Name of Paper: Social Movement Sociology Movement of ...

1

Sociology Name of Paper: Social Movement

Name of Module: Movement of Political Autonomy and Statehood

Module Detail and its Structure

Subject Name Sociology

Paper Name Social movement

Module Name/Title Movements of Political Autonomy and Statehood

Module Id SM 18

Pre-requisites Some knowledge about Social Movement.

Objectives Present module will discuss different movements for political autonomy

and statehood. Movements like Jharkhand Movement, Uttarakhand

Movement, Chhattisgarh Movement and Naga Movement have been

analyzed to make the students understand different aspects of autonomy

movement.

Keywords Social Movement, State, Secessionism, Autonomy

Role in Content

Development

Name Affiliation

Principal Investigator Prof. Sujata Patel Professor, Department of Sociology, The

University of Hyderabad,

Paper Co-ordinator Prof. Biswajit Ghosh Professor, Department of Sociology, The

University of Burdwan, Burdwan 713104

Email: [email protected]

Ph. M +91 9002769014

Content Writer Dr. Soumyajit Patra

Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, S.

K. B. University, Purulia, West Bengal

Email: [email protected]

Ph. M +91 9474978911

Content Reviewer

(CR) & Language

Editor

Prof. Biswajit Ghosh Professor, Department of Sociology, The

University of Burdwan, Burdwan, West Bengal -

713104

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2



Contents

1 Objective ........................................................................................................................ 3

2 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3

3 Learning Outcome ........................................................................................................ 5

4. What is autonomy movement ? ............................................................................. ......5

4.1. Difference between autonomy movement and secessionism.......................................5

5. Proliferation of small states..............................................................................................5

Self Check Exercise I..............................................................................................................6

6. Case Study I: Formation of Jharkhand.........................................................................7

7. Case Study II: Formation of Uttarakhand.................................................................9

8. Case Study III: Formation of Chhattisgarh..............................................................11

9. Case Study IV: Naga Movement....................................................................................11

Self Check Exercise- 2 .......................................................................... .............................14

10. Summary................................................................................................................14

3



1. Objective

Present module intends to focus on one of the most visible forms of social movement – the

movement for political autonomy and statehood. These movements are also called regional

movements as they centre on regional aspirations. This type of social movement is often

suppressed by the state machinery as the line of demarcation between demand for political

autonomy via statehood and secessionism is not always very clear. Movements like

Jharkhand Movement, Uttarakhand Movement, Chhattisgarh Movement and Naga Movement

have been analyzed to make the students understand different aspects of autonomy

movement.

2. Introduction

Social movements are one of the principal social forms through which people give voices to

their grievances and concerns about their rights, welfare, and well-being, and start various

types of collective action, such as protesting in the streets, that dramatize those grievances

and concerns and demand that something be done about them (Snow et. al. 2004). The nature

of such actions to register protest varies from country to country, from place to place; but one

thing is almost clear that most of the social movements originate from a concern of the people

over the discrepancy between what is existing and what people want it to be. In other words,

social movements mark people’s dissatisfactions over the existing situations. According to

Wilkinson (1971, cited in Horo 2013) a social movement has the following features:

(a) It is a deliberate collective endeavour to promote change in any direction and by any

means, not excluding violence, illegality, revolution or withdrawal into utopian

community.

(b) A social movement must evince a minimal degree of organization. This may range

from a loose, informal or partial level of organization to a highly institutionalized or

bureaucratized form.

(c) A social movement’s commitment to change and the raison d’être of its organization

are found upon the conscious violation, normative commitment to the movement’s aims

or beliefs and active participation on the part of the followers or members.

4



According to Partha Nath Mukherji (2012), a social movement is a product of the social

structure and has consequences for it. In other words, social movement crystallizes under

certain structural conditions. It is not necessarily ‘change promoting’; sometimes social

movements are ‘change resisting’.

It is obvious that movement for political autonomy is a natural demand for a country like ours

that beset with numerous ethnic, religious, linguistic identities. Existence of social and

cultural diversities among people living in different regions of the country along with

different levels of development of economy and infrastructure has contributed to regional

aspirations for autonomy. The demand for states on linguistic basis was developed even

before India achieved independence from British rule. Moreover, the issue of unemployment

or deprivation of ‘sons of the soil’ in the wake of large scale immigration of ‘outsiders’ have

cropped up large scale protest in many parts of the country. Even in developed states like

Maharashtra, insider-outsider conflict has become the bone of contention for political

mobilisation.

