Autonomy


UNIT 8 AUTONOMY MOVEMENTS Movements

Structure

8.0 Objectives
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Features of Autonomy Movements
8.3 Forms of Autonomy Movements in Northeast India
8.3.1 Insurgencies
8.3.2 The Hill State Movement
8.3.3 The Plains Tribes of Assam: The Bodo Movement
8.3.4 Other Examples
8.4 Let Us Sum Up
8.5 References
8.6 Answers to Check Your Progress

8.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, you will be able to:
 Explain the meaning and features of autonomy movements;
 Discuss the reasons for the rise of autonomy movements in Northeast
India; and,
 Elaborate upon the forms of autonomy movements in the region.

8.1 INTRODUCTION
Autonomy movements are among the most important themes of political,
academic and popular discourse on Northeast India. Derived from the Greek
words, ‘auto’ meaning ‘self’ and ‘nomo’ meaning ‘law’ or ‘rule’ autonomy
means ‘self-rule’ or to make one’s own law. Therefore, it has the connotation of
being free to govern oneself. It also means that one is independent to decide
whether one wishes to be influenced or controlled by others or be free and rule
oneself. From the political and legal aspect, autonomy connotes the ability of
people to govern them or have the power to legislate to regulate their affairs.
Autonomy movements are the collective mobilisation of people or groups that
seek autonomy. Various ethnic groups in different states in Northeast India have
been seeking reorganisation of federal structure. Through reorganisation of
federal relations, the ethnic groups seek to formulate and execute policies


Dr. Moses Kharbithai, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Assam
University, Silchar.

81
IDENTITY POLITICS pertaining to their community and region. The foci of these movements have
varied from reorganisation of federal structure from creation of new states from
the existing state (s) or Union Territories to creation of autonomous district,
regional or territorial councils. Some of these movements have demanded the
creation of sovereign states. In this unit, you will learn about the autonomy
movements with some examples from Northeast India.

8.2 FEATURES OF AUTONOMY MOVEMENTS

Autonomy movements have some features. Autonomy movements arise when a
group of people in a certain region feel that their region has not received proper
treatment or is discriminated against by the authorities – the government or other
regions. Such people may share some common features – region, culture,
language, customs, history, etc. Autonomy movements aim to give expression to
distinct cultural-linguistic identities and to uplift the backward socio-economic
conditions of people in an area. Such movements are organised and led by
political or social leaders, students, middle classes or civil society organisations.
These are opinion makers who make people conscious of their grievances,
articulate their interests and mobilise people into collective action or social
movement. The opinion-makers generally argue that outsiders exploit their
economic sources; they are not paid royalties in proportion to usage of their
resources. Sometimes, they also allege that their regions have become “internal
colonies” of other regions or governments. They also allege that due to improper
policies pertaining to migration and development, their culture – language, social
and cultural identities are adversely impacted. They complain that they do not get
adequate representation in the existing set up political institutions, and their
opinions are not considered in policy formulation. Some of them argue that
regions or communities have been nations since time immemorial, and they have
lost political sovereignty in the existing federal structure. The opinion-makers in
such regions argue that their grievances can be solved if they are political
autonomy to manage and regulate their affairs. Autonomy movements in
Northeast India share these features in different degrees.

