Northeast India’s collective crisis demands a nuanced understanding of its layered conflicts. Selective, piecemeal approaches risk perpetuating cycles of violence. Instead, a holistic framework—one that acknowledges shared trauma while empowering local voices—could pave the way for enduring peace.
Editorial by Dhiren A. Sadokpam
Northeast India, a mosaic of diverse cultures and ethnicities, has endured multifaceted violence over the past more than six decades. This turbulence spans vertical conflicts (between the state (New Delhi) and non-state actors (so called insurgents) and horizontal conflicts (inter-ethnic strife, religious tensions, and interstate disputes). These overlapping layers of contention often defy simple categorization. For instance, rival groups may temporarily ally against a common adversary, creating fluid, multi-cornered conflicts. Recent decades have exemplified these dynamics, such as the collaboration between two ethnic groups within a state against perceived external threats, even as they contest each other elsewhere.
Historical Roots of Fragmentation
The region’s integration into India’s nationalist narrative remains fraught. Unlike much of India, where anti-British colonial resistance forged a collective identity, many Northeast communities had their own issues as the independence movement gained momentum. Post-1947, this historical disconnect left the Indian state—whose legitimacy is rooted in its anti-colonial legacy—on weaker footing here. Certain groups, like the Nagas and Mizos, initially rejected inclusion in India, sparking insurgencies. Others, such as Manipur’s princely state, debated the terms of its merger. Smaller ethnicities, like the Karbis or Dimasas, found their political voices marginalized during India’s formative years. This delayed assimilation into the national consciousness continues to fuel movements for right to self-determination and autonomy within a state, as seen in the ongoing Naga peace talks and demands for “Frontier Nagaland” or even demand for an autonomous Kukiland with Union Territory status and a legislature.
Violence and the Struggle for Identity
The region’s journey into India’s collective imagination has been marred by bloodshed. Ethnic identities, once fluid, hardened in response to centralized nation-building. For example, the Bodo insurgency (1980s–2020) sought a separate state, culminating in the Bodo Accord, while Kuki-Zo and Naga groups clashed over territorial control in Manipur. Modernity’s influx—through institutions like the AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act) and economic projects—intensified fears of political, cultural and social erosion. Communities now grapple with dual anxieties: resisting assimilation into the Indian “mainstream” while differentiating from neighboring groups. The result is a politics of indigeneity, where land, language, and migration become flashpoints. Assam’s protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (2019–2020) and the updating of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) reflect this existential struggle.
Civil Society and the Politics of Othering
Civil society in the Northeast operates in a complex dialectic of self-assertion and Othering. While the Indian state is often framed as a distant, oppressive “Other,” intra-regional rivalries are equally potent. The 2021 Assam-Mizoram border clash, which left six dead, underscores how historical territorial claims can ignite violence. Simultaneously, globalization and digital connectivity have amplified identity politics. Social media, for instance, exacerbated Manipur’s 2023 ethnic violence between Meiteis and Kukis, spreading misinformation and deepening divides.
The civil society movements and representations take place not merely as one-sided self-projection but also as constant interaction and creation of the “self and the other”. In this quest for self-definition, not only is the idea of the Indian nation is often presented as the “other” while there is also sharpening of difference with the immediate neighbours. The modernity of the politico-economic institutions and processes brought in the process also add to the apprehensions and fear of losing one’s political and cultural moorings. Here, we are referring to community based politics that have always expressed palpable apprehensions. Many resort to recovering the lost memory via the generation of an “aggressive other”. Therefore, the region is now riddled with the issues of indigenous identity, land and territoriality, and in recent times, on illegal migration. This is why there is a felt necessity of mapping the story of collective crisis instead of selective solutions to what have been considered “little unique histories”.
However, the region’s crises are no longer isolated “unique histories” but interconnected struggles. Illegal migration from Bangladesh and Myanmar, resource competition in tribal belts, violence and climate-induced displacement (e.g., floods in Assam and ethnic violence in Manipur) compound tensions. Yet, there are glimmers of progress as grassroots peace initiatives highlight the potential for dialogue. Lasting solutions require addressing root causes—historical grievances, economic inequity, and participatory governance.
In sum, Northeast India’s collective crisis demands a nuanced understanding of its layered conflicts. Selective, piecemeal approaches risk perpetuating cycles of violence. Instead, a holistic framework—one that acknowledges shared trauma while empowering local voices—could pave the way for enduring peace.