Land, Community and Self-Governance
By GURPREET MAHAJAN

Demands for separate homeland, claims by a particular community to govern a specified territory, mark the struggles for recognition and self-determination in Northeast India. It is against this backdrop that Eastern Quarterly (Vol. 4, Issue II) sets out to examine the question of land and territoriality. It initiates this discussion with the understanding that the existence of a clearly defined boundary, defended by coercive force, is central to the modern conception of the nation-state. It is this imagination that came with the British colonial rule and subsequently through the independent Indian state that has shaped the conflict of identities in the Northeast.

The papers in this volume do not engage centrally with this understanding but they do offer us accounts of the contestations around land and territory that mark the different regions of the Northeast. Some of the papers also show that the colonial administration redefined the relationships between communities in the region, and structured the distinctions between “us” and “them.” As in many other colonized societies, here too, the British interventions prepared the ground for reconstruction of identities and emerging inter-group conflict. Beginning with Lokendra Arambam, the volume points to the discourse of autonomy and self-determination that has been articulated by different communities (such as, Nagas, Kukis, Meeteis, Boroks, Mizos) in the Northeast.

Khakchang Debbarma’s paper begins with a belief that is (and has been) central to many anthropological studies: namely, that land is critical to the tribal way of life. The loss of land disadvantages and threatens their existence as a cultural community. The reality of this claim is shown through the fate of the Borok community in Tripura. Adding to the existing debate on the relationship between land, immigration and tribal cultural community, it argues that the loss of land marginalizes the community in material terms. Land is a source of productivity and prosperity, and it is this that is lost when land is alienated.

Theorists who recognize the effects of land alienation often recommend special measures to protect tribal communities from external migration and the principles of free market. In the case of Tripura, what is striking is that protec-tion is granted to tribal communities; sale of tribal land is not permitted, and yet land transfers occur. The struggle of the Boroks emerges against this backdrop and it wants special protection for the community and a re-transfer of the original lands back to the community. This poses a very important question: can transfers be nullified retrospectively? Perhaps the Borok community could say that if the original transfers were illegal then the present structure of holdings remains unjust. The difficulty however is that Debbarma suggests that members of the community were willing partners, at least initially, in this transfer of land. Can their choices be subsequently negated? Can we assume that these were “irrational” choices made under the lure of profit and market principle? After all, many choices that we make could be similarly influenced; should all these choices be set aside? Can we disown the choices we make under non-coercive but external influences? These are some of the normative questions that arise from the Tripura story and they need to be addressed.

Unfortunately this aspect does not does not receive the attention of the authors. Most of the contributors present a story of how claims and counter-claims for self-governance emerge; they do not engage with the normative issues that these claims raise. As a result there is little or no deliberation on how we might deal with these issues and respond to competing and conflicting demands that come from different communities in this region.

The Tripura story however links quite effectively the issue of marginali-zation with the existing struggles for recognition and special rights. It unravels perhaps a thread that ties the different experiences in the Northeast. Almost everywhere it appears that access to resources and opportunities yields a process of differentiation and reconfiguration of identities that is seemingly unending.

T.S. Gangte’s paper reveals that the desire to protect one’s autonomy and the corresponding fear that this may be lost due to state or other external intervention fuels this process of identity articulation. The paper concludes by suggesting that the desire to get the special status as Schedule Tribe has prompted many communities, which were previously identified with a larger group, to mark their own distinctive identity.

This conclusion is significant but not sufficiently elaborated or developed. Yet, even in this nascent form it throws up a peculiar conundrum. So far recognition and special status, (for instance, in the form of ST), has been considered an important way of promoting equality. Gangte’s concluding comments problemtize this dominant understanding. If recognition in the form of special status yields new aspirations that have a spiral effect for more and more demands of the same, should special consideration be ever given? If yes, under what circumstances? Should such status be given only to large conglomerates rather than small tribes or communities?

These questions remain and call for an explanation. And they become more complex when we consider the paper by Amrapali Basumatary. Through the actions of the Bodo community she shows that the demands by the claimants of self-determination mimic the strategies followed by the state. Both effect compliance through violence and brute force. The violence is marked most acutely on the body of the woman. In this situation the paradox is that there is little to distinguish the state and the rebel, (the one who demands freedom against the former). Both begin to resemble each other.

What emerges over and over again is that accepted ways of dealing with minorities remain inadequate in the case of the Northeast. Recognition does not end the processes of marginalization of these communities and special status sparks off a spiral chain of demands. How then must we deal with the issues of minorities and their claims for special consideration?

This is a question that is posed quite sharply by Nameirakpam Bijen Meetei. He shows that the answers provided by the theorists of multiculturalism work when we are dealing with the claims of a (single) territorially concentrated community. When we are negotiating the claims of multiple minorities, each of which sees itself as a distinct nation, granting self-governance rights to national minorities poses problems. In places like Manipur it is virtually impossible to divide the given land in a way that satisfies the needs and concerns of each community. In fact, if Gangte’s analysis is to be taken seriously, demarcation of separate territory for each community may bring forth a fresh set of similar demands from other groups and clans in the region. Can consociational forms of power sharing offer a way out? Bijen rejects this possibility, too. What then is the way forward?

It is evident from Bijen’s analysis and the accounts provided by other contributors that we need to invent the wheel. If we relate the issues that confront us in the Northeast, it is evident that the Indian state has been able to win the confidence and support of the people/communities when it views the claims of recognition and self-determination positively and makes an effort to accommodate them. But at the end of the day these measures provide a temporary solution or relief. One reason for this is that while clans and communities come together and forge a common identity in the attempt to gain rights of separate statehood or self-governance, differentiations emerge soon after. Groups that fail to get access to resources and opportunities weave a narrative of their distinct identity and challenge the dominance of other groups, often spurring inter-community conflicts.
The occurrence of such inter-community conflicts creates a fresh space for state intervention – an intervention that appears necessary in the interest of peace and minimum protection for the victims.

While dealing with issues of land and territory the challenges are many, and they become more intractable as different kinds of elites compete for power. In this context, examining “how did it all begin,” or attempting to explain why it happened in terms of how it happened, helps to historicize self representations. It enables individuals to recognize that what is presented as a “fact,” or a “pre-given truth,” is malleable and open to reconstruction. This is an important precondition for political and social struggle and intervention. But it does not help us to charter the path for the future, and it is this that needs also to be considered seriously.

Today, in different parts of the Northeast, identities are continuously being configured and reconfigured in the struggle for resources, opportunities and autonomy. Neither electoral politics nor the policies of accommodation and recognition have been able to stem the tide of emerging conflicts. Each of these has given the state room to enter into a dialogue with some communities in the region. Civic associations are also contributing to this process of dialogue and peace building. However for these efforts to yield a tangible difference there needs to be a sustained discussion about the imagined future. At present all claims and counterclaims are being presented in the language of collective community rights or the right to self determination for a people/community. We need to introduce in this debate questions of equal concern and consideration. Imagined future cannot rest not simply on claims of rights and entitlements; they must be equally concerned with constructing a framework that is sensitive to the concerns of the “self” and the “other.”