8.3 AUTONOMY MOVEMENTS IN NORTHEAST

INDIA
In units 4-6 of Block 2, you would have read there are different provisions in the
Constitution of India to protect and preserve social and cultural identities,
economic interests and political autonomy of institutions in Northeast India. As
you would read in those units, these provisions are the VI Schedule, Special
Status to all states of Northeast India, Articles 371A – 371 C, and 371F – 371 H;
Inner Line Permit (IL) in four states Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and
Mizoram, and North Cachar district of Assam. The autonomous district councils
were supposed to empower political elites among the tribes in the art of self-
governance while also ushering economic development, yet the spirit of
enthusiasm was missing. However, these provisions have not resolved the
82 grievances of people in the region to their satisfaction. Therefore, over the years,
demands for autonomy in one or the other form have been raised in different Autonomy
regions/by different communities in Northeast India. Autonomy movements in Movements
Northeast India occurred in different forms of in the post-Independence period:
demand for sovereign states, formation of new states or Union Territories,
creation of autonomous councils or state within states. On several occasions, the
collective mobilisation for such demands has led to ethnic violence or
insurgency. On some occasions, it has resulted in the acceptance of some
demands or the signing of Accords. However, such demands arise from time to
time. Either the old demands get revived or new demands for autonomy are
raised. Demands for autonomy and sovereignty are different but sometimes
interrelated: autonomy is about the rearrangement of federal structure within a
Sovereign state, the insurgency is about getting a sovereign state. They are
interrelated in the sense that initially, a demand might be raised for autonomy,
but it might turn into a demand for a sovereign state. Or initially, a demand which
may be about granting a sovereign state might be changed into a demand for
autonomy in a different political context. This unit discusses different forms of
autonomy movements with some examples from Northeast India.
8.3.1 Insurgencies
Insurgency is associated with organised assistance that supports all or some
sections of society to challenge the state and change the political regime. There
are examples of insurgency in Northeast India. Duration, number and intensity of
cases of insurgency in the region have varied. Manipur has had the largest
number of insurgent groups in the region. Nagaland, Mizoram, and Manipur have
seen more sustained insurgencies than in Assam or Meghalaya. In Assam, the
United Liberation Front Assam (ULFA) has been active since the 1980s, and in
Meghalaya, the Hynniewtrip National Liberation Council (HNLC) has been
active since the 1990s. Let us briefly look at the features of insurgencies in
Nagaland, Mizoram and Manipur. Insurgency in Nagaland is the first example of
autonomy movement in Northeast India. The notion of Naga autonomy or self-
determination originated with the formation of Naga Club in 1919. The NNC
argued that the Nagas had been a nation since time immemorial, and only some
regions in Naga Hills became part of the British Empire after the latter annexed
those areas from the nineteenth century. They argued that after the British left,
the Naga nation was not part of any other nation because the Naga had a unique
history. In June 1947, an agreement was signed between the Naga leadership
(Aliba Imti and T. Sakhrie) and the Governor of Assam, Akbar Hydari, known as
the nine-point agreement. The agreement was agreed that ten years after the
agreement, the “Nagas will be free to decide their future”. After World War II,
the Naga Club was converted into a new organisation, i.e. Naga National
Council (NNC). The NNC launched a movement under Angami Zapo Phizo’s
leadership to establish a sovereign state of Nagaland. As India was to celebrate
independence, disregarding the Nine-Point agreement, the NNC declared
independence on August 14, 1947, a day before India celebrated its freedom. It
refused to be part of the Indian Union: rejected its Constitution and flag, refused
to accept the VI Schedule, boycotted the first general election (1951-52). In 1951 83
IDENTITY POLITICS the NNC conducted a plebiscite in the Naga Hills district and declared that 99 per
cent of the Nagas voted for independence and appealed to the Indian government
to respect the people’s verdict and grant independence. In 1956 the Naga
