In recent times, the BJP has been making some right moves in its attempt to shed the tag of being a party geared towards protecting only the interests of outsiders. It was the BJP, under the leadership of Bernard Marak, that raised the issue of preventing the non-indigenous community from taking part in the ADC elections.
This was argued as a step to protect the rights of the indigenous community, which is said to be reeling under the onslaught of illegal immigration. Census data does reveal that while the absolute population of indigenous tribals has increased in Garo Hills, in percentage terms it has declined, while that of the non-indigenous population has indeed risen.
So, influx has taken place, and the fear of the indigenous community becoming a minority in its homeland is real in Garo Hills. This is not the case in the Khasi region (i.e., Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills and Ri Bhoi), where outmigration is the norm. The next Census is, therefore, going to be very crucial.
It is likely that the proportion of indigenous tribals in the Garo region may have declined further, while in the Khasi region it could increase. If not, the agitation for ILP is likely to become more volatile.
However, one aspect that must be kept in mind is that the non-indigenous populations in question are largely Bengali Muslims, a community often labelled by the BJP as illegal immigrants.
While they are immigrants, it is not justified to label them illegal if they have been residing in the state since Independence. While new migrants have arrived over time, without proper verification it is incorrect to categorise all as illegal.
The fear of being overwhelmed by migrant populations persists, but the place where this has actually occurred is Tripura, and the groups involved were Bengali Hindus, not Muslims.
The NRC also showed that around 19 lakh people had suspect nationality, a number larger than the total population of the Garos. A significant number among them are Bengali Hindus.
Recently, there was controversy in Assam over the candidature of Vijay Gupta, originally from Uttar Pradesh, from the Guwahati Central constituency. However, BJP leadership and Gupta dismissed the charge, asserting that he is Assamese.
This aligns with Himanta Biswa Sarma’s position that even North Indians who have lived in Assam for a considerable period should be considered Assamese. This also explains why, after violence that claimed the life of an indigenous Karbi, Hindi-speaking settlers have not been evicted from public land in Karbi Anglong.
This is where the recent amendment barring non-indigenous participation in ADC elections becomes important. The question is whether similar measures will be implemented in Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao. In these areas, as well as in the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR), the issue involves both Muslim and Hindu settlers.
Addressing this is crucial if the BJP aims to form a government independently in Meghalaya, where the indigenous population remains overwhelmingly dominant. While the party did attempt corrective measures through the ADC amendment, it has simultaneously taken steps that reinforce perceptions of prioritising non-indigenous interests over indigenous concerns.
A recent development underscores this contradiction. Reports indicate that the Meghalaya unit of the BJP is preparing to submit proposals to the Centre for developing key religious and cultural sites under the PRASHAD and Swadesh Darshan 2.0 schemes.
One of the proposed sites is the Mawjymbuin Cave in Mawsynram, which sparked controversy last year. Some non-local groups have claimed the cave holds religious significance due to a natural formation resembling a Shivalinga, associated with the Hindu god Shiva.
This claim has been strongly contested by the local indigenous community, which maintains that the formation is purely natural and that the site has no connection to Hindu religious practice, which is viewed as Niam-Dkhar, or a foreign religion. By that logic, any limestone cave in the state could be reinterpreted as a religious site.
Such moves risk being seen as attempts to fold indigenous Khasi territories into a broader narrative of a mythical Hindu past often described as Akhand Bharat. This overlooks the fact that the Khasi are an ancient people with a language, culture and traditions that predate Sanskrit and organised Hinduism.
For adherents of Niam Khasi, this raises serious concerns about cultural dilution and assimilation. This is particularly sensitive at a time when demands for distinct recognition in the Census are gaining urgency.
If natural sites are reclassified as Hindu religious spaces, it strengthens arguments that indigenous communities are not adivasi (original inhabitants) but vanvasi (forest dwellers within a Hindu framework).
This, in turn, weakens the case for distinct rights and protections. It echoes earlier positions during the Constituent Assembly debates that advocated assimilation of indigenous communities into the mainstream and opening their lands to settlers.
There are concerns that sections within the Don Burom class, who may be sceptical of provisions like the Sixth Schedule, may quietly support such outcomes.
Although the proposal originates from the Meghalaya BJP unit, there is a perception that it may be influenced by inputs from outside the state. It raises a fundamental question: can political affiliation outweigh the long-term interests of indigenous identity and history?
The argument that such proposals are merely suggestive and that local communities will have the final say appears weak, particularly when the community has already made its stance clear.
Even some non-indigenous residents have pointed out that the site was not historically used as a religious space, and that such claims are relatively recent. Today it is Mawjymbuin Cave; tomorrow similar claims could extend to sacred groves or natural formations like Khoh Ramhah.
Ironically, the group most affected by such developments could be the long-settled non-indigenous population. Many among them have lived in Meghalaya for generations and are deeply embedded in its social and economic fabric.
Despite influx concerns in Garo Hills, the number of these ‘genuine non-tribals’ has been declining, which represents a loss for the state. Many are highly skilled individuals whose contributions are vital.
The example of Ankur Das, who secured an All India Rank of 52 in the Civil Services Examination in 2021, illustrates this.
However, moves that trigger suspicion among indigenous communities risk increasing hostility towards them, even when many have no role in such developments and remain committed to the state.
Over time, the non-indigenous community has faced increasing pressure through both direct means—such as threats, intimidation and violence—and indirect means, including restrictions on livelihoods like trading licences.
The BJP has often been perceived as a party attentive to their concerns. However, developments such as these risk deepening mistrust. While such proposals may resonate with external political narratives, they do not align with the sensitivities of those who call Meghalaya home.
As indigenous peoples, there is a need to build a more just and inclusive society, but that cannot come at the cost of eroding identity or rights over land. Such actions are likely to deepen divisions rather than resolve them.
After taking some constructive steps and projecting inclusive leadership figures like Sanbor Shullai, the BJP risks reinforcing perceptions that it prioritises non-indigenous interests. The political implications of this may become evident in the upcoming Lok Sabha bypoll.
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: Northeast is betting on bamboo economy, and this may be a good thing
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