Many in India subscribe to the idea of unity in diversity for India. Unity presupposes reciprocity among the segments. One may ask if the supposed unity in the Indian context merely exhibits some semblance of institutionalised order. However, the term unity enjoys official patronage and it is particularly upheld by those who are the stakeholders of the policy of united India free from the politics of disintegration. Not surprisingly, it carries forth a success story of the state in justifying and defending the existing territorial boundary. Functionally the term conceals the subjective and objective conditions of the centrifugal tendencies of the northeast peoples.

Also read: Manipur's blockade blues
“All Manipuris want is good governance”

The general perception is that ‘unity in diversity’ necessarily embodies status quo among various linguistic, racial, cultural, and caste categories. It is expected that at the societal level differences are tolerated and promoted within the premises of a federal structure so that there is no disturbance to the plurality. The expectation has to be achieved in a democratic system run by a responsible government that reconciles the differences. Practically the Indian context illustrates perpetuation of the feeling of alienation and correlation between social alienation and political rebellion. Derogatory perception about the mongoloid people of the northeast by the rest of the Indians or the vice versa substantiates my argument.
To begin with many in the northeast perceive that they are racially discriminated against and dominated by the mainland Indians. For instance, most ‘mainland Indians’ who uphold counter-insurgency are ignorant of the history and racial-cultural composition of India. Many educated persons in Delhi are unaware of the names and capitals of the northeastern states.

PR Kyndiah, the then MP from Meghalaya, had complained on March 8, 2001 that “when seven businessmen were killed and in one of the newspapers they said, ‘five Indian businessmen have been killed’, as if Shillong was not in India... When there was a change of government in Manipur..., they said ‘Kohima calling’. They did not know that the capital of Manipur was Imphal. …When I was the head of the state in Mizoram, I received a letter from the ministry of defence addressed to ‘PR Kyndiah, governor, Mizoram, Agartala.’ Agartala is the capital of Tripura. This is the kind of ignorance that is there about the northeast.”

Such ignorance is being construed as an insult to the peoples of the northeast. It renders the state polemics of unity into a hollow rhetoric founded on the basis of ignorance, incompetency and territorial obsession.

How do we overcome ignorance and incompetency to defend plurality? Anyone who believes in ‘unity in diversity’ has to seriously think about it. There cannot be unity when there is discrimination. There has to be efforts to do away with the alleged social discrimination and harassment of the northeast peoples in the metros where they have temporarily migrated for education and job. Sexual harassment and assault on the women, overcharging by landlords and taxi drivers, denial of promotion in job and social profiling with derogatory terms are frequently registered. Such social treatment meted out to the migrant northeast peoples adds salt to the wounded psyche and contributes towards the politics of alienation and rebellion in the northeast.

We need to seriously note that there is encapsulation of the notion of cultural otherness by the dominant ‘others’ who incorporate it into the policy of discrimination and dominance. This tendency disturbs status quo and collective growth. It plays off plurality. It exasperates social relation and contributes towards the vicious cycle of assertions and counter-assertions centred on the sense of alienation and the idea of recovery from the presumed subjection.

Perhaps, the genesis of institutionalised discrimination can be traced in the policy framework of the Indian leaders in the 1940s who had gazed upon the northeast with an exotic imagination: unexplored resources, strategic frontier, anthropological cultural showpiece, wild space of different racial inhabitants that must be brought under the control of the Indian state. Jawaharlal Nehru’s constant fear of what he had termed pro-mongoloid prejudice and Sardar Patel’s racial prejudice against the northeast population interplayed in adopting a militant policy while dealing with the northeast. The same policy framework has been continued by the succeeding governments.

For instance the then union home minister, Shivarj Patil, in 2004 argued in favour of the Armed Forces Special Provisions Act (AFSPA) on the ground that “brothers, men and officers of the armed forces, are living thousands of miles away from their homes and from their places and exposing themselves to all kinds of dangers that are involved in countering insurgency...” Perhaps Patil had not only drawn a distance between Manipur and the rest of India (reciprocally representing distant land and home) but had also derecognised from ‘Indian-ness’ those Manipuris who were serving in the army and were deployed in Manipur. It hurts the sentiments of the peoples who protest AFSPA.

There are several other institutionalised policies that hurt the sentiment and perpetuate alienation. The regional passport office in Delhi does not issue a passport to anyone born in the northeast unless the home ministry issues a clearance. In June 2005 the vice principal of the Kirori Mal college prescribed Salwar Kameez as the dress code for the northeast women students under the pretext of preventing sexual harassment. In June 2007 the Delhi police widely circulated a booklet entitled ‘Security Tips for Northeast Students/Visitors in Delhi’, which laid down the norms of decency, food habits, dress code, traffic rules and so on to be observed by the people from the northeast. There are several instances when the police refused to register an FIR submitted by the northeast peoples. Intimidation, forcible vacation of room by the landlord, financial difficulty, time constraints, and lack of local support make the people of northeast handicap in any prolonged legal fight for justice against sexual harassment, exploitation or physical assault. These explain social discrimination, harassment and alienation.

Media projections dominantly articulate the northeast as the ‘sick man’ of India. Its contribution in the fields of sports, culture, defence service, resources and politics is not adequately conveyed to the media consumers. Their democratic assertions against the backdrop social discrimination by the mainland Indians, economic exploitation and deprivation in the name of development and suppression of democratic rights in the name of national security are not being properly addressed. Instead, they are shown as backward, militant, running a hub of drug trafficking and addiction, flesh trade, atavistic killers of immigrant labour from mainland India, and people who are opposed to forward looking, democracy and unity.
All these projections and social realities had catalytic impact on enhancing territorial obsession amongst the Indian policymakers and a large section of the mainland Indians who had looked upon the northeast as ‘wild space’ to be primarily controlled through the military means. They have become angst, suspicion and hatred vis-à-vis the mongoloid people as a threat to the sovereignty and unity of India. Efforts primarily such as the modernisation of the police, paramilitary and military forces and intelligence network are being surrogated by repressive laws, such as AFSPA, NSA, UAPA and sedition law, to strengthen the powers of the state to suppress dissenting ideas and activities. Peoples who assert for economic rights, anti-corruption, social justice and human rights are falsely implicated, suppressed and harassed. Thousands of people have been killed, injured, tortured, displaced and suppressed in the name of development and counter-insurgency.

The question is simple. Is India serious about the northeast?