Dialogue January - March, 2006 , Volume 7 No. 3
Demystifying Northeast
“Complex,
mysterious, unique’’ the Northeastern region of India continue to be
referred to in these terms in academic, media and policy circles. Indeed, the
region’s history, geography, ethnic composition and culture have given it a
distinctive character. And selective academic research on disparate subjects
like tribal customs, community ownership, gender equations etc, have generated
interest. Even the Central government deals with these states as “Special
category States”. Global focus on environment, ethnicity, gender and human
rights etc has helped some research in these areas. Otherwise rest of the story
is filled up by anecdotes of retired and serving bureaucrats and journalists.
Although, over the years, the
region has undergone tremendous changes but certain stereotypes have remained.
For most people in policy circles, media and academia, it still remains a
tribal, neglected, backward, insurgency prone remote frontier. The time has come
to question some myths surrounding the region. This will help create a
meaningful ground for future policy making.
The North eastern region
comprising of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland
and Tripura, covers around eight per cent of the country’s geographical area
and four per cent of its population. Their combined contribution to the national
economy is around two per cent. Recently, Sikkim has also been included in this
grouping.
Tribal Region?
Any discussion regarding the
region starts with its tribal nature. It is almost unanimously accepted as a
tribal region. Surprisingly, facts on the ground are totally different.
According to 2001 census, only about one-forth of the population of the region
is tribal ( table 1) . It is always emphasized that in the four States —
Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh — tribals are in majority.
But tribal majority in these states does not make the whole region tribal.
Moreover in today’s northeast, tribals are not “head hunters”; on the
contrary, a large number of them are educated and have adopted western dress and
modes of living. It would be misleading to equate them with marginalized tribals
in other parts of the country.
Table 1
Proportions of SC, ST Population in the North East, 2001
State
Total
Scheduled Proportion
Scheduled
Proportion
Population
Tribes (ST)
of ST
Castes (SC) of SC
Population population
population
population
Arunachal
Pradesh
1,097,968 705,158 64.2
6,188
0.6
Assam
26,655,528 3,308,570 12.4
1,825,949
6.9
Manipur*
2,166,788 741,141 34.2
60,037
2.8
Meghalaya 2,318,822 1,992,862 85.9
11,139
0.5
Mizoram
888573
839,310 94.5
272
0.0
Nagaland
1,990,036 1,774,026
89.1
—
0.0
Sikkim
540851
111,405
20.6
27,165
5.0
Tripura
3,199,203 993,426
31.1
555,724 17.4
Northeast 38,857,769
10,465,898 26.93
2,486,474
6.3
All
India 1,028,610,328
84,326,240
8.2
166,635,700
16.2
*
Excludes Mao-Maram, Paomata and Purul sub-divisions of Senapati district
of Manipur
Source: http://www.censusindia.net/t_00_005.html
Since independence, Indian policy
makers have been very sensitive to the tribal nature of the region. To protect
their interests, policies of less interference with the cultural traditions and
customs of the tribal people are being followed and additional political and
administrative framework has been provided for the region. Under the sixth
schedule of the Constitution, the concept of Autonomous District Councils has
been applied. 1
The councils are responsible for looking after the social, economic and minor
criminal and civil matters of the tribal people. More specifically these
councils are empowered to make laws with respect to: a) Land; b) Forest; c)
Water course; d) Shifting cultivation; e) Establishment of village and town and
its administration; f) Appointment of, or succession to chiefs or headmen; g)
Inheritance of property; e) Marriage and divorce and matters relating to any
other social customs.
Restrictions have been imposed on
the rights of people from other states/non-tribals to acquire landed property in
these areas. The regulation of Inner Line Permit prohibits entry of outsiders
into Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland without a permit, and debars a
non-native to acquire any interest in land or the produce of land. Tribal belts
and blocks have been constituted in the plains areas to prevent land alienation
from tribals there.
Earlier many scholars critically
looked at this protective policy as they found that it had failed to stop
alienation of tribal land.
In recent years, this policy
framework has been under attack from different reasons. Although tribal
population constitute about one fourth of the population of the region, about
two-thirds of the land is owned, controlled or managed by them.4
As a result, the policy of protective discrimination for Scheduled Tribes in the
region raises serious questions of justice, and equality for the non-tribal
population.5
As Sanjib Baruah argues, this kind of policy “effectively compromises the
constitutional right to free movement of Indian citizens”.6
Moreover, rigid barriers -which aim at restricting outside penetration –are
contrary to the processes of contemporary globalization. In these circumstances,
it would be more productive and useful if we start treating Northeastern
economic problems in a normal way rather than in a “special tribal way”.
