Dialogue October-December, 2009 , Volume 11 No. 2
Alienation and Insurgencies in the North-East India*
The North-Eastern region of the country had the state of Assam and the Princely states of Manipur and Tripura when India became free on 15 August 1947. Today the region has seven states of Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. Again, we had four Autonomous Districts Councils in Assam under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Today, the number of ADCs and the Tribal Councils exceed a dozen. The autonomy demand started in the Naga Hills district of Assam and the Naga National Council was then the only insurgent outfit in the region. The Nagas got their State in 1963, but the problem did not end. The Nagaland was replicated many times; the insurgent outfits mushroomed.
The present state of affairs in the region is due to interaction of diverse psychological, historical, social, political and economic factors. Some factors have colonial roots; yet there are others which are due to our mishandling the North-Eastern affair. Different sections of the people have developed deep sense of perpetual grudge, antagonism and mistrust for each other, lack of the sense of belonging and the communication gap. The Central leadership, barring Mahatma Gandhi, is charged with having agreed to the Cripps Mission proposal of ‘Grouping Assam with East Pakistan’. The vested interest groups try to perpetuate the memory that Nehru abandoned the people of Assam in the face of Chinese aggression.
The North-East region of the country has a slender link of 22 kms with the rest of the country. Thus only 2% of the region has link with rest of the country near Siliguri, popularly known as 'Siliguri Chicken Neck'; 98% of the border is attached with the foreign countries. There is a tendency to create fear in the minds of the people on this count. Obviously, there is no basis of the fear sychology due to the following facts. (a) A large number of the countries, far weaker than India, such as Nepal and Bhutan, have even cent per cent borders with the foreuign countries.; (b) Our people in the North-East are not a commodity that they may be plundered by an enemy; (c) Even a narrow passage is enough till the neighbours remain friendly. The border becomes fluid and the movement becomes unrestricted through the enemy country.
The British, during their rule of over 100 years, mis-interpreted history and culture of the region; created the myths of race. They invented the myth of core-fringe conflict and that of isolation, which the Indian historians and ethnographers parroted and over-emphasized. They also created artificial barrier between the hills and the plains of the region by introducing Inner-Line Regulation as early as 1973 to prevent plains people from visiting the hills – Naga Hills (now Nagaland), Mizo Hills (now Mizoram) and Arunachal Pradesh. The colonial historiography ignored age-old links not only between the region and the rest of India, but also between the hills and the plains of the region. Our own historians, on the other hand, did nothing to bring the perceptional change about the region. Here, it needs mention that none of the Indian historians, except Tapan Roy Choudhury and Irfan Habib, did study the history of North-East India as a part of the history of India. Even they included the history of the medieval period of Assam only in the appendix of The Cambridge History of India, Vol. I (1982). Thus the region does not find proper place in the history of India. In this connection, it needs mention that such trend of colonial historiography is not confined only to the North-East region, but also to the South1. The trend of non-inclusion of the regional history in the history of India, especially of the Medieval and the British periods, is rightly criticized as the ‘Ganga Valley Bias’2. Here it needs mention that Indian historians have many failures to their credit. As mentioned above, they failed to incorporate regional histories in the broader frame of the Indian history. Their blatant ignorance and irresponsible act becomes shocking when we find that a paper on the North-East was categorized as non-Indian in a volume of the Indian History Congress.3 It is strange that the struggle of the Khasis, Jaintias, Nagas, Mizos, Manipuris, etc against the British did not find legitimate place in the history of the freedom struggle. It is, no doubt, a serious lapse on the part of the Indian historians and the nation was weakened by the same.4
An important reason for the spread of insurgency in the NE region was the alienation and weakening of the sense of belonging generated by the myth of isolation. The artificial barrier created by the British prevented national freedom movement from penetrating to certain areas of the region. It was often claimed that the Inner Line Regulation was devised to ensure the identity of the tribes and to prevent their exploitation. Ironically, the tribal identity is not discussed therein. The hollowness of such claims is proved by the fact that the British frequently interfered in the internal affairs of the tribes and the former monopolized the trade of the latter’s produce.5
