A party set for regional consolidation deserves to be evaluated on its structure, its charter, its actions, and governance — not dismissed through the lens of an incomplete, immature, and ideologically pre-scripted narrative.
By Mehek Nasreen Bose
As political analyst with no stake in the internal dynamics of the One Northeast Party (Name is not yet announced as per the Press Conference and therefore lets refer to it as ONE), I read an article published by Raiot, forwarded to me by a friend, titled “The Managed Front”. I was expecting a rigorous structural critique. What I found instead was a piece marked by analytical immaturity, selective reading, and a refusal to engage with the political developments as they actually are — not as a pre-set ideological narrative demands them to be. The same article did not even care to look at some of the familiar factual titbits of politicians and their individual political insights.
At a moment when the Northeast witnesses an attempt at regional political consolidation — the formation of a unified party with the ambition of one symbol, one constitution, and one policy charter — Haralu’s commentary reads less like analysis and more like an externally inherited script. It is high on metaphors and suspicion, but low on political intelligence, of the past or the present kinds.
A Textbook Case of Premature Judgment
Serious political analysis evaluates structures, processes, and institutional pathways. ONE is barely weeks old, yet Haralu confidently declares it a “managed front” and a “costume change,” without examining the documented process toward:
- a common constitution,
- a unified organisational architecture,
- a shared symbol and flag,
- and a formalised merger timeline.
This is not how responsible scholarship or even journalism works. It is how immature political commentary works: conclusions first, evidence never.
Flattening Diversity into One Convenient Category
One of the most striking weaknesses in Haralu’s argument is her attempt to flatten a diverse leadership into a single sociological caricature: the “managerial elite.” This is not political science; it is lazy reductionism to say the least.
Indigenous-rights leaders from Tripura, cultural activists-turned-organisers from Assam, senior regional leaders from Meghalaya, and policy-oriented voices from Nagaland cannot be collapsed into one category simply because it serves a pre-determined thesis. Mature analysis requires recognising plural origins, plural mandates, and plural constituencies.
One is not sure if the “aspiring novelist” ever met anyone of them in person to probe deeper into what has been conveniently termed as “managed front” leaders. Haralu’s inability to do so is a sign not of insight but of analytical immaturity.
A Misunderstood Federal Logic
Her central accusation — that ONE is a new “architecture of dependence” — betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of bargaining theory and federal politics. Fragmentation weakens the Northeast. Consolidation strengthens it. The logic is elementary:
Unity increases leverage.
Leverage increases bargaining power.
Bargaining power increases autonomy.
If anything, ONE is the first serious attempt in years to rebalance the Centre–Periphery power dynamic. Dismissing this structural shift as “optics”, that too a convenient one, displays an alarming unfamiliarity with how political negotiations actually work. This is not critique. It is underdeveloped political reasoning masquerading as radical or progressive commentary. And People know where it is coming from.
Misquoting Silence Where Record Exists
Another recurring immaturity in Haralu’s piece is her insistence that ONE’s leaders have been “silent” on CAA, AFSPA, and Manipur. This is factually incorrect. Public statements, Assembly interventions, delegation visits, and repeated demands to the Union Home Ministry exist in the public record. One may debate their adequacy — but not their existence. This is a clear case of someone who does not know anything about the background of the leaders.
Only an inexperienced analyst treats disagreement with her preferred level of activism as “silence.”
Delhi as Venue Is Not Delhi as Master
Her reading of the Delhi press meet is yet another instance of immature inference. Political launches occur in Delhi because that is where the Election Commission, national media, and inter-governmental interfaces are located. Venue does not determine autonomy; structure does. A mature analyst would know this but a mouthpiece of unscrupulous outsiders who wants to impose their opinions on the affairs of the Northeast. He or she wouldn’t resort to such a tactics.
Confusing Ideological Fashion With Political Reality
Haralu’s essay repeatedly invokes a performative radicalism — a familiar lazy-urban-left mode of analysis that values slogans over structures. It is much easier to accuse regional leaders of “managed dissent” than to study:
- the institutional constraints they navigate,
- the constitutional pathways available,
- the federal fiscal architecture,
- or the limits of oppositional politics in multi-party states.
But serious politics requires serious frameworks. Haralu substitutes those with a mixture of mood and metaphor. It reveals, again, an inexperienced political reading rather than a grounded one.
ONE Should Be Judged by What It Builds — Not By a Week-Old Projection
A mature analyst would wait to assess:
- the party constitution that emerges,
- the ethics code adopted,
- the candidate lists,
- the legislative agenda,
- the financial transparency mechanisms,
- and the federal commitments ONE articulates.
Haralu chooses to pronounce judgment before any of these appear. This is not vigilance; it is premature ideological anxiety. Her title, “The Managed Front,” reveals the conclusion she arrived with — not the conclusion she derived through inquiry.
The Northeast Deserves Better Than Such Thin Analysis
The Northeast is too important, too complex, too historically burdened to be analysed with such simplistic binaries. A mature critique would:
- interrogate internal democracy,
- examine federal commitments,
- evaluate cross-state representation,
- study mobilisation potential,
- and assess policy positions.
Instead, Haralu offers a broadside of insinuations without institutional grounding. It is, in substance and style, a politically immature reading of a moment that demands intellectual seriousness and critique. Who stops her from examining what One has to offer in the long run. Poverty of conception can only be proven after a temporal break. Please give One a chance to breathe a grow—to perform or perish depending on the leaders’ strength and weaknesses.
Critique Is Necessary, But It Must Be Competent
One Northeast Party may succeed or fail. That is for voters, not commentators, to decide. But a party attempting a genuine regional consolidation deserves to be evaluated on its structure, its charter, its actions, and its governance — not dismissed through the lens of an incomplete, immature, and ideologically pre-scripted narrative.
The Northeast gains nothing from such commentary. It deserves analysis, not caricature; critique, not projection; and above all, political maturity — something Haralu’s piece regrettably lacks from beginning to end.