boroksite

The structure of narrative and the pattern of discourse on ethnic conflict in Tripura make for a gripping of exercise of loose metanarratives. The discourse has been sole monopoly of two categories of intellectuals: one, Bengali intellectuals concerned with the narrative of legitimation;[1] and two, mainsteamist intellectuals concerned with the nationalist-construction project. Both feeding into each other. Both the categories of intellectuals locate the root of ethnic conflict between Tripuris and Bengalis in the tragic demographic change and the consequent land alienation of Tripuris. This paper seeks to engages with these two categories of intellectuals and contest their diagnosis and their remedy prescription.

In the past few years many mainstream intellectuals in India have come to realize the folly of viewing northeast as single entity and the persisting ethnic tensions as similar in their origin and character.2 Today there is a consensus that problems of the states of northeast India are specific to the particular states with specific complex political character rooted in different historical background. This necessitates us to situate Tripura in its specific historical tragedy to understand its political contours of ethnic clashes, which have simmered, smoldered and evaporated over the years.

Just prior to its merger with India, Tripura existed as an independent kingdom with reduced territorial sovereignty, roughly corresponding to its present size. This reduced size was historically the original territory of the Tripuris. And the lost territories over which the Tripura extended its suzerainty and the sway over which it subsequently lost were historically conquered territories. Thus at the time of merger Tripuras political boundary was coterminous with its ethnic boundary. Though it is undeniable that considerably large Bengali population, both Hindus and Muslims were already in existence in 1947. In fact Bengali intellectuals project the 1941 census,1 which depicts the tribal population as 52.16 percent and the rest being Bengalis as indicative of the fact that Tripuris were never absolute majority in Tripura and also of the legitimacy of Bengali inhabitants in Tripura. I will contest this claim later in the paper. The Bengali population before Tripuras merger consisted of two categories: imported babus for the purpose of administration and imported indentured laborers for cultivation. It was the former who were to play crucial role in the political project of demographic transformation of Tripura favored by the fortuitous partition of India which opportune them to match the Tripuri population for the impending democratic doom (set up). After the sudden demise of Tripuri king on the eve of merger power into the hand of inept Queen regent who came under the virtual control of the Bengali administrators for whom the rehabilitation of these Bengali immigrants became an ethical and moral responsibility.2 After Tripuras merger the state came under the total control of these formerly imported ministers who conceived and engineered the political project of demographic transformation and marginalization of the indigenous population. By 1951 population equation have been overturned (tripuri population was reduced to 37 percent) fuelling armed rebellion from certain section of Tripuris. Notwithstanding this dangerous demographic transformation owing to partition and the continuous trickle thereafter by 1971-72 about 1.5 million refugees were settled in Tripura. To this day the influx has not ceased. This continuous influx and the resulting political displacement and land alienation of the indigenous people were against the very spirit of the merger agreement and the very idea of statehood. The ensuing ethnic clashes in Tripura came to be rooted on this demographic change and the subsequent land alienation. For many Bengali intellectuals this immigrants were never foreigners in true sense, for the manikya rulers had at some historical point controlled the territories i.e. the plain Tipperah from where these Hindu Bengalis have immigrated to the state of Tripura, the Hill Tipperah;1 while others argue that the Tripuris would have been reduced to minority even in the course of normal flow of Bengalis. And still other argues that Bengali immigration into Tripura is justified because it occurred before legal safeguards against immigration of non indigenous people were put into practice2. The underlying logic implicit in these arguments is that ethnic composition of the present day Tripura is uncontestable. And since the ethnic tension is a by product of land alienation owing to demographic change these intellectuals opined that peace can brought about through land restoration, poverty alleviation, education, etc. Locating the ethnic clashes in the land alienation of tribals appears at once convincing and simple. The other category of intellectuals i.e. mainstreamists (non- Bengali) though agree that Tripura have been turned a refugee state owing to influx also found it convincing that ethnic conflict in Tripura is directly relatable to the land question and in the human right violations against them (Tripuris) by law and order forces and that the remedy lies in development particularly rural development. 3Surprisingly few Tripuri intellectuals have also lent credibility by endorsing this land alienation, poverty and underdevelopment argument. While others rightly relate the ethnic conflict and tension to change in demographic structure they failed to elaborate how.4

Thus this change in demographic structure owing to continuous influx becomes the starting point of discourse on ethnic conflict in Tripura. Both the categories of intellectuals rightly situate the conflict within this framework. However hereafter the discussion takes a narrowed focus of diagnosing the cause of ethnic conflict to only one aspect of the fallouts of the change in demographic structure: land alienation and subsequently poverty, unemployment and underdevelopment. Other fallouts of demographic change: political displacement of the indigenous Tripuris and cultural bastardization1 has been ignored or deliberately ignored. Theorizing of Conflicts especially inter-ethnic conflicts, based on purely economical dimension ignoring its political and cultural dimensions can imposed serious limitations to ones understanding of conflict itself. No doubt economic content of conflicts is a powerful tool to explain conflict. But this can miss the big question: what kind of a state or political system tolerates or perpetuates economic deprivation of selective ethnic group? When a state itself evolves into a mechanism for domination of selective racial or ethnic group or groups and institutionalizes ideas of political exclusion of this select groups inter ethnic conflicts within such political entity raises poignant questions about the very nature of the state. No doubt land alienation is a reality. But scholars grounding their understanding of ethnic conflict in Tripura on this issue have failed to match their theory with furnished details of how much land alienation actually took place.2 What this paper seeks to achieve is to locate ethnic conflict in Tripura in the very nature and character of the state.