The first colonial historian of modern India was James Mill, whose History of British India, published in 1818, has most negative colonial impact on the Indians, especially on the members of Indian Civil Service. The book, considered to be the most mischievous by Max Mueller, was used by the candidates of Indian Civil Service Examination. His opinion about the book is revealing:
“The book which I consider most mischievous, nay, which I hold most responsible for some of the greatest misfortunes that have happened to India, is Mill’s History of British India, even with the anti-dote against its poison, which is supplied by Professor Wilson’s notes.”6
Edward Thompson and G.T. Garratt wrote that “it would be absurd to imagine that the British connection will not leave a permanent mark on Indian life.”7 The statement is correct so far the English educated Indians are concerned. Uncritical acceptance of the colonial views on our history and culture is too glaring. Our scholars, especially the anthropologists and historians by and large, have ceased to question the colonial myths and lies. H.K. Barpujari, an eminent historian from the North-East, borrows the expression from the European history and says that Assam had maintained its ‘splendid isolation’.8 Suhas Chatterjee uses the expression in Mizoram’s context.9 There is ample proof that Surma valley was ruled by Bhashkarburman of Kamarupa. K.L. Barua, however, does not agree. For him the hills separating the two valleys of Brahmaputra and Surma are insurmountable10, whereas, in reality, even the Himalayas are not. It may not be out of place here to mention that Indian historians of the North-East followed the foot-prints of colonial scholars and carried the biases of the latter ones in their writings, be it H.K. Barpujari (Assam in the days of the Company; Guwahati,1963), J.B. Bhattacharjee (Cachar under British Rule; New Delhi, 1977), Sruti Deva Goshwami (Aspects of Revenue Administration in Assam,1826-1874; Delhi, 1987). H.K. Barpujari heavily relies on colonial sources for writing the history and follows the pattern of British historians of India who wrote how India was colonized (Ramsay Muir and others) and administered (Dowel and others). Bhattacharjee and Goshwami also followed the same line.11 S.K. Bhuyan, H.K. Barpujari, S.K. Barpujari, J.B. Bhattacharjee (The Garos and the English; New Delhi, 1978), Helen Giri (Khasis under British Rule; Shillong, 1992), Hamlet Bareh (History and the Culture of the Khasi People; Calcutta, 1967), Milton Sangma (History and Culture of the Garos; New Delhi, 1991) in their studies of the British relations with the tribes of the North-East mostly followed the traditions of Gait, Mackenzie, Shakespeare, etc. They relied mostly on colonial sources, followed their technique and carried their biases and outlook.12
Racist Interpretation of Society/Myth of Race
The British colonialists gave racist interpretation of Indian society. The myth of race created divisions in Indian society. In the North-East, it was Aryan-Mongolian divide. Edward Gait, in his ‘A History of Assam’, has given strange racist twist to the history of the North-East region by mis-interpreting the terms Asur and Danav in Aryan non-Aryan dichotomy frame.13 Apart from fabricating and strengthening the myth of race, the colonial scholars over-emphasized the migration of races. For them, the Indian land mass, the vastly fertile and abundantly gifted by nature, was empty till the arrival of the Munda/Austric, Dravidian, Aryan and the Indo-Mongoloid/Kirata people were only the immigrants. This was just absurd and mischievous proposition. Gait, either did not know or he safely ignored the fact that Puranic mythology of Deva, Danav and Asura point to the same ancestor Kashyapa for them and their enemy Devas. It needs mention here that Vritra was an Asura, a Brahmana and a Vedic Rishi (seer). Indra was Vritraghna (killer of Vritra), Asuraghna (killer of Asur), and Brahmaghna (killer of Brahmana). Thus as Rigveda testifies Vrittra was both Asura and Brahmana. Indian tradition recognizes Indo-Mongoloids as the Kshatriyas of good birth. Likewise, the social structure of many communities, such as Limbus, shows ethnic assimilation. These facts disprove the myth of race.
Myth of Core-Fringe Conflict
The British invented myth of core-fringe conflict is totally baseless. Unfortunately, even our non-liberal intellectuals freely use the mischivous term 'mainland' i.e., core.
Myth of Isolation
The North-East India was linked up with rest of the country geographically, culturally, politically, historically and in many other ways. Contrary to the myth of isolation, the region was never an isolated one in the past. Similarly, intra-regional isolation was also a myth.