First, the region is not a “tribal region” and secondly, “special
solutions” have created more problems than solving it.
Neglected Region?
Second myth about the region is
about its neglect. It is often cited as one of the main reasons for discontent.
There is obviously some neglect of the Northeast in Delhi politics and national
media. There could also be some knowledge deficit. But most vocal writings and
speeches regarding “neglect theory” often cite economic figures to show the
neglect. Respected national institutions like the Planning Commission are of
little help. In fact, some of its main publications have created more confusion.
For example, the National Human Development Report7
uses poverty ratios of Assam for
Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland and Tripura. As
a result, poverty ratio of States like Nagaland, Mizoram etc is shown very high,
although other indicators like infant mortality ratios and consumption
expenditure surveys of the National sample Survey Organistions tell a different
story altogether. While using these kind of figures, many scholars have created
theories of neglect and underdevelopment.
In
the “mainstream” economic thinking on the Northeast, it is frequently
suggested that to end this neglect, massive developmental assistance from the
Central government is required, which in due course would also end discontent,
insurgency and terrorism in the region. There could be some political or
psychological neglect but the facts about devolution and transfers of resources
from the Centre reveal entirely different story. Between 1990-91 and 2002-03,
the region received about Rs 1,08,504 Crores. Assam received about Rs 43,000
Crores from the Centre. Arunachal and Manipur received about Rs 9,900 Crores and
Rs 11,500 Crores respectively. Meghalaya received about Rs 9,000 Crores and
Tripura’s share is about Rs 14,000 Crores. Similarly, figures for the same
period for Nagaland and Mizoram are about Rs 12,000 Crores and 9,000 Crores
respectively. These are gross figures. A portion of that money is also given
back to the Central government as repayment on loans and interest payments.
Still, the cumulative net devolution from the Centre to the North-East for the
period between 1990-91 and 2002-03 is about Rs 92,000 Crores . Only grant
portion to the region during these 13 years is about Rs 65,000 Crores. So the
lack of development could not be because of shortage of funds. In fact, as
economist and Congress leader Jairam Ramesh has recently argued that this kind
of public expenditure has become very much part of the problem of the Northeast.
Table 2: Devolution & Transfer of Resources from the Centre to NER, 1990-91 to 2002-03
1990-91 91-92
92-93 93-94
94-95 95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
02-03 1990-
Arunachal
Gross Devolution
351 415.5
472.3 485.2 553.5 702.9
780.5 822.1
907
954.3 1049 1246.9
1172.6 9912.85
Net Devolution
329.2 385.8 452.9 459.8 543.8 675.9 748.1
782.9 859.4 899.4 985.48 1173.5
1095.6 9391.83
Assam
Gross Devolution
1955.9 1873.13 1874.2 2756.5 2512.1
3002.8 3211.5
3734 3522.4
4261.6 4047.2 4781.2
5541.5 43073.8
Net Devolution
1399.4 1256.8 1236.8 2046.8 1730.5 2298.5 2416.4 2789.3
2910 3076.4 3207.1
3679.6 4383.8
32431.32
Manipur
Gross Devolution
413.8 430.8
494.3 604.5
541.2 641.9
768 919.5
981 1080.1
1198.3 1753.2 1648.7 11475.32
Net Devolution
388.6
393 418.7
513.6 575.7
613.4
714.3 804.8 849.6
1012
1063 1342.1
1274.8 9964.59
Meghalaya
Gross Devolution
326.1 359.3
388.4 529.3
472.9 571.6 634.15 632.8 741.8
807.6
971.2 1177.6 1281.1
8893.79
Net Devolution
307.2 330.5
363.8 423.6 441.3 537.1
595.99 590.6 694.5 752.9
911.17 1109 1210.2 8267.75
Mizoram
Gross Devolution
355.3 380.3
400.2 487.3 519.1
607
644.3
700.8 726.5
951.4 1084.5
1096.4 1003.5
8956.62
Net
Devolution
191.1
366.7 384
471.2 500.3
588.3
621.4
673 694.5
913.5 1046.7
1051.9 951.13
8453.85
Nagaland
Gross Devolution
446.07 509.88
659.09 712.5
596.44 754.9
835.33
955 1170.5
1245.7 1394
1569.9 1598.6 12447.78
Net Devolution
402.06 438.8 444.1 585.8
560.9 725.86
796.6 912.2
940.2 1140.7
1331
1402.9 1502.7
11183.83
Tripura
Gross Devolution
519.5
551.8 592.8
614.3 709.6
883.8 987.8 1065.4 1260.4 1419.3 1499.5 1748.2
1892 13744.32
Net Devolution
477.98 506.2
540.6 563.2 656.1
833.9 932.7 1001.1 1183.3
1325 1392.1 1627.4 1756.7
12796.27
NER total
Gross Devolution
4367.7 4520.7
4881.3 6189.6
5904.8 7164.9 7861.6
8829.6 9309.6 10720
11244 13373 14138
108504.5
Net Devolution 3495.5 3677.8 3840.9 5064 5008.6 6272.9 6825.5 7553.9 8131.5 9119.9 9936.5 11386 12175 92489.44
Source;
Author’s calculations based on Reserve Bank of India and CMIE data.