insurgent group formed what they called the Federal Government of Nagaland
(FGN) and initiated insurrection to carry out a struggle for what they considered
independence. The Government of India responded by enacting various Acts:
Assam Maintenance of Public Order (Autonomous Districts) Act 1953, the
Assam Disturbed Areas Act 1955, the Armed Forces (Assam, Manipur) Special
Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958. This resulted in violence between the forces and the
Nagas. The government of India responded by the formation of Nagaland state on
June 1, 1963. In 1964 the Naga Peace Mission reached an agreement to cease fire
with the NNC. In 1975, the representatives of the underground Naga
organisations signed the Shillong Accord with the Government of India. Under
the Shillong Accord, the underground organisations accepted the Constitution of
India; to bring out the underground arms and deposit at places, and the
representatives of underground organisations were to be given reasonable time
for formulating issues for final settlement. This displeased leaders such as Isaac
Swu, Th. Muivah and Khaplang with the NNC led by Fizo. They formed the
National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in 1980 and carried on the
movement. In 1988 however, the organisation split into two factions. Over the
years, further splits led to the emergence of other Naga militant groups: The
NSCN (IM) and NSCN (K). These groups entered into agreements with the
Government of India at different times. The NSCN wants to create a state of
Greater Nagaland for the Nagas – known as Nagalism-consisting of areas
inhabited by the Nagas across states – Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland
some parts of Myanmar.
Mizoram witnessed insurgency between 1960 and 1986. It started with the
formation of the Mizo National Famine Front (MNFF) in 1960 and ended
following the signing of the Mizo Accord in 1986 between the MNF leader
Laldenga and the Government. In February 1987, Laldenga became the first chief
Minister with the elevation of Mizoram to the level of state from a Union
Territory. The reason for the formation of MNFF was the realisation on the part
of Mizo leaders that both the central and state government of Assam did not
address their grievances caused due to the bamboo famine (the Mautam) of 1957-
59. Mizo hills were part of Assam at that time. The MNFF believed that the
central and state governments could not address Mizos’ problems, and they
would be resolved only if they had their own sovereign state. For meeting the
purpose, the Mizo under the leadership of Laldenga (MNFF) started insurgency.
After the famine ended, the MNFF was converted into a party MNF in 1960. The
MNF started a movement for the formation of a sovereign state of Mizoram,
leading to violence between the Mizos and security forces. The Mizo insurgency
saw a decline after almost a decade of its beginning. In 1975 an agreement was
signed between the MNF and the Government of India, leading to a gradual
decline of insurgency in Mizoram Union Territory. Finally, the signing of the
Mizo Accord in June 1986 between the MNF and the Government of India
84
resulted in the end of the insurgency in Mizoram. Following the agreement, the Autonomy
state Union Territory of Mizoram was elevated to the status of a state heralding Movements
the end of the insurgency.
As you have read in unit 1, Manipur was a princely state that was merged with
the Union of India following the signing of the Instrument of Accession and
remained a Union Territory until 1972, when it became a state. A section of
people in Manipur believes that the Maharaja of Manipur was coerced to sign the
Instrument of Accession. They argue that Manipur had been a nation prior to its
merger with the Union of India, and there is a need to restore their notion.
Manipur has the largest number of insurgent organisations in Northeast India.
There emerged other insurgent groups in Manipur in different years. In 1964, an
insurgent organisation, i.e., United National Liberation Front (UNLF) was
formed under the leadership of Arambam Samerendra. It aimed to restore the
sovereignty of Manipur, which is enjoyed as a princely state before its merger
with the Union of India. Different insurgent organisations were established in
Manipur at different times: Revolutionary Government of Manipur (RGM) in
1968, People’s Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak (PREPAK) in 1977, People’s
Liberation Army (PLA) in 1978, and Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) in
1980. These insurgent groups represented different ethnic groups.