Links and the Myth of Isolation
A land route, from Peshawar (now in Pakistan) to Parvatipur (now in Bangladesh), via Vazirabad, Lahore, Jalandhar, Saharanpur, Lucknow, Tirhut and Katihar14, keeping Ganges mostly to the right, extended upto Assam15. The southern route branched off at Kajangal in Rajmahal to Gangasagar (Kolkata)16 and the other one crossed Ganges there and extended to Kamarupa. Bhaskarbuarman, the king of Kamarupa and the Chinese pilgrime, Yuan Chuang must have used the same route to come to Kajangal from Kamarupa17 to meet Harsha. From Kajangal to Kanauj, Harsha followed the Southern and Bhaskar Varman and the Chinese pilgrime the Northern one.18 That route extended from Brahmaputra valley/Kamarupa upto Yunnan province of China.19 There were several routes linking Bramaputra valley to Tibet.20 One or Two routes linking Brahmaputra Valley to Myanmar via Manipur were comparatively more difficult.21
Manipur, like Assam, was also not an isolated area. Johnstone22 and A Phayre23 testify to the human movement from India to South-East Asia via the land routes through Manipur. Captain Doon writes:
“There can be no reasonable doubt that a great Aryan wave of very pure blood passed through Manipur into Burma in pre-historic times.”24
Intra-regional communication routes in the North-East India were also not lacking. We had land routes linking Upper Assam to Cachar25, Brahmaputra Valley to Manipur and Tripura through Cachar26 and with Jayantiapur27 and Bengal.28
Region as Part of the Country
Politically, the North-East region of the country had inter- and intra-regional linkages since the ancient days.
It is true that Assam, except for sporadic invasions and brief occupations, did not come under Muslim rule. But it is not true that the State during pre-Medieval period remained out of India. As R.C. Majumdar writes, “The effective hold of the Guptas on this kingdom (Pragjyotish) is indicated by the currency of the Gupta era in this kingdom for about five hundred years.”29 He further writes: “Thus an independent and powerful kingdom of Kamarupa arose out of the ruins of the Gupta Empire.”30 Similarly, the king of Davaka (present day Doboka in the Kapili valley of Assam) was also the vassal of the Gupta emperor, Samudra Gupta.31 According to the same source, “Even in later times, we find a king whose name ended in Gupta fighting on the banks of Brahmaputra.32 The Chiefs from neighbourhood of Brahmaputra paid homage to the emperor Yashodharman.33
According to R.K. Mukherji, Bhaskarvarman, the king of Kamarupa, was a vassal of Harsha.34. It is well-known that the king of Kamarupa beyond Brahmaputra was an ally of Harshavardhana, but the later was a senior ally35 and the former acknowledged the superiority of the latter.36
Indian concept of Sovereignty is enshrined in Chakravartitva linked to the performance of Rajasuya Yajna (which was performed only thrice) and Ashwamedh Yajna (horse-sacrifice). Usually the Indian monarchs satisfied their urge of becoming universal or all India sovereign (sarvabhauma, asamudrakshitish) and to realize the political unity of India by performing Ashwamedha. It is significant that the kings of Assam also performed the same. King Bhutivarman performed Ashwamedh once and Mahendravarman and Sthiravarman each did it twice.37
Another significant point is that at certain periods, the kings of Brahmaputra valley ruled over other parts of the country. Assamese kings ruled over Pundravardhana during the reign of Bhutiburman and his successors, including Banamala.38 Bhaskarvurman ruled over the provinces of Gauda, Kalinga, Udra and Koshala. It was perhaps obtained from emperor Harsha during Danasagar ceremony at Prayag, as Harsha had great regard for Bhaskarvarman. Kings of Bhauma dynasty of Assamese origin ruled over Orissa and neighbouring areas for about 400 years.39 Devapala attacked Assam in early 9th century and was victorious.40
The link of the region with rest of the country in pre-historic period is well-known. It finds numerous mentions in the epics and the Puranas, such as subjugation of Pragjyotishpura king, Bhagadutta by Arjuna during Rajasuya Yajna41, defeat of Vajradutta, the king of Pragjyotish42, king of Manipur43 by Arjuna during Yudhisthira’s Ashvamedha. Among the tribals of Arunachal Pradesh, Mishmis claim king Bhishmak, and his daughter Rukmini belonging to their community. We have numerous such legends in the North-East. Nag-Kanya Ulupi belonged to this region. Tejpur of Lower Assam was supposed to be the capital of Vanasur, the father of Usha, who was married to Shri Krishna’s son Aniruddha. It needs mention that Tejpur stands for legendary Sonitpur, as tej in Assamese and sonit in Sanskrit mean blood.