High Literacy?
Third
myth is about high literacy levels in the region. Although the region has done
well due in education because of many socio-historical factors but the
importance of literacy level should not be overemphasized. Despite some pockets
of high literacy, the combined literacy rate in the region is 64.5 per cent
which is below the national average. Even in the neighbouring West Bengal, the
literary rate is 69.22 per cent. Low literacy rates in Arunachal, Assam and
Meghalaya are responsible for this. According to 2001 census, 35 out of 72
districts of the region record literacy levels below national average.
Table 3 : Literacy Rates in the Northeast, 2001
State
Literacy Rate
Arunachal Pradesh 54.74
Assam 64.28
Manipur 68.87
Meghalaya 63.31
Mizoram 88.49
Nagaland 67.11
Sikkim 69.68
Tripura 73.66
Northeast 64.48
All India 65.38
Source: Census of India 2001.
Even
high literacy rates in other districts are accompanied by low educational levels
due to high dropout and low standards. Active student politics the culture of
bandhs in the region have created havoc with the education system. There are
enough teachers in the region but many of them are not trained. According to
sixth NCERT survey only 45 per cent of total school teachers in the region are
trained. The corresponding figure for the national level was about 87 per cent.
The situation was particularly bad in Assam and Nagaland where only about 30
percent teachers at the secondary and higher secondary levels were trained.
Latest figures from the Ministry of Human Resource Development also indicate
that except Manipur, all the states in the region has high gross drop out rates
at all stages. Even in a state like Mizoram, which has almost 90 per cent
literacy, about 76 per cent students could not complete high school.
Table 4
Gross Drop-out rates in the Northeast for the Year 2002-03
State
Classes I-IV Classes I-VIII
Classes I-X
Arunachal Pradesh 37.94
58.01
71.66
Assam
61.17
68.76
74.91
Manipur
25.60
32.93
60.54
Meghalaya
56.51
71.67
80.93
Mizoram
56.38
58.31
75.68
Nagaland
51.80
53.38
77.47
Sikkim
52.06
69.66
75.12
Tripura
42.97
65.19
74.27
All India 34.89 52.79 62.58
Source:
Annual Report 2004-05, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
Government of India, p. 262.
Labour Surplus Region?
Another factor which has to be
understood is that major parts of the region face labour scarcity. This is
perhaps one of the main reasons for the failure of various labour intensive
government schemes like animal husbandry, Jawahar Rozgar Yozana etc. Despite all
the talk of outside invasion, labour ( both skilled and unskilled) is a big
problem with the possible exception of Brahmaputra valley and Tripura. Already
outside labour (mainly from Bangladesh, Myanmar, Nepal and other parts of India)
is a crucial factor in both agricultural as well as non-agricultural activities.
With any increase in economic activities, the problem of labour shortage is
expected to be aggravated. Unless the Inner Line restricted areas are opened for
outside labour, economic development is going to suffer. Or worse it would be an
open invitation to illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
Remote Frontier?
