People of different tribes of the region at a cultural function. Picture by Eastern Projections

Political scholars claim that India continues to remain intact despite its vastly heterogeneous nature because of its policy of ?states reorganisation?. This is a process which involves the adjustment of state boundaries and creation of new states. Both these exercises are the prerogative of the Union government. The reorganisation of states is not without its problems. Even after 50 years of independence, the debate continues whether states should be created based on economic viability and administrative convenience or whether they should be created to allow particular ethnic groups and communities to achieve their shared aspirations.

Those who support the second view have often resorted to violence to reach their goals. In this connection, it may be correct to state that after the demise of single party governments at the Centre, when coalition politics became a reality, regional aspirations gained momentum.

The creation of states that are economically unsustainable becomes a problem for the Union government which has to shell out money for developing infrastructure where none existed. It also has to support and sustain the huge establishment costs of running a government in each of the newly-created states.

In the Northeast, the creation of states is a conundrum because it is neither logical nor feasible to have a state each for all the 238 ethnic groups in the region. How do you slice up a geographical space of roughly 2.55 lakh square km of land into 238 parts? And that is not the end of the story. New groups based on claims to linguistic and historical homogeneity are emerging. They want to opt out of the bigger states to which they were formerly attached. Hence the demand for statehood in the Northeast is a never-ending saga.

Unsettled populations that have no sense of loyalty to the states they belong to, that nurture a perpetual desire for a better future in a newly-defined geographical area, are unable to become stakeholders in development. Violent assertions based on perceived injustices of the past, such as forced annexations with the Indian Union, continue to take a heavy toll on the peace and tranquillity of the region. This hampers all efforts at bringing about economic empowerment of the people.

Take for instance the case of Meghalaya, which came into being in 1972. This state comprises three major tribes ? the Khasis, Jaintias and Garos. All three tribes have distinct dialects and origins and are only connected by a single feature ? they all follow the matrilineal custom, where lineage is from the mother?s clan line and inheritance of ancestral property passes through the youngest daughter. But obviously this single index of similarity of custom has not been able to bring unison of thought and social cohesion.

A reservation policy drafted in 1972 gives 40 per cent reservation to the Khasis and Jaintias, 40 per cent to the Garos and the remaining 20 per cent for other categories of citizens. Although socially and ethnically the Khasis and Jaintias may have some commonalties, politically, it is incorrect to class them as one people who would share a piece of the same cake. The Garos have been treated as a separate tribe and allocated 40 per cent of the share. What aggravates the problem is the fact that Garos are only half the population of the Khasis and Jaintias. This basic injustice has become a festering wound breeding anger and bitterness.

Recently the Khasis and Jaintias on one side and the Garos on the other, have adopted antagonistic stances vis-a- vis the location of the Meghalaya Board of Secondary Education (MBOSE) in the Garo Hills. Jaundiced views see the board?s location at Tura as being at the root of all the errors in publication of results and other anomalies committed by it. At the moment the Khasi Students Union is on a warpath demanding that the MBOSE be strengthened, by appointing a full-fledged secretary for the Higher Secondary Board at Shillong. Bandhs, picketing and road blockades are daily features in Meghalaya today. Since July 7 last, the Union blocked National Highway 44 which is the lifeline connecting Guwahati to Silchar and Mizoram.

Similarly, there is an ongoing indefinite road blockade on National Highway 39 which connects Dimapur to Imphal, the capital of Manipur. For Imphal, NH 39 is the lifeline through which foodgrains and other essential commodities are transported to it from the rest of the country. NH 39 passes through the Naga-inhabited Senapati district of Manipur. So acute is the food shortage in Manipur that the Manipur Human Rights Commission had to appeal to the Centre for its intervention. Following this, 167 goods laden trucks had to be escorted by Nagaland police from Dimapur up to Mao Gate in Senapati district and from there onwards to Imphal by the Manipur Rifles.

It does not take much to provoke a road blockade on NH 39. Whenever the government of Manipur takes any action that is perceived to be hostile to the Naga cause, the Nagas of Senapati district, Manipur, retaliate by blocking NH 39 and thereby creating food shortage in the Imphal valley. The recent blockade was triggered by the Manipur government?s decision to declare June 18 as ?state integrity day?, which is a protest against the Centre?s decision to extend its ceasefire with the NSCN (I-M) to all Naga-inhabited areas of the Northeast. These areas include large tracts of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh and the hill areas of Manipur inhabited by Nagas, which comprise about two-thirds of Manipur?s total area.

The NSCN (I-M)?s demand for Nagalim, which includes all Naga-inhabited areas in three states, has become a thorn in the flesh of the Centre and the three state governments. Short of creating another State Reorganisation Committee to look into the matter, there seems to be no way out. But will this not trigger another bloodbath in the region?

Arguments in favour of formation or reorganisation of states based on geographical proximity, a common language, similar customs, comparable socio-economic and political stages of development, common historical traditions and experiences, a common way of living, administrative expediency, and more than anything else, a widely prevalent sentiment of togetherness or a sense of common identity, have engaged scholars across the globe. However, no consensus has been achieved on whether newly- created states have been able to achieve their stated goals. This is nowhere more clearly exemplified than in the Northeast, where states are wracked by insurgency, general anarchy, lack of development, corruption, nepotism et al.

Nagalim, which started as an ideal, has today taken a definite shape in the minds and hearts of the Naga people. Nagas were never ?one people? as they claim to be today. They were a conglomeration of several tribes, each having its own dialect, its own form of governance and its own geographical base. The concept of Naga unity which embraced all those who claim to be Nagas but are living in different states, gathered momentum only after the NSCN (I-M) assumed leadership of the Naga struggle.

While the creation of a new state is one issue, carving out territories from existing states and adding those to another state which already has well-defined boundaries, is to set a dangerous precedent amounting to political favouritism. In the case of the Nagas settled in Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam, the prospect of being in a state which would have the status of a ?sovereign entity?, with its own flag, logo and system of governance, is undoubtedly an attractive one. But what happens to the future of the northeastern region where every other state can claim that it never willingly signed the Instrument of Accession to the Indian Union or was made to sign it under duress? Will we not be opening up a hornet?s nest which could have very damaging repercussions?