The first partition of Bengal Presidency took place in 1874 when its Eastern Frontier region, comprising the areas under the Ahoms and the newly- acquired hill areas in the eastern Himalayas, were separated along with two permanently-settled districts of Sylhet and Goalpara to constitute the chief commissioner’s province of Assam.
The separation to offset the low revenue potential of the other parts of the new province caused much resentment in Bengal as it was perceived as a move to weaken the growing national feelings of the people, even though it did not lead to an agitation. 
The creation of the province of Assam, with an area of 5,3326 sq miles and a multi-lingual and multi- ethnic population of only about 4.1 million  as per the  1872 Census,  was the outcome of a strategic decision to make it the British bridgehead in North-east India to meet two objectives. First, as a springboard to pursue the “ forward policy” of extension of the British power to Tibet and beyond, and second, to provide all-round state support to promote the interests of the British-owned companies engaged in tea plantation, coal and limestone mining, building the railway system and exploitation of timber and forest-based resources. 
It was the “Planters Raj” as neatly summed up by noted historian the late Amalendu Guha. The British even toyed with the idea of a larger province by including tea- growing Darjeeling and North Bengal, but gave it up for administrative reasons. The maxim of the colonial rule of Assam was exactly opposite of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s view — minimum governance with maximum government. It didn’t establish a high court (the province continued to be under the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court) nor any university, medical or engineering college that inhibited growth of the local middle class.
And all the while it rapidly reorganised local forces like the Cachar Levy into a formidable regional arm- the Assam Rifles to carry out punitive expeditions in hill areas to keep the headhunting tribes under control and to prevent them from attacking tea plantations.
The units of Assam Rifles were stationed in all hill districts on a regular basis, which accorded the hills with features of “garrison administration” with little distinction between civil and military authority.
During the colonial rule, physical infrastructure was development and entirely geared towards meeting the needs of the colonial mode of production. The administration mainly facilitated the process and that gave it the features of what Acemoglu and Robertson called the “extractive state” in their fascinating work, Why nations fail? 
The introduction of labour- intensive commercial crops like jute and tea in sparsely populated areas inevitably brought migrant labour on a permanent basis and irreversible demographic change in Assam with far-reaching consequences on society and polity. 
Assam was the front line province during World War II and battles the Allies fought with the Japanese and the INA at Kohima and Imphal, are now recognised as the toughest the British ever fought in history. The war shaped the psyche of the Naga, Mizo and Manipuri people. The Partition that followed the war, led to the transfer of Sylhet except, Karimganj police station area, which was decided on the basis of  a referendum that wrongly denied the right of the migrant tea industry labour to vote. That made Sylhet a part of Pakistan and Assam to bear Hindu refugees. Had the tea labour been allowed to vote, Sylhet might not have gone to Pakistan.
These complex factors determined the course of the region’s history and the main narrative even after reorganisation of the North-east in 1971 and till date has been “identity assertion” by all ethnic groups. That has  lead to violence, involving often, the very indigenous peoples themselves and was the main reason for continuation  of  disorder,  and not economic deprivation, as the present  breakdown of  law and order in Manipur and the economic blockades, which cripple life frequently across the  North-east are caused by identity politics.
Its fallout is that vast areas of the region have to be notified as “disturbed” and Armed Forces inducted to help civil authorities. This has produced a vicious cycle of slowed growth, high cost of production and service, poor governance and hence disaffection and violence obstructing any development. But, above all it has inhibited critical thinking as it is convenient to blame others for one’s problems.
Where do we go from here is a question often raised in the North-east media on this issue and answer is an emphatic “No” to identity politics, which benefits only a  few politicians and contractors ; and then seriously concentrate efforts to reap benefits from a dynamic science and technology-entrepreneurship driven development model that the government has laid before the youth. 
In the North-east context, its strong point is its scale and distance, in the sense that a start-up in theknowledge-intensive sector would require modest capital to establish a value chain involving a number of such enterprises producing different segments of a product or service. 
For this to spread, critical support has to come from the state government concerned and financial institutions. As it may not be possible for individual states of the North- east to provide all the facilities, a regional science and technology- based “umbrella” organisation is essential to support the growth of these enterprises with funds, skill teaching and marketing tie- up.
There is enormous scope for such “start- ups” in the North-east in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, health, tourism, organic food, dye and vegetables, publishing and entertainment among others. Some of these, like organic food, medicinal plants and food processing, have reportedly attracted positive interest from corporates like Dabur and Indian Tobacco Company, which is a welcome development. 
However, in the interest of equity and social balance developing a strong base of local entrepreneurship is a need for enduring peace and progress in the region. 
What is often missed in the regional development discussion is the fact that the generous Central funding the North-east is endowed with and an intensive network of higher education and science and technology institutions with a network of 17 universities, it has not been able to create a regional science and technology system to tap the innovation potential of its youth. It is a case of both planning and system failure.
There are, of course, some bold initiatives, like the one taken by Dr Mridul Hazarika, vice-chancellor of Gauhati University, who has  admitted budding innovators to the University by granting waiver or relaxations to formal qualifications and helped them get scientific validation of the innovations  and patent the same. We must note that in future industrial development will be innovation- driven and it is going to be mainly the outcome of collaborative efforts. 
Hence, the need for intensive industry academia interaction and inter-university collaboration to generate marketable technology solutions for producers, which should ideally involve universities within the country and abroad. Thus collaboration with the university systems in our South and South East Asian neighbourhood should be a part of the Act East initiative. To sustain this effort it is imperative to improve the quality of teaching of science and mathematics in schools in the region and make sure that those are  accorded high priority.
The North-east region passed through a churning and turbulent phase in the last two centuries albeit containing some positives such as exposure to modernity. Science could bring about a change which might induce the people in the region to see that identity politics is a zero sum game and the future is in a science, technology and innovation-led path. Only then will the industrial policy bear fruit.

(THE WRITER IS A RETIRED IAS OFFICER OF THE ASSAM-MEGHALAYA CADRE AND HAS SERVED AS A SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANT IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)