Playing With Fire: The BJP May Have to Watch the Northeast Burn

The BJP seems to be determined to burn its fingers in the Northeast. They have consistently allied with ethnic or linguistic nationalist political parties – some of which are even considered as soft separatists – all for spreading the notion that the BJP can win support from the 'minorities'. The framework agreement – often referred to as ‘historic’ – is not nearing its completion. BJP’s ally in Tripura, the Indigenous People's Front of Tripura (IPFT) has resumed pressing for Twipraland, as against BJP’s claim that the demand has been dropped. Their ally in Darjeeling, the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM), after being disintegrated by Trinamool Congress (TMC), seems to have changed their alliance. Only the now underground Bimal Gurung and his supporters claim that the alliance still holds. In Meghalaya, the BJP won only two seats and is thus a junior partner in the alliance. In Assam, the BJP is the senior partner, and the other ethnic and linguistic nationalist parties are the junior partners. However, a resistance is brewing in the state, including from within the BJP.

Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal, on May 12, told the press that he had no reason to continue as the CM if he cannot protect the interests of the people of the state. These words were uttered in context of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, which has seen widespread resistance against it by the people of Assam, along with voices from Arunachal Pradesh and Meghalaya chiming in. On one hand, one could say that he did not specifically speak against the Bill and that he was forced to make a statement on it, considering the prevailing mood in the state. The opposition has in turn called for a special session on the Assam Accord to be held. One day before he spoke, the CM had cancelled a visit to Cotton College in Guwahati, when the students of the college had staged a protest against the Bill. The students allegedly chanted a slogan of the anti-foreigners agitation – Ah oi ah, khed o khed, bidexi khed (Come one come all, chase away the foreigners).

The opposition to the Bill had been simmering for a while. Students and civil society groups opposed to it expressed their reservations first in Assam; however, the opposition spread to other states. In Assam, the All Assam Students Union (AASU) was the first student group to oppose. From Arunachal Pradesh, the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) has submitted a memorandum to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) against the Bill. The North East Students Organisation (NESO) has also voiced their opposition to the Bill. When it comes to the civil society groups, they are mostly from Assam, where the opposition has arisen. The ‎Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS) – led by Akhil Gogoi, as well as Assamese public intellectuals have made their opposition clear. In Meghalaya, the Federation of Khasi-Jaintia and Garo People (FKJGP) staged a protest when the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) visited Shillong. 

The political parties opposed to the Bill include Congress, who has demanded a referendum to be held on the issue. The Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), which was born out of the anti-outsiders movement, and is an ally of the BJP, is also opposed; as is the All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), who even commented that the Bill would turn Assam into Bangladesh. The Conrad Sangma-led coalition government in Meghalaya has decided to inform the JPC of their opposition to the Bill, despite being a BJP ally with a BJP MLA as a part of the cabinet.

Voices against the Bill have also come from both factions of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). Paresh Baruah has voiced his concerns repeatedly, and has warnedthe Assam Sattra Mahasabha against supporting it. Jiten Dutta, the head of pro-talks faction's Kakopathar camp in Tinsukia stated that if the Bill is passed, he would close the camp and resume the armed movement. Anup Chetia, General Secretary, ULFA, had earlier mentioned that if the Bill is passed, the situation in Assam would resemble the 1980s and 90s (when ULFA was at its peak).

What this widespread opposition means is that the BJP has either deliberately misread the ground reality of the Northeast, or has exposed its glaring incompetence at understanding the most basic of emotive issues in the region. The issue of 'outsiders' has been evoked at various points of time, often to whip up sentiments. Some have argued that the reasons for this lie in reducing economic competition—the justification for the ILP system is to protect the people from exploitative outsiders. However, the ILP does not protect the people from exploitative 'insiders'. The aspect of anti-outsider sentiments that requires attention is that most communities in the region view themselves as a 'nation'. The desire for autonomy in governance has, at times, even led to violent movements for separate states and at times countries. 

The present opposition to the Bill arises from this sense of autonomy. The idea being that the people should have the final say in who is allowed to stay. In one sense, this is a traditional mindset, which finds its place in the agrarian past of most communities. A common feature was that each village was an entity unto itself. The gaon bura(village elder) would have the final say in determining who could cultivate, and where they could cultivate. Those who violated the norms of the village were expelled, and their land forfeited. It is through this system that the Gorkha communities have been able to live in many 'tribal' states as agrarian communities, despite never owning the land which they till. Their only rights are usufructuary. Conversely, it is alleged that this understanding was never arrived at between the Bengali settlers and the 'tribal' communities.

In case of Assam, there are several communities that have been demanding the ST status – including the 'Tea Tribes'. Their demands have been consistently falling on deaf ears. Thus, the communities have undergone several rounds of ethnic revivalism, usually expressed in terms of changing surnames, celebrating animist and shamanist festivals and reviving languages. The issue of ST status is linked to the prevailing 'anti-outsider' sentiment. The desire to be recognised as 'indigenous' along with the protections and benefits earned through a coveted ST status cannot go hand in hand with 'non-indigenous' communities in their midst. The great irony is that the ST tag, rather than being a marker of backwardness, is actually perceived as a recognition of a community's nationhood.

The other aspect is the game of numbers. In Assam, the laws that restrict land ownership are non-existent. Thus settlers are able to reside even in rural areas. Whereas, in most other states, the migrants are confined to the urban centres. Therefore, while urban centres begin to demographically change, rural areas tend to retain their 'traditional' demographic characteristics. The fear of being 'swamped' by outsiders has prompted the civil society groups in several states to promote 'population enhancement' policies. These policies are aimed at 'indigenous' couples who are encouraged to have more children. In some cases, cash prizes are awarded to women who bear more than two children.

Ultimately, the driving force behind the most regional political expressions lies in the desire for respect and political autonomy. Its expression has taken many forms: the Assam Agitation, the Naga War, the Mizo Uprising, the revival of Manipuri nationalism, Twipraland, Bodoland, Gorkhaland and Garoland, to name a few. The BJP may have been able to form the government in several states by playing ball with proponents of these aspirations. However, these alliances were formed on the expectation that the BJP would be sensitive to these aspirations. Hindutva nationalism can never win against the prevailing perceptions about the nationhood that the communities of the Northeast hold dear.