Hopefully, our federal constitution is bestowed with a well-equipped administrative device to

co-opt the said diversities by providing mechanism of self governance. The government has

also applied the provisions of the fifth and sixth schedule of the constitution to create many

autonomous regional councils or district councils in many parts of the country. Regional

councils attempt to contain ethnic separatism and in particular tribal alienation through the

new experience of community governance. Despite these initiatives including the

reorganization of states since 1956, the issue of regional disparity could not be mitigated.

Even after the formation of a particular state, a region or more within it start fresh movement

for autonomy, independence or even secession from the country. Till today, India has been

territorially reorganised into 29 states and 7 Union Territories. But if all the existing demands

for new states are recognised by the Government of India, India would be divided into nearly

70 states and union territories. In the large states like Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh,

Rajasthan, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh, there are many demands of state hood. Some of

these movements are dormant, some very active. Notwithstanding these trends, there is

hardly any single theoretical frame within which we can explain the movement for political

autonomy and statehood in India. In fact, such movements assume many different forms in

5



different parts of India, centring round the issues like identity, economy and politics.

Consequently, the nature of autonomy movement in the North-Eastern part of the country

differs widely from that of the South. It can be better understood as the fallout of the

incompleteness of the process of nation formation. As a wider psycho-sociological process,

nation building calls for a deep-rooted feeling of oneness that binds its citizens along with the

political process of state building. However, like most of the post-colonial countries, the

process of nation formation did not precede or coincide with the political process of state

formation. The state formation processes had started soon after the dissolution of colonial

rule, but no deliberate effort had been made to psychologically integrate various parts of the

country together that could strengthen the process of nation building as such. Such hasty

initiatives for state building in the post-independent period without the corresponding

emergence of the Indian nation as a coherent entity have a background. The nationalist

imagery of a developed nation-state got fractured even before the independence due to the

sinister community-centric political mobilizations by the colonial masters. Independence

coincided with the fructification of the communal design in the form of the division of the

nation on communal basis. In the background of such communally vicious environment, our

nationalist elites did not let the regional aspirations to flourish. Instead, they advocated for an

overarching nation-state that would accommodate all the regional aspirations. The spurt of

autonomy movements across the country may be considered as the reiteration of the

suppressed regional identities. It is often thought that smaller state may reflect the regional

aspirations more effectively. But in reality, the proliferation of the new states brings no

substantial change in the standard of living of its citizenry. However, it is very difficult, at

this stage, to comment on whether these trends of resurgence of regional aspirations augur

any good for the democracy or not.

3. Learning Outcome

This module will provide the learner with a thorough exposure to different aspects of

movement for regional aspirations and state autonomy in India. The module will engage the

students with distinct case studies to delve deep into the issue.

4. What is autonomy movement?

6



Autonomy movements are those movements, where drawing on the primordial and local

identities, people of a particular region ask for separate and independent administrative

arrangements for themselves. As these movements stress on primordial, local or regional

identities, they try to oppose the dominant identity that does not allow any space for the

growth and preservation of particular identity of the people concerned. While doing so, the

local/regional leaders demand special privileges, protection and concessions from the state. It

is therefore argued that autonomy movements are often movement for regional self-

governance. The notions of freedom and self-determination also become cardinal issues for

autonomy movement. In other words, such movement very often involve a process of state

formation by seeking pluralisation and federalisation of existing polity and political process.

Following Benedict Anderson (1982) it may be argued that ‘nation’ is a socially constructed

community, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of that group. A nation

"is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their

fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of

their communion" (ibid.: 49). Members hold in their minds a mental image of their affinity.

Quite interestingly, assertions of regional and ethnic identities are also facilitated by modern

political processes, technology and social transformation. Rise of ethno-nationalism and

formation of ethnic group based states in the whole of Europe today is a pointer to this fact.

In many other parts of the Western world, there is growing stress on ‘nativism’ as against the

counter trend of ‘multiculturalism’ to assert one’s identity. One therefore should not think

that regional aspirations are only seen in the societies of the third world. There is however no

fixed pattern of the autonomy movement across the country. The nature of this autonomy

movement is usually determined by the context and the history. Yet, these movements

normally try to oppose the centralised decisions and authority structures of modern

institutions imposed from outside and involve people directly in decisions affecting their

everyday lives (Katsiaficas 2006: 6).