8.3.2 The Hills Statehood Demand

Statehood demands in Northeast India began with the hill state demand during
the 1950s-1960s. In January 1954, leaders from hill districts of Assam – the
CEMs (Chief Executive Members) of Lushai hills, North Cachar, Garo and the
United Khasi-Jaintia hill districts initiated a movement of creation of a hill state
to be carved of hill regions/districts of Assam. There were basically three reasons
for this: One, dissatisfaction with the provisions of the VI Schedule meant to
protect and preserve the identities and economic interests of the hill tribes of
Assam; two, the introduction of Assamese as a language of instruction in Assam,
including the regions where the majority did not speak Assamese of the people;
and, three, conflict over the control of the natural resources in the hills. Again in
October 1954, Assam Hills Tribal Leaders’ Conference was held. This
conference was attended by 46 delegates excepting those from the Mizo Hills
districts. The Conference resolved to get a state of the autonomous districts of
Assam. It sent a memorandum to the State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) to
consider their demand. The SRC rejected the demand on the ground that demand
for a separate state was largely confined to Khasi and Jaintia hills, which
excluded other areas of Assam. However, the government appointed Pataskar
Commission to look study the feasibility of a new state. The Pataskar
Commission did not suggest the formation of the new state: instead, it
recommended the formation of a state within the state of Assam. As you have
read in unit 1, consequently, the state of Meghalaya was created within the state
of Assam (State within the state) in 1971, and in 1972, it was elevated into a state
separate from Assam. The state of Meghalaya was created according to the 22nd
Assam Reorganisation (Meghalaya) for Act, 1969. In1972, apart from Meghalaya
85
IDENTITY POLITICS becoming a separate out of Assam, two Union Territories, Manipur and Tripura,
became states; North-East Frontier Tract (NEPT) Arunachal Pradesh along with
Mizoram became Union Territories, and they became states in 1987.

