Even though Assam was a part of British India and the seeds of nationalism were planted in Assam during Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement in the 1920s, the motives behind the Assamese participation in the national mainstream were more oriented towards an Assamese independence rather than an All India independence.

Historically, mainland India before colonisation was socially organised along the lines of caste as followed in Hinduism. This allowed for most parts of the country to have a common social and cultural history even before the arrival of the British Raj. The northeast, however, being geographically separated from mainland India developed its own unique culture. As a matter of fact, Northeast India is an extension of Southeast Asia in terms of ethnicity and culture. For instance, the Meiteis of the Manipur Valley and the Ahoms of Brahmaputra valley have close cultural and ethnic linkages with the Shans of upper Myanmar and the Thais of Thailand. The Nagas of Manipur and Nagaland not only have their kith and kin across the border in the Chin Hills of Myanmar but can also trace their origin from central China. The Singphos of Arunachal Pradesh have their origins in the Kachin state of upper Myanmar. The Khasis and Jaintias of Meghalaya have similarities in language and culture with the Mon-Khmers of Cambodia, Thailand and eastern Myanmar. Thus, there is not only a geographical and cultural divide between mainland India and the North-east, there is a very clearly demarcated racial divide as well. They not only live with different values and traditions, they also “look” different which has led to discrimination which can almost be termed as racist.

With the arrival of the British, there seemed to be some unification of mainland India with the Northeast as the region became included under the administration of the British along with the rest of the country. However, if you scratch just below the surface, we find that this is not so. The British did not integrate the northeast with the rest of the country. In fact, their policies reinforced the separation of this region from mainland India. Even though Assam was a part of British India and the seeds of nationalism were planted in Assam during Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation Movement in the 1920s, the motives behind the Assamese participation in the national mainstream were more oriented towards an Assamese independence rather than an All India independence. They would have preferred a separate nation for the Assamese people that was outside the influence of India or any other ruling power. As early as 1937, the Asamya Sanrakshini Sabha presented a memorandum to Jawaharlal Nehru by stressing that unless the National Congress helped Assam to overcome the danger of the ‘extinction of the Assamese race, a section of the Assamese intelligentsia would favour the secession of Assam from India’. Thus, throughout the colonial period and after, Assam had been under constant threats of absorption from more advanced nationality and foreigners. This fear was not only felt by the Assamese. Other parts of the Northeast especially the Nagas acutely felt a sense of not belonging to the Indian national mainstream.

When plans were being made for Indian independence, the idea to exclude the Northeast from the new Indian nation was mooted. This was mainly because the British felt that there was a discord in placing in the hands of India, a region that was culturally, racially and geographically distinct from the Indian mainstream. The unification of the eastern hill areas with Burma was proposed contending that ‘the people are ethnologically more akin to the Burmese people than to the Indian people, and they came to Assam via Burma’. Another proposal was the constitution of the eastern hill areas under the control of the central government. It is argued that all the hills, being financially deficit areas, must depend upon the financial support of the central government in order to survive. Opponents of this proposal expressed their fear that if the hill people were put under central control, they would be governed by ministers and politicians in Delhi and would have no prospect of being themselves among the ministers and politicians who counted. They might have one representative in one central assembly, but what is one among so many diverse tribes? And they would have no hope of receiving the attention of the minsters. These ministers would be drawn from men of other races and communities and provinces who would have responsibilities to their own region rather than address the grievances of the isolated North-east. The present happenings and events in Northeast India today tend to substantiate the two shades of arguments. As a matter of fact, all the eastern states today entirely depend on doles and in the parliament they have hardly twenty four representatives who are too insignificant among the five hundred plus members. Lack of ownership and sense of participation in the highest decision-making body cannot but alienate the people.

The policies that were followed by the British in their bid to “protect” the “ethnically backward” northeast from the domination of mainland India also ensured that all opportunities that could have been used to amalgamate the northeast into the mainstream were thwarted. Nobody, including officials were allowed to enter most areas of the northeast without a special permit. A concentrated effort was made to leave the day-to-day administration of the region in the hands of the local chiefs and councils. British interference was allowed only to reinforce that the highest authority lay with the Raj. Otherwise, the local people were left quite undisturbed by the authorities. Strangely enough, even to this present day, there are certain parts of the northeast that still require people to carry special passes in order to enter these regions. This segregation and lack of interference by the British left the northeast unstirred by the struggle for independence which was engulfing the entire nation. Initially the people in the northeast did not share the same sentiments with the national mainstream regarding the presence of the British in India.

Thus, the pre-colonial and colonial history of India confirms that the distinction that was made between mainland India and North-eastern India has been so well enforced that its repercussions can still be acutely seen and felt up to this very day. We need to look at those countries that have successfully managed to blend the diverse cultures found within their jurisdiction as a means of finding a solution to the problem of the split identity of the North-Eastern personality – one being their identity as individual tribes and cultures that are uniquely contrasted with the mainland Indian identity and the other being their identity as a part of the Indian nation. How can these two identities be reconciled?

The eastern states today entirely depend on doles and in the parliament they have hardly twenty four representatives who are too insignificant among the five hundred plus members.

We can take the example of Greenland. Greenland was colonized by Denmark in 1721. With the abolition of her colonial status in 1953, Greenland formed an integral part of Denmark. By the home rule act of 1979, the Greenland government has been granted full authority in all matters of internal concern which include education, taxation, religion, social affairs, economy, infrastructure, fishing, trade, cultural and political matters. However, foreign affairs, currency, defence and judicial matters still remain with the Danish government. Greenland representatives can also be included in the Danish foreign delegation. These are the two examples where a substantial amount of autonomy has been granted to a region without jeopardizing the sovereignty and control of the central government. After all, the goal is neither the break-up of an existing state nor the estrangement of peoples, but their compromise; the establishment of relations of friendship and cooperation between them. In this way, autonomy can be implemented through various mechanisms and arrangements within the framework of a nation state and ultimately be a powerful tool for genuine democracy and federalism.

This method might bring about a reconciliation between the aspirations of the Northeast to be recognized as an entity that is distinct from the Indian national mainstream and the Indian assertion of the Northeast as an integral part of the nation.

The distinction that was made between mainland India and North-eastern India has been so well enforced that its repercussions can still be acutely seen and felt up to this very day.

The solution lies in the recognition that a difference in race and culture is not a pressing reason to separate and isolate oneself from everything else that is different or opposing to it. A re-education of the mainland to learn to view what is different with acceptance rather than as an aberration that must be redressed is also of vital importance. Sixty five years of living as one nation, struggling as one nation and surviving as one nation should and must bring about a cohesion that will erase all differences and bind all members of this great nation together as one. Only then will the great diversity of this nation be a strength rather than a drain on the resources of this vast country. As we celebrate the sixty fifth year of our independence, we must learn to recognise the fraternity and brotherhood that our freedom fighters felt whilst struggling to free this nation from the bonds of servility. Only then can this pledge of ours ring true -

India is my country and all Indians are my brothers and sisters. I love my country and I am proud of its rich and varied heritage. I shall always strive to be worthy of it.

I shall give respect to my parents, teachers and elders and treat everyone with courtesy.

To my country and my people, I pledge my devotion. In their well being and prosperity alone, lies my happiness

Laetitia Warjri