4.1. Difference between autonomy movement and secessionism

Conceptually speaking, the line of demarcation between movements for state autonomy and

secessionism is very thin. Both are social movements; but autonomy movement remains

within the constitutional framework and aspire to be culminated to autonomous statehood; the

secessionist movements do not remain within the constitutionally stipulated path of

7



ventilating popular aspirations. Secessionist movements are more common in those states

which share boundaries with sovereign nation states. It is often argued that a popular

mobilization for more state autonomy could have easily snowballed into a more destructive

secessionist movement had there been any international border in close proximity.

5. Proliferation of small states

Demand for autonomy and the resultant proliferation of small states is often considered as a

healthy sign of our federal democracy. Though movement for state autonomy often ends with

new statehood, there is no such proposition that the creation of new state necessarily

improves political representation and makes the state more responsive to the needs of the

local people. Another popular justification for the autonomy movement is that the creation of

small states attempts to redress the historical injustices and marginalization of certain groups.

However, ground level reality speaks something else. New states in many occasions appear

as mere prototypes of the parent states, carrying the same legacies of those parent states. In

fact, in many cases a clear political motive can be identified behind the birth of new states.

Here again no generalization is possible. The impetus for autonomy movements in India

widely differs from one state to another. In case of southern parts of the country, the demand

for separate states was centring round the rich inheritance of the non-Aryan Dravidian culture

rooted in Tamil culture and language; whereas, the movement in the northern heartland

primarily represents the sentiment of Hindi-Hindu-Hindustan. The autonomy movements in

the hilly terrain of the India’s North-East presents altogether a different trajectory. The

movement for separate statehood in the North-East has been the saga of protracted resistance

and protest movement of the tribal population against ‘encroachment of their language and

culture and more importantly their self supporting economy by the outsiders representing the

people of the plain both during and after colonial rule’ (Mukhopadhyay 2014: 68). This

region, unlike other parts of the country has some unique features, which often compelled the

Indian state to concede to their demand for state autonomy. This region, for instance, is

marked by a high level of literacy and socio-political articulation along with the religious

bonding with Christianity. Again, most of the autonomy movements in this area have a

secessionist overtone. Moreover, the remoteness of the region from the national headquarters

on the one hand and its proximity to international borders of China, Myanmar, and Bhutan on

the other, provide the region a very special geostrategic status. Look at the Khalistani

movement. In this case, the demand for state autonomy had subsequently assumed an armed

8



secessionist turn. Here, poverty was not the issue behind the autonomy movement. In fact,

‘affluence and an inflated sense of pride in group identity, marked by religious-cultural

distinctiveness and martial superiority’ among the Punjabis prompted them to go for separate

statehood (ibid.: 71).

As autonomy movements in India very often have critically questioned the constitutional

validity of centre-state relations, rise of regional political aspiration in the form of Dravida

movement in Tamil Nadu, Akali movement in Punjab or Ahom movement in Assam have

been able to put up a stiff challenge to the Congress hegemony in politics. In this sense,

regionalism can be seen as a conflict between national and regional elites. But as Khan

(1979) argues, regional consciousness is equally generated by the euphoria created by the

establishment of nation state. There are many other factors that promote various types of

regionalism. For instance, inter-state conflict over water resources or boundary has given rise

to conflict. Often state response to certain justified demands of a community gives rise to

ethno-national movements. For instance, the Punjab agitation, which begun with some

secular demands like Chandigarh as capital of Punjab, water sharing between Punjab and

Haryana and territorial tribunal to settle the dispute was ethnicised by the Central and the

Congress party for political gains (Gupta 1996). Yet, when the Akalis came to power in 1977,

it did precious little on these demands even though it was a significant member of the

national level Janata Party government in New Delhi. There was also clear involvement of

the government machinery in Delhi and Gujarat in riots during 1984 and 2002 respectively.

The Tripura instance (Ghosh 2003) also corroborates the fact the ethno-nationalism is

encouraged and sustained by the lack of developmental initiative on the part of corrupt state

administration as well as untimely or delayed state response.

Self Check Exercise I:

i) What is social movement?