8.3.3 Plain Tribals in Assam: The Bodo movement

The most numerous single plain tribe in Assam inhabiting Kokrajhar, Baksa,
Chirang and Udalgarh districts, Bodos, have been involved in the autonomy
movement since the advent of British rule. They constitute almost seventy per
cent of the tribal population of Assam. They are also found in other northeastern
states such as Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh. The Bodos
complain that they suffered at the hands of the dominant Assamese community in
terms of allocation of resources, land and dismal electoral representation from the
colonial era. They claimed that their sufferings continued over the centuries
despite the fact they have been the original inhabitants of Brahmaputra valley
over the centuries. Their perception of alienation, exploitation and discrimination
culminated into the Bodo movement, which turned militant at some point of time.
The origin of the Bodo autonomy movement can be traced to the colonial period.
In 1929, they submitted a memorandum to the Indian Statutory Commission
demanding political power. In 1933, they formed a political party, All Assam
Plain Tribals League (AAPTL) to protect the identity and interests of plain tribals
of Assam. In 1953, The Bodo Sahitya Sabha submitted a memorandum to Assam
chief minister Bishnuram Medhi. The introduction of the Bodo language as a
medium of instruction in schools was the main demand in the memorandum. It
was preceded by few years of the introduction of the Assam Official Language
Bill, 1960 that led to Anti-Assamese agitation in the non-Assamese speaking
areas of Assam. The movement also achieved the Bodos’ demand for the
introduction of Bodo language as the medium of introduction in schools in Bodo
dominated areas in 1963. In 1967 the Bodos demanded the creation of a state or
Union Territory Udyanchal. The demand for Udyanchal vacillated between
demand for creation of the state out of or within the state of Assam. The demand
arose in the context of creation of the state of Nagaland in 1963 and the growing
demand for hill states in the 1950s-1960s. The Bodos’ demand for a new state did
not sustain itself. However, the Bodo Autonomy movement picked up
momentum after the Assam movement against the foreigners (1979-85), followed
by a signing of the Assam Accord in 1985 between the leaders of the Assam
movement, Central government the government of Assam state. The Bodos who
had participated in the Assam movement felt clause 6 of the Assam Accord
neglected their cultural and economic interests. They understood that the Accord
would endanger their identity as it would be merged with the Assamese identity,
which was different from the Bodos. The provision in the Assam Accord to make
Assamese as the state’s official language left the Bodos with a sense of
deprivation and discrimination. This led to the Bodo Sahitya Sabha and the All
Bodo Students Union (ABSU) under the leadership of Upendra Nath Brahma to
assert their rights for political, economic and cultural suzerainty. The post-Assam
Accord period also saw the formation of BdSF (Bodo Security Force). It was
86 renamed as National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), which split,
resulting in the Bodoland Liberation Tribal Force (BLTF) formation in 1995. The Autonomy
NDFB and BLTF were rivals that engaged in violent clashes involving the Movements
extermination of each other’s members. The split in the NDFB led to the split in
ABSU. The ABSU emphasised that the Bodos are ethnically different from other
tribes of the Assam, and hence they were entitled to their aspiration for a separate
state of Bodoland. Sanjib Baruah, in the book India Against Itself (1999)
observes that the All India Bodo Student Union’s 92-point of charter contained
the main demands of Bodos. He classifies these demands into three categories –
cultural and linguistic, economic and residual demands. The charter was used to
mobilise Bodos for a Bodo homeland.
As a consequence of the Bodo autonomy movement, three Accords were signed
between the Bodos, Government of India and the Assam government in 1993,
2003 and 2020. The first Bodo Accord was signed between the Bodos and the
Government of Assam on February 20, 1993. According to the provisions of this
Accord, Bodoland Autonomous District Council (BAC) came into existence in
the Bodo dominated areas. But this Accord did not define the territorial
jurisdiction of BAC. Due to this limitation, election could not be held for BAC.
The BAC was not accepted by one section of Bodo leadership. The Accord did
not satisfy all outfits of Bodos. From 1994, this also led to internal conflict
among the Bodo leadership over leadership to underground groups and also the
BAC. This resulted in agitations, including organisation of bandhs, fasts, road
blockades, extortion, loot, murder, kidnapping and ambushes. In 2003 the second
Bodo Accord was signed between the BLT, the Central government and the
government of Assam. The outcome of that Accord was the creation of Bodoland
Territorial Council (BTC). After the establishment of BTC, four districts:
Kokrajhar, Baksa, Chirang, and Udalguri were all included under its jurisdiction.
The NDFB, however, did not accept the second Bodo Accord and sought to
struggle for a sovereign state. In 2020, the third Bodo Accord was signed. It was
a tripartite agreement signed by the Indian government, the government of
Assam and the Bodo organisations. It laid the new model of power-sharing and
governance in Assam under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution. The
Bodo parties that signed the third Bodo Accord were the All Bodo Students’
Union (ABSU), the United Bodo People’s Organisation (UBPO) and all the four
factions of the NDFB. The new Accord provided for the scope of expansion of
the BTC territory empowered the BTC not to depend on the state government for
funds, to have a say in the appointment of Deputy Commissioners,
Superintendents of Police. However, the Home and Police department will
continue to be with the state government.
8.3.4 Other Examples
The examples discussed above are among the most important cases of autonomy
movements in Assam. There are several other examples in the Northeast of
different forms of autonomy movements. In Assam, while the Bodo movements
are those of the plain tribals, the autonomy movements of the Karbis and Dimasa
Cacharis pertain to the hills tribes of Karbis Anlong and Dimasa Cacharis in
87
IDENTITY POLITICS North Cachar hill districts of Assam, respectively. As you have read in unit 5,
tribal areas of Karbi Anglong and North-Cachar Hills (Dima Hasao), were given
protection under the VI Schedule. But Karbi and Dimasa Cachari tribes have not
been satisfied with the provisions of the VI Schedule. The Karbis and Dimasa
Kacharis have been feeling that their grievances have not been addressed, and
they have been ignored within the existing federal structure. The Karbis demand
the elevation of the administrative unit of Autonomous Council to a state within a
state to govern themselves (Monirul Hussain 1987). In the latest move, a
tripartite memorandum of peace was signed between the Government of India,
the Assam government, and the Karbi Dimasa insurgent groups representatives
on September 4, 2021. In the Barak valley, a demand was made in the 1980s by
some Bengalis for the creation of a state or Union Territory with a substantial
Bengali population.

