A week earlier, yet another attempt was made to create a common platform for political groups from the North East in order to articulate their shared concerns to the Union Government.
Speaking at the event, Conrad Sangma (Chief Minister of Meghalaya and President of the National People’s Party) lamented that for too long, the same issues had been raised from different platforms.
There was, therefore, a need for a collective voice. He stated that indigenous voices need to be heard and represented through a unified platform — the new regional initiative called “One Northeast.”
Pradyot Bikram Manikya Deb Barma, scion of the Tripura royal family and founder of the Tipra Motha Party (TMP), speaking after Conrad, expressed an angst that must have been weighing on him and many others from the region for a long time.
He sarcastically noted that for years, people from the “mainland” (not his word, but mine) could not differentiate between one Northeasterner and another, and therefore it was time for the people of the North East to speak in a united voice.
The racial stereotyping of Northeasterners as having similar facial features has long been a common trope among those on the mainland. But to be honest, having visited the mainland myself, I too have made the same mistake.
Recently, I congratulated the wrong person for a fascinating presentation on maps during a program at Asian Confluence, a think tank based in Shillong. I quickly realised my mistake and apologised. Since both presenters were from the Gangetic belt, they looked and sounded the same to me.
So, I can understand people from the mainland making similar mistakes. Pradyot’s angst reveals that there is a lot of personal baggage that comes with this attempt to form a united front — and that is perfectly fine.
“The personal is political” was a slogan made popular during second-wave feminism, highlighting how issues like domestic violence, workplace inequality, and relationships are not individual failings but the result of larger political and social structures.
In short, personal motivations are the products of broader political systems that give them legitimacy and expression.
When personal grievances are shared by a larger collective — which is naturally the case —political mobilisation is required to undo those unfair impositions, be it patriarchy, misogyny, or, in this case, racial discrimination and neglect.
Grassroots community mobilisation is always crucial for amplifying voices from the ground, but true change can only come through the capture of political power, which requires large-scale mobilisation around a unifying idea.
For me, in the context of the North East, that idea has to be ‘indigeneity’, also expressed in the press conference announcing the new political platform.
The term ‘indigenous’ has been used frequently by many, and there are some who are uncomfortable with it — sometimes even from within indigenous communities.
The latter are often those who see their political future aligned with Hindutva — the belief that South Asia was originally a Hindu region, and who advocate for the idea of an “Akhand Bharat”, representing an undivided India that historically includes modern-day Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Tibet. Of course, this is historically a false idea.
Hindutva and the version of Hinduism we know today are strongly connected to Vedic practices and literature, which arrived in South Asia with the Indo-Aryan–speaking people around 3,500 years ago.
They eventually occupied areas once inhabited by those who created the Indus Valley Civilization, most likely Dravidian speakers, possibly alongside some Austroasiatic groups. Over time, the original population was either displaced or assimilated, with the incoming group imposing its language and customs.
Cultural practices, however, remained syncretic, with many non-Vedic traditions continuing into what later became known as Hinduism.
There are thinkers like Devdutt Pattanaik, a renowned mythologist, speaker, and bestselling author, who frequently argues against ‘Brahmanical Hinduism’ (Vedic in origin), claiming that ‘vernacular Hinduism’ — the practice of worshipping rivers, nature, and local deities — is truly indigenous.
But the Hinduism of Hindutva is not this vernacular version. It is one based on Vedic literature and Sanskrit (and its associated North Indian languages, including Hindi), which are not indigenous to South Asia.
What is also interesting is that genetic evidence shows that Dalits and lower castes are primarily South Asian in origin, while upper castes have Steppe ancestry from Central Asia.
While some sections of the indigenous population may have been assimilated favorably into the emerging varna system (the foundation of the caste system), many were relegated to the bottom.
This mirrors patterns seen elsewhere in the world, where indigenous populations were marginalised and dispossessed of their lands and cultures.
The attempt to impose Hindi as the national language is just another form of assimilation and erasure of indigenous identity and culture — a process that continues to this day.
This is also why Hindi is vehemently opposed in the South, as the Dravidians are the oldest indigenous group in South Asia and are unwilling to let an older tradition be erased by that of later arrivals.
In the context of the North East, the idea of indigeneity becomes even more relevant when we look at the people who came together to create the “One Northeast” platform.
The announcement brought together Conrad Sangma (and his brother), Pradyot Bikram Manikya Deb Barma, Daniel Langthasa (founder of People’s Party), and Mmhonlumo Kikon (former national spokesperson of BJP).
Except for Kikon, all three belong to the larger Kok-Borok linguistic group, the second-oldest group in the North East and probably in South Asia.
The Kok-Borok (which includes the Garo, Tripuri, Bodo, Dimasa, Koch, etc.) are among the oldest groups in the Brahmaputra valley.
The Khasis, an even older group, seemed to have avoided the swampy lowlands and settled in the highlands, which were less disease-ridden. So, when the Kok-Borok first arrived in the region, the highlands were already occupied by the Khasis, so they settled along the Brahmaputra valley.
The original name of the Brahmaputra was most probably Dihang — “Di” in Bodo and Dimasa means water or river. Hence, many rivers across Assam begin with “Di”: Dihang, Dihing, Dikow, Dibang, Dikrong, etc. Similarly, just like place names like Lumding (in today’s Hojai district) and Kamakhya or Ka-Mei-Kha point to a Khasi past, the river names also reflect a Kok-Borok influence.
In fact, during a personal conversation, Sonal Jain, noted artist and author from Shillong, told me that during her stay in Assam, she realised that the caste Assamese were wary of the Brahmaputra, whereas the Bodos had a tradition of fishing with river dolphins.
If we include the Konyak and Singpho as part of the larger Sal language group, to which Kok-Borok also belongs, they are arguably the most successful linguistic group in the North East.
Thus, it is quite fitting that the three individuals from the Kok-Borok group — Conrad, Pradyot, and Daniel— along with Kikon (a Lotha Naga belonging to the Kuki-Chin-Naga language group, which includes Kuki-Zomi, Meitei, and Naga groups) have taken the mantle to create a common platform for Northeastern groups.
What is frustrating, however, is that there were no Khasis at that press conference. The Khasis are the oldest group in the North East and the second oldest in South Asia, and they should have been present at such a gathering.
An angst I have often heard from Khasi intellectuals is that Khasis feel hemmed in by the incoming Tibeto-Burman groups. This, they argue, has led to a siege mentality and reluctance to join larger formations. But that is not entirely accurate.
The Khasis belong to the larger Austroasiatic group, which includes communities in Central India such as the Mundas and others, whose combined population exceeds 10 million.
In comparison, the Tibeto-Burman population (Kok-Borok, Kuki-Chin-Naga, Tani-Mishmi, Konyak, Tibetan) in India is about half that — around 5 million.
After the Bodos, the Khasis are the second-largest single indigenous ethnic group in the North East. We are the most successful indigenous group in both South Asia and the North East, and it is time we cross Khanapara and explore beyond.
The crucial question now is whether the word ‘indigenous’, as used by Conrad Sangma and others, is meant to signify ‘first settlers’ — and whether they will stand up and fight for that idea.
Many remain skeptical of this new formation, and rightly so. But personally, the idea of a common platform with indigeneity as its core principle is something I wholeheartedly welcome. We need this — and we need it now.
The views expressed in the article are those of the author and do not reflect in any way his affiliation to any organisation or institution.
Also Read: How a Biate book turned knowledge co-creation into shared storytelling
You just read a story that took days to report. Help us keep our reporters on the ground in the Northeast.
Ad-free reading, support and keep important stories alive
Support once (any amount)
Scan to pay via UPI