Social movements are one of the principal forms of collective action through

which people raise their voices to register their grievances and concerns about

their rights, welfare, and well-being and start various types of collective action.

ii) Point out the features of social movement.

9



It is a deliberate collective endeavour to promote change.

It has a minimal degree of organization and coordination among its

participants and supporters.

A social movement depends upon the conscious violation, normative

commitment to the movement’s aims or beliefs and active participation on

the part of the followers or members.

iii) What is autonomy movement?

Autonomy movements are those movements, in which drawing on the primordial

identities, people of a particular region ask for separate and independent

administrative arrangement for themselves. The difference between autonomy

movement and secessionist movements is that autonomy movement remains

within the constitutional framework and aspires to be culminated to autonomous

statehood. But the secessionist movements do not remain confined within the

constitutionally stipulated paths.

6. Case Study I: Formation of Jharkhand

The new state of Jharkhand was formed taking the southern districts of Bihar. These districts

were rich with minerals and large areas of forest. These areas are also known for its tribal

population and a rich tribal heritage. It is not a mere coincidence that Jharkhand, the 28th

State of the country, was formed on 15 November, 2000 to mark the birth anniversary of

Birsa Munda, the leader of Santal rebellion.

Jharkhand shares its border with Bihar to the north. On its west side, there are Uttar Pradesh

and Chhattisgarh. Odisha lies on the south and West Bengal is on its east. The formation of

Jharkhand, as a new Indian state, has a long history of struggle. The people of these areas of

erstwhile Bihar, mainly the tribals, out of a feeling of enduring deprivation started agitation

for a separate state of their own, which they considered would restore their dignity, autonomy

and give them the opportunity to determine their own destiny. So the formation of this new

state was welcomed by these people, who were waiting for it for more than 50 years

(Chaudhuri 2000).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uttar_Pradesh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhattisgarh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odisha

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bengal

10



As early as 1921, an association was formed with a view to do something for the

downtrodden people living in the Chhotanagpur area. The name of this association was

Chhotanagpur Unnati Samaj. Gradually this organization set out its political agenda with the

demand for a separate state. The Jharkhand movement started with this. The Chhotanagpur

Unnati Samaj placed its demand before Simon Commission in 1928 demanding a separate

Jharkhand state. The Chhotanagpur Unnati Samaj was basically an organization of Christian

Adivasi students. Later they widened their activities to include the non-tribals as well.

Chhotanagpur Unnati Samaj appeared in new avatar and took the name Adivasi Mahasabha

under the leadership of Major Jaipal Singh in 1939. It should be noted that these districts

were extremely backward in terms of all available parameters. They received very little

support from the state government. The people, mainly the poor tribals, thought that whatever

the state government is spending for the development of these areas, the major share of that

was grabbed by the non-tribal co-residents. The Adivasi Mahasabha started raising voices

against economic disparities and soon realized that these ‘economic problems called for

political solutions’ (Chaudhuri 2000). The demand for a separate state for the tribals slowly

got crystallized and United Jharkhand Party was formed in 1948. The Adivasi Mahasabha

was merged with the United Jharkhand Party and took the name of Jharkhand Party. The

Jharkhand Party contested the Bihar Assembly polls in 1952 for the first time and emerged as

the second largest party, by winning 35 seats (ibid). Horo (2013: 4) has written:

The modern tribal movement for regional autonomy is a phenomenon after India got

independence. Jharkhand movement too is such a phenomenon. The main aim of the

Jharkhand movement was the creation of a separate “Adivasi state”. Before

independence, it was the main issue. But after independence, decks were clear to

orient the movement from ethnicity to regionalism.

In 1954, Jaipal Singh of Jharkhand Party drew the attention of the Parliament to the extreme

impoverished conditions of the tribal people of Chhotanagpur and Santhal Pargana and

raised the issue of a separate Jharkhand state which, in his opinion, would help to put an end

to the economic deprivation of the people of this region as they would be able to make their

own future if they were granted autonomy through a separate statehood. Initially the leaders

of the movement wanted 16 districts of south Bihar's Chhotanagpur and Santhal Pargana

regions for the new state. All these districts were tribal dominated (Chaudhuri 2000).

