Uneasy trade-offs: The Northeast’s tussle between ethnicity and economy

When we are taught contemporary economic theories, the development prism operates through market exchange, private ownership and capital accumulation. However, this notion offers limited insight into socio-economic realities of tribal societies. In the Seven Sisters of the Northeast and Sikkim, formal recognition of tribal rights serves as a vital mechanism for underpinning cultural pride and preserving indigenous traditions. Such institutional support thwarts historical marginalisation and the continuing attrition of distinct tribal identities amid modernisation. Understanding these societies through market-oriented economies raises several questions. Tribal communitarianism best reflects the lived experiences of ethnicities, whether in the Northeast or across the Eastern and Western Ghats. 

Protected land occupancies and assured access to natural resources are vital for tribal sustenance, given their deep dependence on ecological assets. To address land alienation and transfers to non-tribal entities, various states have ratified specific laws. The Assam Land Revenues Regulations, amended in 1981, prohibit the transfer of land in tribal blocks to non-tribals. The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, stipulates that land owned by Scheduled Tribes cannot be transferred to non-STs without prior permission of the deputy commissioner. However, this Act does not extend to certain hill regions — a factor contributing to the ongoing turmoil in the state. The Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act, 1873, promulgated along similar lines, is in force in Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh. 

Mainstream economic theories, such as Marxism, evaluate production systems in terms of private ownership, class relations and the appropriation of surplus value. In contrast, tribal life is founded on ethics such as mutual cooperation, collective responsibility and ecological balance. In remote villages of Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh or Nagaland, economic activities are carried out through collective labour: the landowner provides food, while the community contributes workmanship. This is not a wage relationship but a form of symbiosis rooted in social responsibility.

Production in such societies is oriented not solely towards profit but towards sustaining community life. In Manipur or Nagaland, the hereditary Kuki chiefs control land and allocate fair shares to households for cultivation. Among the Nagas, village councils control land, with chiefs often elected. Tribal societies are not relics of the past; they represent alternative socio-economic systems.

Although the Fifth Schedule of the Indian Constitution identifies the singularity of tribal societies, its enactment remains weak. For instance, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), 1996, is a landmark law that encompasses self-governance for tribal communities in Fifth Schedule Areas, empowering Gram Sabhas to manage natural resources, protect traditions and approve development projects. The Forest Rights Act, 2006, seeks to correct historical injustices by granting land and resource rights to forest-dwelling communities. Written jurisprudence often clashes with oral traditions of tribal communities, complicating the delivery of justice. In Naga society, for instance, entrenched gender disparities persist across several domains. 

Large infrastructure projects and extractive activities such as mining, timber extraction and hydroelectric development often generate lopsided, adverse impacts on tribal communities. Article 371C provides special provisions for Manipur, including the establishment of a Hill Areas Committee within the state legislature, comprising members elected from tribal-dominated regions. Just as customary law in tribal societies extends far beyond a formal legal framework and is embedded in the cultural ethos, land, forests, water resources, and biodiversity are not merely means of production but the foundation of tribal culture, identity and social organisation. 

However, not everything is ideal. Data suggests instances of a Garo or a Naga owning vast tracts of land. Such concentration of land runs contrary to customary practices, but hitherto unknown trappings like absentee landlordism, rent extraction from forest land, and sharecropping have emerged. There are instances of Assam’s Karbi Anglong tribals securing land deeds with official blessings either from the headman or the Autonomous District Council. Field observations in interior Assam and Nagaland reveal influential, educated and networked Dimasas owning large holdings under the guise of homestead plantations. Similar patterns are seen among Akas in Arunachal’s West Kameng district and Angamis in Nagaland. 

There is another dimension to tribal development models. Efforts to transition communities from jhum (shifting cultivation) to settled agriculture have introduced wet rice cultivation and dairy farming. Paddy cultivation is generally done by migrant peasants hailing from riparian Bangladesh, while dairy farming in the hills depends largely on Nepali labour. Over time, such non-tribal cultivators may become de jure owners by cultivating land for decades. These claims sometimes extend to unoccupied common lands with the connivance of local tribal brokers.

A report by the Manab Adhikar Sangram Samity, a human rights group in Assam, highlights how this economic strategy indirectly fostered insurgency. Tribal communitarianism in the Northeast thus appears Janus-faced. On the one hand, we further the economic imperative by utilising the cultural affinities and common resources of the region; on the other, we do brisk business across India’s borders in the Northeast not with in situ goods but using the region as a conduit in the trade process.      

(The writer is a commentator on politics and society)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.