Check Your Progress Exercise 1

Note: i) Use space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your answers with the model answers given at the end of the
unit.
1) Discuss the meaning and features of autonomy movements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Identify major issues of Autonomy movements in Northeast India.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Discuss the forms of autonomy movements in Northeast India.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.4 LET US SUM UP

Northeast India has witnessed autonomy movements over the years since the
1940s. Autonomy movements are collective actions of people in a region who
want reorganization of federal relations to get autonomy to decide about the
issues concerning them. In Northeast India, these movements take different
forms: insurgency aiming to get a sovereign state; collective action for statehood
or Union territory to be carved out of existing state or movement for getting
88 autonomous district, regional or territorial councils. The movements arise
because of the understanding among the leaders, activists and supporters of the Autonomy
autonomy movement that they have not been fairly treated in the existing federal Movements
structure in various aspects – social, cultural, economic and political. This is so
despite the fact that there are constitutional provisions about the region to protect
and preserve the identities of ethnic communities, traditional institutions, and
customary laws and institutions. Besides, all the Northeastern regions falling
under the purview of the sixth Schedule enjoy special status entitled to tax
rebates and other benefits. The opinion makers, especially the student leaders,
politicians, intellectuals, and civil society organisations in the region, understand
that these provisions have not fulfilled their respective regions' expectations and
aspirations. They are able to mobilise people into collective action or autonomy
movements. On several occasions, these autonomy movements result in ethnic
violence or violence between the state agencies (especially the central
government institutions) and the people. Insurgencies in Naga and Mizo hills, in
Manipur; Bodo movements in the plain areas of Assam; Karbi and Dimasa
autonomy movements in hills of Assam; and demand of district or territorial
autonomies in other areas of Northeast India form some important examples of
autonomy movement in the region.

8.5 REFERENCES
Baruah, Sanjib (1999), India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of
Nationality, Delhi, Oxford University Press.

_________( 2005), Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast

India, New Delhi, Oxford University Press.
___________ (1999), India Against Itself : Assam and Politics of Nationality,
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Bathari, Uttam (2015), “The Case of Karb-Dimasa Autonomy Movement”, in
Sandhya Goswami (ed.), Troubled Diversity: Political Process in Northeast
India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Bhattacharya, Dipankar (1993), “Karbi Anlong Revisited” Economic and
Political Weekly, August 28.

Chaube, S.K. (1999), Hill Politics in Northeast India, Hyderabad, Orient

Longman.

Das, Samir Kumar (1994), ULFA United Liberation Front of Assam: A Political
Analysis, Delhi, Ajanta.

Gohain, Hiren (2019), Struggling in a Time Wrap: Essays and Observations on

the Northeast’s History and Politics with Particular Reference to Assam,
Guwahati, Bhabani Books & Giftrs.

Hussain, Monirul (1987), “Tribal Movement for Autonomous State in Assam”,

Economic and Political Weekly, August 8, pp. 1329-32.

89
IDENTITY POLITICS Hussain, Wasbir (2020), “How the Bodo Accord was accomplished, establishing
a wider templet for peace in the Northeast”, The Times of India, February 06,
2020.
Nag, Sajal (2002), Contesting Marginality: Ethnicity, Insurgency and
Subnationalism, Manohar, New Delhi.
Phadnis, Urmila and Ganguly, Rajat (2001), Ethnicity and Nation-Building in
South Asia, New Delhi: Sage.

8.6 CHECK YOUR PROGRESS EXERCISE

Check Your Progress 1
1) Autonomy movements are collective mobilization of people in a region for
reorganisation of federal relations to get autonomy to make rules about their
issues and implement them. They arise because inhabitants of these regions
feel that their region is not treated fairly in the existing federal structure. The
people demanding autonomy realise that they share a common feature -
region, culture, language, customs, history, etc. They argue that their
problems can be resolved by political autonomy to legislate and execute
decisions.
2) The major issues of Autonomy movements in Northeast India are related to
restructuring the federal structure so that the community seeking autonomy
can enjoy autonomy to legislate and execute decisions about them. These
issues largely include utilizing their economic resources and opportunities,
protecting and preserving their social and cultural identities and customary
laws, and having political representation.
3) The forms of autonomy in the Northeast India are: insurgency movements,
movements for the statehood or Union Territories, and mobilisation for
getting autonomous district, regional or territorial councils.

90