It is not true that hills and plains of the North-Eastern region remained mutually isolated and cut of from each other. Some of the points supporting my stand are: (a) Brahmaputra valley is a very narrow one surrounded by the hills and high mountains in all the directions. Yet the valley had many longest ruling dynasties which was possible only if the dynasties ruling in the vallies controlled the neighbouring hills as well, as the Ahoms in the Brahmaputra valley and Meithei kings in Manipur ruling for almost 600 and two thousand years respectively, did. Tripuri kings, similarly, ruled over parts of the plains areas of East Bengal. (b) Many tribes, and even the individual clans, have legends of common origin with neighbouring tribes and plains-men. (c) The keen observation exhibit unprecedented ethnic mix disproving isolationist theory. (d) Legends of migration of different tribes point towards all the direction linking them to wide areas. (e) Indian tradition, as Mahabharata says, does not accept racist myth and considers Kiratas to be Kshatriyas of good birth.
It is true that North-East region, like rest of the country, has immense linguistic, cultural, social and religious diversity. But there are also strong threads of unity, which the colonial scholarship and its continuing tradition highly ignore. Ignoring the fact of unity and cohesiveness weakens the sense of belonging and thereby strengthens alienation in a region suffering from bottleneck psychology. The uniting factors, if listed, are numerous.. However, some of them need mention. As for example, almost all the languages of India follow ‘SOV’ (subject, object and verb) pattern, except, of course, Kashmiri and Khasi. Score-system of counting supposed to be the trait of Munda languages. But even many Naga dialects, such as Chang and Sangtam, and a language like Bengali exhibit the trait. Languages of different families have inclusive and exclusive plural of first person.44 Lexical borrowing is numerous. In reality, there is need to study Indian languages taking India as a ‘Language Zone’.
With few exceptions, clan-exogamy was practiced throughout India among tribes and castes.45 There was a trend to absorb the distinct and diverse ethnic elements.46 The concept of the Supreme-being, the creator is shared by different communities.47 There was a tendency among the colonial scholars to deny the Hindu past of many communities in the North-East India or at best to declare them to be neo-Hindus. The mischievous ‘Hindu Conversion Theory” was put forward keeping in view the colonial desire of proselytization. Some examples may make this point clear. Garib Newaj, the king of Manipur 1709-1748), is said to have converted to Hinduism. But his forefathers built Hindu temples and therefore, were already Hindus.48 King Khyamba (1467-1507), born 12 generations before him built Vishnu temple, which still exists at Bishnupur.49 King Khongtekcha (765-784) was the devotee of Lord Shiva and Devi. He regarded Hari (Vishnu) as the Supreme Deity.50 Even Garib Newaj’s father was a Vaishnava, and two Kali temples were built during his reign.51 Contrary to what is propagated, Garib Newaj, favoured Ramanandi form of Vaishnavism in place of Vaishnavism of Chaitanya School.52 Another example of Krishna Chandra (1780-1813) and Govinda Chandra (1813-1832), the last kings of Cachar may also be cited here. The myth of Hinduization, in their case, is exhibited by the fact that their ancestor Vikramadityapha (1410-1469) established a city called Lakshmindrapur (present day Dimapur; Lakshmindra, Lord of Lakshmi, the Goddess of wealth) after installing a stone image of Lakshmindra (Vishnu) in a temple.53 Bhubaneshwar Vachaspati, during the reign of Surdarp Narayan (1707-1732), prepared the manuscript of Narad Puran. This was done on the command of Chandra Prabha, the king’s mother and the widow of the king Tamradhwaj Narayan.54 According to a silver coin, discovered at Maibong and issued by the Cachari king Yaso Narayan Dev during 1583, he was a worshipper of Har, Gauri, Shiva and Durga.55 A conch shell, depicting ten Avataras of Lord Vishnu, was carved during the reign of Bir Darpa in 1671.56 These examples amply prove the hollowness of the myth of Hinduization.