The fundamental impact of change of demographic structure in the state of Tripura is not land but on the very character and nature of the state which came to be structured on twin paradoxes since its merger with the Indian union: First, statehood in India embodies principle of local autonomy and self government of the concerned category of people for whom it is institutionalized, e.g. Self-government by Nagas in Nagaland, Malayalees in Kerala.The paradox in Tripura is that the Tripuris who are suppose to exercise political control over the state has been politically displaced and ruled by a category of people whose very national identity is a suspect. Secondly, politics, within such a state, is no longer an instrument through which contending interests are conciliated in a structured framework it has become instrument for dominating permanent minorities by permanent majority. Parliamentary democracy under such conditions where the dominated permanent minorities are permanently denied equal power over the outcome of electoral process leading to their exclusion from the decision making structures of the state builds up democratic injustices which gradually breeds frustrations on the part of the excluded. These twin paradoxes have come to determine contradictory behaviors of the state and hold the attitude of the ruling elites of the dominant ethnic group in dilemmas. The dominator aware that its political power in the state was a literal grab and that historically it has never been co-owner of the state over the years the state has orchestrated two conscious political projects: one, Bengalnization of the indigenous people through mental invasion; two, Bengalinization of the land through history tailoring built on the edifice of narratives of legitimation. The first project was sought to be achieved at various levels with priorities focused on education and cultural bastardization. The second project entrusted to the Bengali intellectuals consisted of construction of ideas though doctoring of the past and tailoring of history which involved portraying Tripuras conquered territories from which Bengalis had immigrated- the plain Tripura, first used by the British- as original territory of Tripura kingdom thus making them legitimate co-owners of the present territory of Tripura, the Hill Tripura.1 What these intellectuals overlooked is the fact that embedded in this thesis, though serves its purpose, are serous flaws which can devastate the very idea of co-ownership of the land along with the tribal. Firstly, political boundaries do not have legal significant in changed political context. Political, social and economic parameters of citizenship in a monarchy cannot be invoked in a nation state whose conquered territories had already been lost to different nation-state and the boundary demarcated. In a significantly altered political context of Tripura after the end of monarchy perhaps the victims of partition who had the choice to settle on either side of the demarcated border can not be denied legality, however those that came thereafter were legally either legal refugees or illegal immigrants. Secondly, if the criterion of being inhabitants of plain Tripura confers on the Hindu Bengalis the right to co-ownership of internationally demarcated hill Tripura the other category of inhabitants of this territories viz. Chakmas and Muslims have the same entitlement, how is that Chakmas who entered the state from the Chittagong Hill Tracts to escape political instability are branded as refugees, crammed into slum-camps and latter forcibly repatriated? Why this two different categorization of two different people from same category of territory?

These identity-driven Bengalinization projects by Bengali intellectuals who came to hold monopoly of education and historical interpretation in the state obscured historical realities and obstructed accurate memory. From these two projects flowed racist and cultural genocide1 policies, which came to be institutionalized in the very nature of the state: the socio-politico-economic order. High schools, Hospital, health clinics, Banks and other modern welfare centers came to be established only in Bengali settlements. Tripuri students in High schools, colleges and the university felt discriminated. Top offices in the administration were foreclosed and even today these offices lies beyond the glass ceiling. While policies of cultural genocide, and historicide were poignantly portrayed in the governments promotion of Hindu Bengali festivals, imposition of Bengali as the official language, replacement of Twipra Era with Bengali calendar after the merger, banning of Rajmala(the historical account of ancient Tripura), and the denial of Tripuri identity to the indigenous people who came to grouped under the category of Tribals divided along sub-tribes named in accordance with surnames: tribes with reang surname came to be called Reangs, those with jamatia surname came to be called as Jamatias, koloi as Kolois etc. In this manner the Debbarmas should have been called Debbarmas however the Bengali controlled administration in masterstroke chose to designate the identity Tripuri only to the Debbarmas leading to vehement opposition from the indigenous people especially the educated middle class. Thus it is my contention that the change in demographic structure in Tripura change the character and nature of the statehood in Indian context and that its political, social and economic order came to be structured on one principal reality of legitimating the Bengali dominance. This legitimacy is contingent upon the perpetuation of this dominance and that this dominance can be perpetuated only as long as nationalist tendencies did not develop among the Tripuris. The spread of English education and the resentment against Bengali domination paved way for the formation of anti- Bengali organizations leading to visible polarization on ethnic lines: one dominating and the other dominated. The 1980 June conflict was the fulcrum of this divide. This divide has burgeoned over the years accentuating further animosities and contradictions between Bengalis and Tripuris. Tripura today presents a dangerous political construct: two distinct ethnic groups locked in conflictual relationship over the political control of the state, one pushed on the edge and the other determined to maintain its domination at all cost. The ethnic conflict in Tripura while situating within the framework of change in demographic structure needs to be located within the very character and nature of the state structured on twin paradoxes that informs and determines the behavior of the state incapacitating a form of shared rule and shared existence. Empowerment of the indigenous people: economic, political, their education and development will require changes in the very nature and character of the state. The remedy to ethnic conflict in Tripura lies in this change. As long as solution is prescribed within the present system which has been structured on the idea of systematic exclusion of the historically rightful owners of the state conflictual relation between the historically rightful political owners and the new political owners will persist.

