THE FLUIDITY OF IDENTITIES IN THE NORTHEAST

Tribal identities in the Northeast have evolved over time. The British colonial administration left a deep imprint, as did the tribesmen's experience in the world wars

- PRADIP PHANJOUBAM

THE Northeast ethnic cauldron is known for regularly boiling over. This is only to be expected.

Long before the arrival of modern administration brought by the British, this cauldron has always had a mix of "state carrying populations" and "non-state" tribesmen. This resulted in a unique internal friction that was so well characterised by James C Scott in his book The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Much of the ethnic turmoil the region is witnessing today is a continuation and sometimes a complication of this tension within.

As non-state tribesmen wake up to the reality of the modern state and begin aspiring for one for themselves, they find their statehood already defined. Much of the insurgencies in the region, as well as the ethnic rivalries, are consequences of this unsettled question of identity. The current ethnic violence in Manipur between the Kuki-Zo tribes and Meiteis has elements of this, though there were also other immediate triggers. It is another story that the Union and state governments have not done enough to resolve the crisis seven months into it.

Demonstrated in this unfolding drama is also the contention that identity is fluid and dynamic, and not by any means static or fixed. Identity, like so many attributes of the human story, is fiction. It has all to do with choosing to belong to one story or the other of peoplehood and nationhood. Yuval Noah Harari in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind and, much before him, Benedict Anderson in Imagined Communities pointed out that humans have a unique ability to tell stories and, on the basis of these stories, unite to build communities.