Some prominent British colonial functionaries wanted separation of the Naga and other Tribal areas of the North-East from the rest of the country. Their strategy, commonly known as Coupland Plan, of the formation of a separate Crown Colony or Hill State in NE region could not succeed as the independence came a bit too early for them after Second World War. The Memorandum from the Naga Hills district to the Simon Commission, mostly signed by the employees of the Deputy Commissioner’s office of the Naga Hills district, was British inspired which presented confused identity claims. Naga representatives wrote about themselves thus:
“Our country within the administered area consists of more than eight Tribes, quite different from one another with quite different languages which can not be understood by each other, and there are more Tribes outside the administered area which are not known at present. We have no Unity among us and it is really the British Government that is holding us together now.”57
About the mixed ethnicity even of a single tribe, Hutton writes:
“It would be impossible to give any general description of the type of the Angami features, as it varies from village to village and even from house to house in a remarkable degree. The flattened nose and slightly oblique eye of a decidedly Mongolian type may be seen side by side with a straightness of eyes and nose that might be purely Aryan.”58
The seeds of separation, however, were shown in the Simon Commission Memorandum. It said:
“If the British Government, however, wants us to throw us away, we pray that we should not be thrust to the mercy of the (Indian) people who could never have conquered us themselves, and to whom we were never subjected but leave us alone to determine for ourselves as in ancient times.”59
The Naga Nationalist Council, the only secessionist outfit in early decades of Independent India, vide its resolution dated 19 June 1945, wanted Naga Hills district to remain in India as a part of Assam. But, it changed its stand soon. The moderate voice of “Nagas under autonomous Assam in free India” was never heard from that platform again. The NNC, vide its resolution dated 10 February 1947, demanded self-determination. The demand was based on:
i. Ethnic distinctiveness.
ii. Distinct Social Life, way of living, laws and customs, etc.
iii. Different Religion – Animism and Christianity.60
The facts mentioned above clearly shows the colonial roots of alienation. But there are other factors also, which strengthened and further complicated the situation. Pt. Nehru, as demanded by the moderate Nagas, conceded the formation of Centrally Administered Naga Hills Tuensang Area (NHTA) by uniting Naga Hills district of Assam and Tuensang Division of the then NEFA (now Arunachal Pradesh) and then Nagaland State, which were duly formed in 1957 and 1963 respectively. The formation of Nagaland initiated a series of demands leading to the re-organization of North-East India and the formation of new states of Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh.61 Creation of new states, ADCs and Autonomous Councils continues; Small States Syndrome persists as usual.62 Ethnicity related problems ceased to ebb.63
Nagaland was created waving any criteria of area, population and local resources for the statehood. This also created resource-rich area in the State and resource starved areas in its neighbourhood. These factors naturally whetted the desire of the non-Naga elites for power and privileges leading to new States’ demands. The Central and the State governments ceased to effectively counter the signals that (i) violence and (ii) social distancing pays. Meitheis felt neglected when Naga Hills district of Assam attained Statehood, whereas Manipur, a two thousand year old monarchy remained just a Central administered territory. This brought further alienation among them. While moderate Nagas enjoyed the fruits of statehood, the secessionists continued with their myths, mis-information campaigns and propaganda,64 making the people to believe that the statehood was the result of their armed struggle. The cult of Gun and assertion of separate identity became the dominant trend. A vicious circle of the alienation and use of arm for autonomy was the result. The worst sufferer in this game was the Assamese Hindu society. Its internal cohesion was shattered. Every community claimed to be distinct with separate administrative unit.
North-East is the most densely administered region of the country with the replication of Nagaland and multiplication of administrative units. It is also the most liberally centrally funded region of the country. In spite of these favorable factors, the states have failed to deliver. The benefits hardly percolate to the grass-roots. The region is mal-administered; there is huge leakage/pilferage of resources. Terrorist outfits manage to get their share from the development funds. Insurgency in the region initially started as a cottage industry; now it has taken the shape of medium range industry and is bound to take the shape of heavy industry, if the present trend continues. Extortion by the terrorist/secessionist outfits is rampant.
A rampant tendency in the region used to be to blame the Centre for all the ills of the region and to overlook the deficient role of the state governments. Of course, some of the problems needed greater Central attention. The problem of illegal migration from Bangladesh is one such problem.65 The other one is to ensure proper utilization of the Central funds. Self-seeking groups of the region have developed vested interests in perpetuation of alienation and insurgency. We have failed to plug the help from the neighbouring countries, especially, Bangladesh and China. Now Paresh Barua of ULFA is supposed to be in China. ISI openly helps subversion; helps insurgent outfits.
The weakest front for us in fight against insurgency and terrorism – ethnic, Maoist and Islamist – is the intellectual one. These outfits receive direct and indirect help from a section of our intellectuals, especially of the left variety and certain human rights groups. Central Government is following the wrong policy of signing cease-fire agreement even when half a dozen law breakers pick-up gun, kill a few persons and declare the formation of an outfit. These outfits continue to indulge in recruitment and extortion activities even during so called ceasefires. Dominant insurgent outfits, such as NSCN (IM), form nexus with them and spread their influence and strength.
