim as per their demand, under the present parliamentary dispensation will at best fetch them 3-4 seats in the Lok Sabha and they would not find any space in the national polity. The tribes of North East will have to bear the torch of humanity and a moral order, when the working class movement in India has failed. After all the natural resources of the country are located in the tribal regions.

But the Nagas if they have to form a unified political unit, they will have to evolve a moral order based on historical facts that there was no Naga nation or Naga nation-state in history. Citing their myths and legends about a common ancestory and migrating from South China and Mongolia will only lead them into an uncomfortable position and denial of their of their indigenous rights. Besides, like them many other tribes of North East make similar claims.

A Naga nationality is now evolving across states and international border. ( Importantly, the Tangkhuls who did not side with other Nagas and sign in the Memorandum submitted to the Simon Commission – urging not to be clubbed with India - While a Kuki and a Nepalese had done so, today are leading the Naga movement. A little peep into history, situational analysis and the use of theory backed by hermenuetics can very easily explain this ethnic turn around.

The adoption of the colonial construct to form the modern Manipur state after merger marginalised the Tankhuls both politically and culturally by one stroke – Gaining only 20 seats in the State Assembly while occupying 90 percent of the state territory and being put under the cultural hegemony of the Meiteis, with the imposition of Meiteilon . Tangkhuls who were an elite community staged into an alliance with the Meitei rulers in history became the displaced elites and were compelled to adopt the opposite end as a part of their identity management strategy. This process can be analysed in terms of 'the role of the displaced elites' in sociological parlance.

In West Bengal as well we witnessed the East Bengal refugees who lorded over Muslim peasants back in their villages turning into Communists as in the case of Jyoti Basu, Charu Mazumdar and Kanu Sanyal. It is doubtful how many of the Tangkhuls cast their votes in the plebiscite floated by Phizo in 1951). Otherwise, they will need a charismatic leader who could behave like an ethnic manager.

Else they will be ruled by fascist dictators supported by armed militia, who may not be from Nagaland, as is the case of Muivah, the supreme leader of NSCN (IM) - A Tangkhul Naga from Manipur or like Khaplang heading NSCN (K) - a Hemi Naga from Myanmar. After all Nagaland has 16 major tribes and each with their own history and customary laws. Vajpayee and Modi failed to realize while making statements to placate the Nagas that they enjoyed a unique history.

Every community in the world has its own unique history. Naga nation has no ancient history. Modern Indian nation-state too has no ancient history. Its history begins form 15th August, 1947. Indians 200 years hence (if it survives) I guess, will refer to the history of the country form that day and not to colonial India or Indus Valley Civilization. After all civilizations have amorphous domains and the political boundaries of modern nation-states are not necessarily co-terminus with them, as witnessed in the case of Roman, Greek, Egyptian or Mesopotemian civilizations.

To be continued....