11



Like any other movement, Jharkhand Movement also witnessed many ups and downs. In

1970, a group of people under the leadership of Sibu Soren, left Jharkhand Party and formed

Jharkhand Mukti Morcha. This organization although fought for the same demand. The

infighting between Jharkhand Party and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha as a whole weakened the

spirit of the movement. Just ten years later, in 1980, again there was a split and Jharkhand

Mukti Morcha (Soren) was formed. It is interesting that all these organizations aggressively

moved to fulfil their demand of a separate state for the downtrodden tribals. And the story

ended with success. The new state of Jharkhand was formed on 15 November 2000.

7. Case Study II: Formation of Uttarakhand

The state of Uttarakhand (erstwhile Uttaranchal) was formed carving out the hilly regions of

Uttar Pradesh on 9 November 2000 after a long movement organized by the common people

these areas. Uttarakhand is comprised of two divisions – Garhwal and Kumaon. Although

there were traditional rivalries between these two hilly regions from time immemorial, they

unanimously joined the movement for separate statehood. Uttarakhand movement is a kind of

non-secessionist movement (Mawdsley 1997) because this movement, to a large extent, was

organized following the constitutional means to push forward the demands of a separate state.

Srivastava (2011) has mentioned the causes of the resentment of the people that led to such

demand:

Lack of development in the geographically unique (93% of the area in the state is hill

region and 64% of the total area is forest) area, rising unemployment gave impetus to

the age-old demand for a separate state.

There was another reason as well. The people of this part of Uttar Pradesh had to travel long

distances to go the state capital and felt marginalized in all respects. They started thinking

that the new state would be their own, and the government of the new smaller state would be

able to deliver for the development of this deprived, hilly and forest-covered region. Slowly

public opinions in favour of a new state got snow balled. In 1930, the people of these hilly

areas adopted a resolution in favour of separate statehood, which, in their opinion, would

solve the problem of underdevelopment and consequent massive unemployment and poverty.

Over the years the resentment against the deprivation became widespread. According to

Srivastava (2011):

12



It all started in 1930 when residents of the hill region had moved a resolution by

majority vote claiming for a separate state of Uttarakhand. The demand took shape of

an agitation in 1957. Demonstrations were held under the leadership of erstwhile

ruler of Tehri -- Manvendra Shah. However, it was nearly 15 years later that the

agitation became a common cause of the people of the region after formation of

Uttarakhand Rajya Parishad in 1973. The Parishad became a platform for statehood

struggle.

If Chhotanagpur Unnati Samaj played the pivotal role in Jharkhand Movement, Uttarakhand

Kranti Dal took the centre stage in pushing forward the demand of separate statehood and in

providing the leadership of Uttarakhand movement. Uttarakhand Kranti Dal was established

in July 1979. Gradually the movement took political turn. In fact Uttarakhand Kranti Dal

was a political party. BJP in course of time supported the demand of the people for separate

statehood and joined the movement.

Uttarakhand Movement took a decisive turn in 1994. In this year, the students started

demonstrations throughout the state in support of the cause for a separate state. Uttarakhand

Kranti Dal started fast-unto-death and the government employees called for a strike. This

strike continued for three consecutive months literally paralyzing the state administration. In

fact the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav was against the

formation of a separate state.

The peaceful demonstrations gradually took violent forms. Confrontations with the police

took place in different parts of the state as the state administration tried to apply force to

suppress the movement. In September 1994, Uttar Pradesh Police opened fire on the peaceful

demonstrations in Khatima region. Several innocent protesters were killed and the

Uttarakhand movement reached its peak as a consequence. On 2 October 1994, Samyukta

Morcha, a joint forum of the protesters, organized a massive demonstration in Delhi.

Thousands of Uttarakhand activists and protesters marched towards Delhi. To stop them,

police opened fire near Rampur Tiraha. Several protesters were killed and several others were

severely injured. The heat of the movement reached at the national capital.

The movement continued and in 1998, the central government passed “Uttaranchal Bill”. It

was sent to the Uttar Pradesh government. With several amendments the Bill was returned

back to the central government. And ultimately on 9 November 2000, the central government

declared the formation of ‘Uttranchal’ as the new state. However, in 2006 the name

13



‘Uttaranchal’ was changed and the state was renamed as ‘Uttrakhand’. The age old

movement finally came to an end.

8. Case Study III: Formation of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh was formed taking 16 districts of Madhya Pradesh on November 1, 2000

(Venkatesan 2000). The people of these areas felt deprived both economically and politically.

