Autonomy and the territorial management of ethnic conflicts in Northeast India

Abstract

This article draws a typology of autonomy in the Northeast to examine how the Indian state territorially manages ethnic conflicts in its periphery. The differential nature and history of conflicts, and timing and mode of negotiation, are used as two broad explanatory variables to account for when, how and under what circumstances the Indian state is likely to recognize and accommodate self-determination/self-rule claims of territorially concentrated tribal groups, and simultaneously foster peace and stability. While timely, yet partial, recognition and accommodation of self-determination/self-rule claims of the Naga, Bodo and Manipur’s tribal groups are considered necessary to promote peace and stability, they are found to be insufficient conditions to promote durable peace and stability unless they are supplemented by robust identity-preserving powers over land and resources, on the one hand, and power-sharing not only across India’s multilevel federal polity–Centre, State and sub-State – but also within and across tribal/non-tribal groups, on the other hand. These findings have resonance in other deeply divided places, inter alia, Cyprus and Iraq where the failure to simultaneously recognize self-determination claims and envision robust power-sharing entail stalemated conflicts and instability.