1. Kumar, B.B., Dialogue, 1.1; July-September 1999, Editorial, p.9.
2. Pandey, S.N., Regional History and Sudies in History of Manipur; Dialogue, 1.1; p. 58.
3. Proceedings of North-East India History Association (NEIHA), Session XVII, p.68; Sajal Nag quotes O.P. Kejarival.
4. Kumar, B.B., North-East India: Crisis of Perception and Credible Action. Quarterly Dialogue, 1.2; p. 80.
6. Max Muller, India: What can it teach us?, p.28.
7. Edward Thompson and G.T. Garratt, Rise and Fulfilment of British Rule in India; Allahabad, 1962 (Reprint), p. 654.
8. NEIHA Proceedings, XVII, p. 66.
9. Chatterjee, Suhas, Mizoram under British Rule, Delhi, 1985, pp.180-81.
10. NEIHA Proceedings, Session XVI, p. 40.
11. Kumar, op. cit, p. 81.
13. Gait, Sir Edward, A History of Assam, Reprint (Guwahati, 1994), pp. 11-14.
14. Dr. Motichandra, Sarthavah, Patna, 1953; p. 12.
17. Vasu, N.N., Social History of Kamarupa, p. 151.
19. Motichandra, op. cit., p. 127.
20. Kumar, B.B., The Border Trade in North-East India: The Historical Perspective, pp.12-22; in Border Trade: North-East India and Neighbouring Countries, Gurudas Das & R.K. Purkayastha, New Delhi, 2000; Gait, op. cit., p. 171.
21. Mackenzie, A., The North-East Frontier of India, Reprint, Delhi, 1981; p. 64.
22. Johnstone, J., My experience in Manipur and Naga Hills, p. 280.
23. Phayre, A., History of Burma, p. 3.
24. Dun, Gazetteer of Manipur, p. 6, foot-note.
25. Baruah, S.L., Presidential Address, NEIHA, XVI Session, Proceedings, p. 10; quoted from Cachar Buranji.
27. Ibid; quoted from Jayantia Buranji.
28. Gait, op. cit., p. 285.
29. Majumdar, R.C., The History and Culture of the Indian People, The Classical Age, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, p. 90.
30. Ibid, p. 91.
31. Majumdar, Raychaudhury & Dutta, An Advanced History of India, p. 140.
32. Ibid, p. 144.
33. Ibid, p. 147.
34. Mukherji, R.K., Harsha, p.44.
35. Professor H.P. Barpujari acknowledges the same.
36. Majumdar, Raychaudhury &Dutta, op. cit., p. 150-51.
37. Barpujari, H.K.(ed.), The Social History of Kamarupa, Vol.I, pp. 306-07
38. Ibid, p.201.
39. Vasu, op. cit., Vol. III, pp. 11-12.
40. Barpujari, op. cit., p. 157.
41. Mahabharata, Sabha Parva, 26.7-16.
42. Maha., Ashwa, 7.6.
43. Ibid, 79-81.
44. Kumar, B.B., North-East India: Need for a Fresh Look, in The
Administrator; p. 10; Mussoorie, Lal Bahadur National Academy of
Administration, Vol.XXXIX, N. 4; (1994).
48. Dialogue, Vol. 1,No. 2 (1999) p. 92.
49. Singh, R.K. Jhalajit, A Short History of Manipur; p. 84.
50. Ibid, p. 51.
51. Ibid, p. 118.
52. Ibid, pp. 133-36.
53. Nath, R.M., Foundations of Assamese Culture, Guwahati (1978); p.
54. Vasu, op. cit., p.244.
55. Nath, op. cit., p. 240.
56. Vasu, p. 243.
57. Quoted in B.B. Kumar’s Naga Identity, Concept Publishing
Company, New Delhi (2005), p.21.
58. Hutton, The Angami Nagas, p. 21.
59. Kumar, Naga Identity, p. 143.
60. Ibid, p. 146.
61. See for detail see B.B. Kumar, RE-ORGANIZATION OF NORTH-
EAST INDIA (Facts and Documents), Omsons Publications, New
62. See for details, B.B. Kumar, Small States Syndrom in India, Concept,
New Delhi (1998).
63. See for detail, B.B. Kumar (ed.), Problems of Ethnicity in the North-
East India, Astha Bharati & Concept, New Delhi (2007)
64. Kumar, Naga Identity, pp.161-167.
65. For detailed information, see B.B. Kumar (ed.), Illegal Migration
from Bangladesh, Astha Bharati & Concept, New Delhi (2006).