Venkatesan (ibid.) writes:

The truth is that Chhattisgarh was not only exploited by the rest of Madhya Pradesh,

but by the Centre. Forests and mineral wealth, which abounds in the region, is under

national control regimes.

Out of this feeling, the people of these areas demanded a separate state as early as 1920s.

Despite some sporadic demonstrations, rallies, seminars etc., the movement could not take a

concrete form until 1990s. During this period Chhattisgarh Rajya Nirman Manch was formed

and this organization took the leadership of Chhattisgarh Movement. People, irrespective of

castes and communities, started showing their solidarity towards the demand for a separate

state. Political parties like Congress and BJP also supported the demand of the common

people of the state. Ultimately Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act 2000 was passed and the

new state of Chhattisgarh came into existence.

9. Case Study IV: Naga Movement

The political turmoil in entire Northeast, particularly in Nagaland has ever since reflected a

conflict between the need for integration with the Delhi-centric political processes and a

strive for autonomy and self-determination of the Northeast Naga tribes (Patra and Manna

2009). The identity movement-turned-insurgency of the Nagas originated from a fear of

being merged with the rest of the Indian population losing their own hegemony. It is called

hegemony because the group of communities, call themselves as Nagas (like Angami, Ao,

Mao etc), had no association, political or cultural, with the so called mainstream of the Indian

population prior to the British rule. This isolation, not only helped these tribal groups

continue a completely separate existence, but also created a world of their own in the true

sense. As per the Naga history, the first contact between the British and the Nagas occurred in

1832 when Captain Jenkins and Lieutenant Pemberton passed through that region. And ‘that

was the beginning of British domination’ (Dutta 1994). The tribal communities of Northeast

14



could not take it easily, but the British started to extend their control over them. The seeds of

hostility were sown at that time. The reasons were simple. The freedom-loving Nagas became

afraid of losing their identity and autonomy. They neither were ready to be merged with the

mainstream nor were prepared to give up their age-old right of self-determination (Patra and

Manna 2009).

The nature and degree of isolation these tribal communities had in the past before the British

intervention become clear from the fact that even the inter-tribal interactions were limited in

that area. Dubey (1982) explained that these communities did not have their ethno-tribal

identities in pre-British period as well. The name ‘Naga’, ‘Kuki’ etc were given to them by

the non-tribals. At present, almost twenty communities of Northeast call themselves as

‘Naga’. However the consolidation of British rule had three direct consequences, which were

felt seriously later. First, the process of dissociation between the Northeast tribes and the rest

of the Indian population got strengthened and they started thinking more sceptically of India

as ‘their land’. Second, different tribal communities adopted the name ‘Naga’ and thereby

strengthened their group solidarity (of course there are other factors as well). Third, hostility

towards the people of India was increased. In 1835 the troops of the Princely states of

Manipur occupied Semkhor Naga village. But there was a clear indication that this was done

according to the strategy of the British government to subjugate the Nagas forcefully. The

attitude of the Nagas towards the rest of the Indian population and the problem of Nagaland

has its root in the colonial history of our country.

The identity politics in Nagaland revolving around the issue of Nagaland in India or

Nagaland and India has raised one important question: why do the Nagas believe it

impossible to retain their identity en tout if they accept the political integration with India?

Does there exist any doubt between integration and independence? It is true that the Nagas

never accepted political subjugation in the past. At the same time, the political strategies

initiated to manipulate them always had a negative influence on the process of negotiation.

Even the British adopted a two-way policy of using force to subdue the Nagas while

generally they allowed them to stay in isolation. The impact was obvious. The Nagas

developed a hostile relationship with the rest of the Indian population designating them as

others but their interaction with the mainstream remained minimal. It is not difficult to

understand that the processes, which helped emerge nationalism among the people of our

15



country as such, were almost absent in the North-eastern part of the country. The relationship

between British-represented India and the freedom-loving Nagas deteriorated further when in

1855 the British, according to Mcculloch policy, established Kuki settlements in Langting as

a buffer region to resist the Nagas. The Kukis were also supplied firearms by the British to

fight with the Nagas. It is worth noting that the British used the Kukis, known as fierce

fighters, first to insulate British territory from any Burmese threat and then against the Naga

protesters. The Nagas conversely regarded the Kukis as foreigners who have encroached their

land. Hence, there was much ethnic animosity between these two tribal Christian groups

(Dena 2007).