Another
standard argument is its disadvantageous geographical situation. This has been
argued in writings as one of the main stumbling block for its economic
development. This isolated, landlocked region shares less than 1 per cent of its
borders with the rest of the country, and the rest with Bhutan, Bangladesh,
Myanmar and China. For the most part this international border has been
artificially created. The result has been the elimination of the region’s
trade, commerce and other linkages which existed in the pre-partition days.
Using the region’s two per cent perimeter as a major linkage point with the
rest of India and at the same time checking the inflow of goods and people from
across the remaining rest of 98-99 per cent has been a gigantic task.
In the
last few years, there have serious discussions on converting this locational
disadvantage into a boon because of an increasingly integrated world economy.
It is
imperative to develop a coherent policy thinking in this area. The reason being
that there is not only a failure of the economic policy framework in the region
but also a weakness of country’s foreign policy which had ignored Southeast
Asia for a long time. As a result, the North-East region was not only cut off
from its natural economic partners but also encircled by unfriendly countries.
So far
the major border trade activity of the region with Bangladesh and Myanmar is
‘unauthorised trade’. The State authorities are fully aware of these
activities which function smoothly through unofficial channels. China is an
important player in the border trade even though its trading activities are
mainly through Myanmar. The major policy issue, therefore, would be to
synchronise these realities into Indian trade policies. With a well thought-out
long term policy, this region has the potential to emerge as a strategic base
for domestic and foreign investors to tap the potential of contiguous markets of
China, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia as well as
Malaysia, Indonesia and beyond.
However, there is a danger that
the hype of linking Northeast with Southeast Asia becoming another myth if we do
not prepare the region step by step. While keeping the long term goal in mind,
at this point the emphasis should be on creating conditions, both at the policy
level and at the ground level, on converting the unauthorised trade into
authorised trade. This is not a simple task. The genuine trader will have many
practical problems. The unauthorised trade works on the basis of a strong
network which involves traders, police, forest departments and, of course, many
underground groups and each has its own share in the pie. Apart from
infrastructural problems at Moreh, the large number of checkposts on National
High Ways 39 and 53 would a create problem in switching over from illegal to
legal trade. In most cases, the State governments turn a blind eye to the border
trade in illegal items because it creates a lot of economic activity in the
region. But since these commodities are not declared legal officially, there is
corruption at every turn. It would a good idea to declare certain areas in the
region as free trade areas officially since for all practical purposes they are
free trade areas anyway. After declaring certain areas as Free Trade Areas and
creating a minimum infrastructure, the second major step would be to devise an
aggressive strategy to
In conclusion, the failure of
economic strategy for the region is not because of any so-called economic
neglect but because of inappropriate socio-economic policy framework, which has
created an unbalanced economy and destroyed the basic institutions of market
economy. There is no land market for two thirds land area which is under
community or clan ownership. There are restrictions on labour movement due to
inner line regulations in Arunachal, Nagaland and Mizoram. We need to demystify
the region, create basis institutions of the market economy and start working
towards linking it with dynamic Asian economies.
References
1. See Arvind K Sharma “ District Councils in the North-East” in T N
Chaturvedi, ed., Fifty Years of Indian
Administration: Retrospect and
Prospect. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Public Administration, 1998.
2. B N Bordoloi,‘ Land
Alienation Among Tribes of North-East India: Problems and Policies” IASSI
Quarterly, Vol 12,
Nos. 3 & 4, 1994, pp. 17-48; M N Karna, “The Agrarian
Scene”, Seminar, No 366, February 1990, pp 30-38.
3. B K Roy Burman, “
Land and Forest Rights”, Seminar, No. 336, pp.25-29.
4. For details see
Gulshan Sachdeva, Economy of the North East, Policy, Present Conditions and
Future Possibilities,
New Delhi: Konark Publishers, 2000.
5. Sanjib Baruah,
“Protective Discrimination and Crisis of Citizenship in North-East India. “
Economic and Political
Weekly, April 26, 2003.
6. Sanjib Baruah,
Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press,
2005, p. 51.
7. See table notes at
pp. 164-166 and Technical Appendix page 133 in the National Human Development
Report 2001,
New Delhi: Planning Commission, 2002.
8. Jairam Ramesh, “
Northeast India in New Asia”, Seminar, No. 550, June, 2005.
9. Latest in the
discussion see Gateway to the East : A Symposium on Northeast India and the Look
East Policy in a
special issue of Seminar, No. 550, June 2005.
Dialogue (A quarterly journal of Astha Bharati) |