The launch of the new regional political platform One North East (ONE) by Meghalaya Chief Minister and National People’s Party leader Conrad K. Sangma, TIPRA Motha founder Pradyot Bikram Manikya Debbarma, former Nagaland minister and BJP leader Mmhonlumo Kikon, and People’s Party of Assam leader Daniel Langthasa has quickly stirred political currents across the region. With Assam headed toward elections next year, the timing of this alliance suggests more than cultural enthusiasm or sentimental unity. It reflects a deliberate recalibration of power, identity, and regional negotiation at a time when the Northeast’s representation in national politics appears increasingly shaped by the influence of Assam’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and the BJP-led NEDA framework.
Congress leader Debabrata Saikia was quick to frame the development as a reaction against what he termed “majoritarian pressure” and “cultural imposition” fostered by the BJP. This narrative, however, tends to flatten the unique political dynamics of the Northeast. Unlike many regions of India, where ideological debates often align along communal lines or economic priorities, identity politics in the Northeast emerges from historical memory, ethnic autonomy, land rights, border anxieties, and community sovereignty. The BJP’s expansion into the region was not built on forcing cultural conformity; rather, it rested on allowing regional allies to preserve identity markers while aligning structurally with national governance and development systems. In states such as Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Tripura, and even sections of Manipur and Meghalaya, the BJP made electoral headway by accepting cultural diversity rather than challenging it. This sharply differentiates the Northeast from other regions where cultural politics is more adversarial.
Therefore, the emergence of ONE appears less a rebellion against BJP dominance and more a negotiation for political breathing space within the alliance ecosystem. The central figure in this negotiation is Himanta Biswa Sarma. Over the past decade, Sarma has evolved from a resourceful regional strategist to the BJP’s main architect of northeastern political alignment. He has mediated between warring state administrations, brokered fragile coalitions, repositioned the BJP in states where it once had negligible relevance, and emerged as the informal spokesperson for the Northeast within national political circuits. While effective, this centralisation of political gravity generates unease among regional leaders who seek to maintain distinct political identities and bargaining power. ONE, therefore, signals a subtle but firm assertion: regional leadership must not be collapsed into the persona of one individual, however influential they may be.
The decision to form a nine-member committee to determine the structure and functioning of ONE within 45 days is a strategic pause rather than a bureaucratic formality. It gives the involved leaders time to observe public perception, assess electoral implications, and clarify policy direction—all without committing to irreversible alliance shifts. This is political choreography, not haste.
Assam, the largest state in the region and the ideological theater for identity politics, becomes the most consequential site of ONE’s possible influence. The Assam Jatiya Parishad, formed out of anti-CAA sentiment and representing a sharper articulation of Assamese identity politics, finds itself both adjacent to and wary of this new development. AJP president Lurinjyoti Gogoi’s cautious reaction—that the party has not yet been approached—reveals a mixture of curiosity and apprehension. If ONE chooses to foreground issues like demographic shifts, land reclamation, and indigenous cultural protection, it could challenge the BJP as well as overlap with AJP’s core message. But if it gravitates toward a broader Northeast identity narrative, its resonance in Assam could remain limited to the urban or youth-centered spaces that value pan-regional solidarities over ethnic assertiveness.
But if ONE grows into a sustained regional movement, it could shift how the Northeast articulates its interests in national forums. Pradyot Debbarma’s consistent assertion that “solutions for the Northeast should come from within the Northeast” captures the philosophical aspiration behind the platform. If it succeeds, the region could transform from a cluster of state-level power centers negotiating individually with Delhi into a coordinated bloc with shared priorities. This would alter not only government negotiations, but legislative influence, resource allocation debates, and policy attention in Parliament.
However, the road ahead is challenging. The Northeast is not a cultural monolith; it is a mosaic of tribes, languages, faiths, and historical grievances. Unity in rhetoric is easy; unity in political agenda is far more complex. Old inter-state disputes, competing autonomy demands, intra-tribal rivalries, and varied economic priorities could strain any attempt at sustained cohesion. UNITY built only on emotional identity sentiment can quickly slide into competitive ethnonationalism unless anchored in development. For ONE to succeed, it must prioritize infrastructure, livelihood development, border security, youth employment, educational access, and environmental sustainability—not merely symbolic cultural claims.
In the end, ONE currently resembles a negotiating platform rather than a new ideological movement. It asserts that regional voices matter, that political agency in the Northeast must be dispersed rather than concentrated, and that identity must not be exploited but represented. Whether this initiative becomes a transformative political force or simply another pre-election positioning exercise will depend on whether it can build an agenda rooted not in symbolism, but in grounded policy that resonates with everyday citizens across diverse landscapes.
Until that clarity emerges, One North East stands as a political voice in formation—seeking purpose, defining identity, and testing its strength amid a shifting power balance in the region. Whether it becomes a milestone or merely a moment will be determined by its ability to translate rhetoric into sustained, collective, and development-driven action.
The writer is a technocrat, political analyst, and author from Assam