Three possible options of restructuring the state will be: one, identify and deport all the immigrants who have entered and settled in Tripura after the merger. This will transfer political power into the hands of its displaced legitimate ethnic group; two, reconfigure the center of political power through restructuring of seat-share in the Legislature on the basis of equal power over political outcome; three, institutionalize different political arrangement whereby ethnically majority cannot imposed decisions on the minority without its consent. One such arrangement would be to adopt the system of plural executive consisting of representatives with veto power elected from ethnically defined constituencies. Second such arrangement would be to devolve more power to the TTAADC with greater economic power, read direct funding by Center, with constitutional guarantee that State decisions which impinges on the ethnic minorities socio-cultural life will require the District Councils assent; and thirdly, transformation of the present TTAADC into an autonomous state in accordance with Article 244(A) of the Indian constitution which is currently applicable only to the state of Assam. This will provide constitutional safeguards to the Tripuris within the framework of Indian constitution by giving them self-government in state within a state.

The Northeast today is delicately poised with locked ethnic communities1 trying to reconstruct their fractured identities in order to curve out political and economic spaces on the lines of their social spaces. The politics of geopolitical constructs of the surrounding nation-states and the character of ethnic composition and the historical time-frame of identity constructions of these ethnicities defined the politics of this region which came to be structured on the lines of not so well defined ethnic boundaries. As such politics in this region is more concerned with politics of presence than with politics of idea2 making parliamentary politics not only unworkable but rendering politics, which is suppose to be instrument of conflict resolution, itself as source of conflict. This region will require a different political system which will balanced the conflictual multi-ethnic identity claims in a form of shared interest and shared rule with guaranteed political space. Such a balance will conceptualize ethnic peace in Tripura. Perhaps the solution to protracted ethnic conflict in Tripura and the region in general lies in imagining the idea of one country two systems. Tripura today manifest a volatile political construct: its politicalscape threatening to tear the entire society to shreds. Ethnic conflict in the state is no longer periodic or endemic: it is systemic. Conflict is being experienced in every day relations. Understanding of the nature and pattern of ethnic conflict in Tripura have been obfuscated by the Bengali intellectuals trapped in their misconceived role of narrating and interpreting the conflicts with the sole purpose of production of knowledge which would legitimize their monopoly of power in the state. Ethnic peace in the state will emerge only when we are able to free ourselves from this trap and accept the reality of need the to accommodate each others claims of political space. Unless each others political space is recognized and guaranteed violence will continue to be theorized and justified. Does the people; the government and the nation have the foresight, imagination to forestall the impending Balkan-like ethnic implosion in Tripura?

[1] I owe this term to Jean-Francois Lyotard (The Postmodern condition)

2 Wasbir Hussain Indias Northeast: The Problem www.Observerindia.com New Delhi, November 18, 2004

1 Census figures of Tripuris prior to 1951 do not project the actual number because according to the oral historical fact all village chiefs who were responsible for the actual head count in their respective territories undercounted so as to lessen the tax burden on the village.

2 Gurudas Das Immigration in Northeast India: The Security Dimension in C. J Thomas (ed) Dimensions of Displaced People in Northeast India Regency Publication, New Delhi, 20002

1 J D Mandal The Agony of Tripura www.geocities.com (accessed Sept. 2005)

2<;/span> Gurudas Das (ibid)

3 K S Subramanian Tribal Insurgency and Rural Development in Tripura EPW, Vol. XXXV, No. 8

4 Khakchang Debbarma Internally Displaced Persons in Twipra in C J Thomas (ed) Dimensions of Displaced People in Northeast India

1 I owe this term to Foulie Psalidas Perlmutter Ethnic Conflicts: The Interplay of Myths and Realities, Orbis, Vol. 44, No. 2, 2000

2 Oral historical evidence suggest that actual land alienation was minimal as most of these refugees were settled in reserved or unoccupied lands

1 Subir Bhaumik The Dam and the Tribal www.himalmag.com May 2004 (accessed July 2005)

1 Stewart F The Root Cause of Conflict: Some Conclusions International Political Science Review, vol. 26, No. 1, January 2005, Sage Publication, London

1 M S Prabhakara Is the Northeast landlocked? EPW, Oct.16, 2004 (Abstract)

2 Anne Philliops The Politics of Presence Claredon Press, Oxford, 1995

Ethnic Conflict in Tripura: Wrong Diagnosis Wrong Prescription

By R K Debbarma