Thus, the entire political situation of the Northeast became complicated because the colonial

policy of divide and rule. But the British allowed the Naga hills to remain as Excluded Area.

In course of time a sort of ethno-nationalism was developed among the tribal communities,

who adopted the name Naga. The demand for Nagaland or Nagalim (greater Nagaland)

including the secessionist tendency of the Northeast tribes, argues Doshi (1997), originated

from this ethno-national feeling.

Before independence, this ethno-national feeling of the Nagas took a political turn and in

February 1946 Naga National Council (NNC) was established under the leadership of T

Aliba Imti. Four months later, when Omeo Kumar Das, a social worker and a Minister at the

Government of Assam, came to Kohima with his wife, the NNC leaders warned them to

ensure Naga independence as quickly as possible otherwise they would start war. Incidentally

Mr. Das was the first among the Indian leaders to visit Kohima.

The point to note is that right from its beginning the first full-fledged political organization of

the Nagas, NNC, demanded their right to decide their own future. Even they claimed to

establish an interim government before the departure of the British. And ultimately NNC

declared independence on 14 August 1947 and expanded state machineries in Naga hills. The

demand for a separate political existence led to bring down the Indian flag in Kohima, which

was hoisted on 15 August 1947 by Indian administration.

The Nagas did not accept Indian constitution and decided not to send any Naga representative

in Assemblies and Parliament. In accordance, they boycotted the first general election and

‘not a single voter turned up’ (Das 1982). They, on the contrary, adopted Yehzabo, their own

16



constitution. The issue of integration, thus, on the one hand, led to the emergence of the

Nagas as a distinct category; on the other hand, increased the rivalry between the Nagas and

all Delhi-centric political leaders. And the problem of identity gave rise to the politics of

identity. Gradually the ‘culture of violence’ emerged in that part of India that led these people

to civil war. After a series of armed conflict and peace missions, the Government of India

agreed first to create the Naga Hills Tuensang Area (NHTA) as a union territory and later in

July 1960 Nagaland was recognised as a full-fledged state. Despite the formation of a

separate state, Naga nationalism has not died and it co-exists today with Indian nationalism.

Demand for establishment of a `Greater Nagaland` comprising all Naga-inhabited areas

within India and Myanmar continue to influence the violent activities of some Naga militants.

Self Check Exercise II

i) Form which states three new states of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand and Chhattisgarh were

formed?

Jharkhand was carved out from Bihar, Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh and

Chhattisgarh was created from Madhya Pradesh.

ii) Why is Naga Movement different from other autonomy movements?

The Nagas do not simply want a separate state, they want to be detached from the

country itself. They have their own constitution. It is a secessionist movement.

iii) What was the previous name of Uttarakhand?

The former name of Uttarakhand was Uttaranchal. The name was changed in 2006.

iv) Who are the Nagas?

A number of communities like Angami, Ao, Mao etc. call themselves as the Naga.

11. Summary

A feeling of deprivation and inequality sometimes binds people of a particular region

together to move collectively against it. A corollary of such feeling is a demand for self-

governance and political autonomy. The origin of Jharkhand movement, Uttarakhand

movement, Chhattisgarh movement and Naga movement lies in such feeling. The participants

of these movement believed that a separate state for them would give them better governance

17



and better economic opportunities. The Nagas do not want a separate state, rather they want a

separate country for them. It is clear that there are both imaginary and real reasons for the rise

of such movements. Issues like language, culture, territory, unemployment, economic

backwardness, apathy of the central government have instigated the masses to rally behind

their political bosses to raise regional demands. The state response to most these movements

at least initially remained negative. As Oommen (1997: 158) argues, the approach of the state

is one of tension management preferably with force. But, at the same time, positive response

on the part of the state has inspired many more communities to launch similar movements.

While the demand for separate state for the people of Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh

or Telengana have been resolved, there is growing assertions of regional aspirations in the

name of Gokhaland, Bodo Land or Kamatapur state. Regional movements therefore appear to

be an ongoing process in a country like India.

Name of Paper: Social Movement Sociology Movement of ...

Documents

Transcript of Name of Paper: Social Movement Sociology Movement of ...