The issue of ethnic identity always bears greater significance in the context of the country’s north-eastern region.  However, the identity issue is a delicate one for the entire area. Taking a stand to address the identity issue for a section is always perceived as against the interests of others. The problem is not confined to the decades-old matters related to the indigenous communities living in different parts of the region. It also includes those people who are striving to establish distinctive identity to date in the north-east against the backdrop of the partition of India after the eclipse of British colonial rule. India began her journey as a sovereign democratic nation with a thousand wounds after independence. There is no justification, only putting the entire blame on the British. But the Indian academic pundits make the British responsible for all odds here, virtually for everything. If democracy demands accountability, such an approach is against the spirit of democratic order as it only conceals the failures of the successive regimes that ruled India after colonial rule had ended. The same approach tries to cover up the Indian leadership’s lack of responsibility. The most deceptive aspect is the tendency to search for a British skeleton to relinquish responsibility, as the ruler of the world’s largest democracy is never ready to shoulder the responsibility. The generations brought up since 1947 with the prejudice that the British rulers are responsible for whatever is wrong in the subcontinent. The point is not to judge who is responsible for what. Similarly, digging the graves can never be an option. The vital point is seeking accountability from the present leadership and from all those who have ruled India since independence till date. But is there any space for such debate in today’s academic arena? If not, the scholarly debate is feeding the political agenda shamelessly.

One may ask the relevance of this prelude in discussing an issue related to the present north-eastern region of the country. The answer is that the destiny of the north-east is not different from that of the nation. The north-east has paid heavily for the country’s partition and related affairs. The most devastating one is that the partition of India tore the demographic fabric of the country. If the region bleeds, the cause is related to the saga that inflicted wounds decades ago. After all, the dubiousness that persists among the people of the area proves this true. Similarly, the identity issue and the conflicting interests among different communities got hyped during the election period in the region.

Recently, the union minister and BJP stalwart from the north-east, Kiren Rijiju, initiated a fresh controversy about the Chakma and Hajong communities living in Arunachal Pradesh. Just a few days ago, Rijiju made a controversial statement, saying that more than 67,000 people belonging to the Chakma and Hajong communities who are presently residing in Arunachal Pradesh would be relocated to Assam with the help of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This sparked new controversy in Assam for obvious reasons. But in response to Rijiju’s statement, Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma stated that he is unaware of what Rijiju said in this context. Instead, the Assam CM stated that the state government plans to provide citizenship to the Assamese people living in Arunachal Pradesh. However, as both CAA and the relocating of Chakma and Hajong from Arunachal Pradesh are sensitive issues, the opposition did not want to miss the opportunity to corner the ruling BJP, considering the electoral importance of the issue. Top leaders of both the regional parties born of the anti-CAA movement in Assam—the Raijor Dal and the Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP)—came down heavily on chief minister Sarma for his apparent engagement with the Union and Arunachal Pradesh governments to settle Chakma and the Hajong refugees in the state. Assam State Congress president Bhupen Borah expressed apprehension about a conspiracy against Assam and the interests of the larger Assamese society by the BJP. Thus, Rijiju’s statement became a handy issue for the anti-BJP political parties during the election. This might have impacted the second phase of the poll in Assam, held on 26 April. But the issue has not died yet, as another phase of the election is scheduled in Assam on 7 May. The significant point is that the status of the Chakma and Hajong communities has been an unaddressed issue for decades, not only in the context of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam but also in substantial parts of the erstwhile north-eastern region. According to online data, people from the Chakma community live in Mizoram and Tripura. As per the official data available in the public domain, nearly one lakh Chakma refugees live in Manipur. In Tripura, the number of Chakma refugees is estimated at about thirty thousand. On the other hand, many people in the Hajong community live in Assam, Meghalaya, and Arunachal Pradesh. Relocating these people from one state to another is neither straightforward nor realistic.

However, the statement of both Union Minister Kiren Rijiju and Assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma proves one thing clearly: the BJP is yet to evolve consensus on such an issue plaguing the interests not only of certain sections but also of the more extensive interests of the north-east related to India’s national interests. Similarly, this also exposes the biting reality that the so-called leadership of the saffron party representing the north-east does the groundwork before making a statement on such a sensitive issue in the region. But the important point is: why are Chakma and Hajong refugees living in such a state even after so many decades since independence? People belonging to both communities, particularly the Chakmas, are paying the price of the partition of India and the sinister design of both East Pakistan and now Bangladesh. The Chakmas originally belonged to the Chittagong Hill region of Bangladesh. After the creation of Pakistan, a sizable section of the Chakma community was forced to leave East Pakistan in the same manner as was the case with mainstream Hindu Bengali communities. The creation of Bangladesh in the name of so-called Bengali nationalism hardly changed the situation there. The communal Islamic agenda of Bangladesh became more potent after the assassination of Mujibar Rahman and during the rule of Ziaur Rahman. Ziaur Rahman was the face of fanatic Islam in Southeast Asia during his tenure in office, both as martial administrator and president of Bangladesh. Subsequently, Hussain Md. Ershad and Khaleda Zia extended Ziaur Rahman’s agenda during their tenure in office in Bangladesh.

But has the situation changed during the rule of Sheikh Hasina? This bears greater significance. After all, Sheikh Hasina is familiar with her pro-India image. Both New Delhi and Dhaka claim that the ongoing phase is the best one as far as the bilateral relationship between the two nations is concerned. But Hasina has taken hardly any initiative to ensure the legitimate rights of the Chakmas living in Bangladesh. Naturally, taking back the Chakmas ousted from Bangladesh is a far cry. For a lasting solution for the Chakma refugees, the right way is to deal with Bangladesh at the bilateral level. As far as Hajongs are concerned, this requires broader consensus among stakeholders in the north-eastern region. The issue related to the plight of the Hajong community also connects with Bangladesh. But it would be wrong to ignore the random propaganda that is going on in Bangladesh regarding non-Muslim ethnic groups in the Chittagong Hill area. It is never an easy task for Bangladesh to take a decisive stand regarding refugee rehabilitation in Bangladesh. This proves the apathy of partition that has victimised people on the subcontinent in different phases. Is it the proper approach to search for a British ghost for this? Along with the political leadership, the academic pundits need to ponder about lasting solutions to the ethnic enigma plaguing the north-east and jeopardising India’s national interests.

The writer is an independent contributor