Politics of Identity, Autonomy and Tribal question in Assam

Abstract:
Assam in the North-East of the country is a conglomeration of multiple identity groups.
The diversity in the state has woven a complex relationships in the process of building a
collective identity. The historicity of the diverse composition of the ‘Assamese’ identity can be
traced to the period since the Ahom rule upto the contemporary. Identity politics in Assam in its
historical juncture has been shaped by immigration. Tribal groups belonging to Austric and
Mongoloid races were believed to be the first group to enter the region. Tribal communities like
the Bodo, Garo, Rabha, Deuries, Misings, Dimasas, Lalung, and Hajong belongs to the
Mongoloid race. However, with the coming of nation state, identity construction has become a
state mechanism of political demarcation. Also, it has undergone coalescence for a collective
identity through the process of acculturation, assimilation and integration. In this process, the
tribal movements in the state is embedded with inherent identity assertion ranging from
collaborative to conflictual. Thereby, the contestation of Assamese identity is in a volatile
process of construction that involves both historical and contemporary paradigms. As a
consequence, competing narratives of identity between the little narratives and master narratives
has let the perception of reflexive and relativised identity relationship. Being a land of
composite identity and culture, the proportionate (12.44%, Census 2011) presence of tribal
population in the state is a significant paradigm in the identity politics of the state. The question
of identity, since the pre and post independence is two folded and often contrasted between a
‘composite greater Assamese’ and ‘tribal identity’. The approach to identity question in Assam is
inadequate in a mere camouflage of composite ethnicity while substandarizing the primacy and
concerns of the constitutive tribal communities. Rather the identity crisis has a complex web to
considered. The definition of ‘Assamese’ in contemporary time has been a discourse. A close
scholarly analysis of the transformation of identity question in Assam reveals multi facets of
historical interpretation that identifies parameters of both cultural and economic. The paper
attempts to understand as to what constitutes these identities in the light of tribal politics. In an
effort to understand the same, it uses textual and secondary analytical sources to discusses on
three key aspects, i.e Identity politics, Autonomy and the tribal question. Analysing the interlink
of these aspects, the paper highlights an insight as to what culminate and has triggered the
notion of tribal identity in the realm of contemporary socio-politics.

Introduction: India’s celebration of unity in diversity is a charismatic feature of constitutional

democracy. A country vast in geography, multi facets of regional sentiments, multiple dialects
and language beyond 22 official languages and a structural social system webbed with caste,
class and tribe notion among many of the diversified feature are vibrant in understanding India.
Indian societies in the conglomeration of diversities have surpassed celebration and tension since
independence. Fate of unity in diversity in Indian democracy has been influenced by electoral
determinism but swayed by vote bank politics. The struggle of Indian society during the colonial
period was to dissuade the British supremacy over India. The freedom struggle staged on self
determination and independence from colonial yoke asserted the identity of Indian State. The
Independence that followed redeeming the pledge of tryst with destiny took the nation to its birth
of a nation state. The success of overthrowing the British provided grounds for building the
nation. So thus, Nehru's idea of nation in the making has been a task in the face of diversified yet
claimed to be a united nation. Language of suppression and subjugation backlashed on the
colonial government’s were a raison d'être of freedom struggle. However, the language persist
and is pertinent in the process of ‘nation in the making’ since independence. The diverse
ethnicities of the nation despite being a constituent building blocks in the nation’s identity,
backlashes the state with the same language of lackadaisical and subordinations.
The intricacy of nation building since then across the country is varied in regions and
context. Assertion of different groups in various parts of the country is evident and a crucial
replicate of identity crisis. These assertions seek demands of identity protection and preservation
in within the ambit of the Indian constitution. The question of identity in the context of Assam in
the North East of India itself possess a complex nature. The question of identity in Assam has
been crucial since the pre independence period and at contemporary it has taken a paradigm shift
in the definition of Assamese identity. Apprehension of intrusion and a subsequent disruption in
the society, culture and economy of the state had been an alarming question for the population
since the colonial period. Evolution of identity crisis have centered on issues of magnitudinal
migrants, The British policy of imposing Bengali as the official language which later was shifted
to Assamese in 1836 was a wrath embedded in the Assamese identity. The crisis of identity in
Assam in the post independence was evidently reflexive in the popular Assam movement of
1979-1985. In the along side of this larger Assamese nationality question, tribal movements of
the Bodos, Mising, Dimasas, and Karbis among others in different part and time in the state is a
key indication of tribal identity crisis. Mass movement in response to the clarion call of
Assamese identity had left 855 martyrs. While Nellie massacre of 1983 killing 2191 civilians in
Nagaon district are violent epitome of identity crisis. The threat of identity crisis is posed by the
increasing magnitude of infiltration which over the period of time have potentially strained the
share of political and economic resources including land in its priority. These culminates to
imbalance in the societal aspects of culture, language and the society at large. Therefore, the
tribal identity question in the larger spectrum of Assamese identity is jeopardized due to the
absence of a strong supportive will of any successive govt. till date.

The approach to identity question in Assam is inadequate in a mere camouflage of

composite ethnicity while substandarizing the primacy and concerns of the constitutive tribal
communities. Rather the identity crisis has a complex web to considered. The definition of
‘Assamese’ in contemporary time has been a discourse. A close scholarly analysis of the
transformation of identity question in Assam reveals multi facets of historical interpretation that
identifies parameters of both cultural and economic. Economically, the burden of migrants since
the colonial period has been a tussle in sharing resources like lands and employment
opportunities. While language question culturally was a concern of scepticism due to
prioritisation of Bengali language in the colonial days. However, Assamese language as an
identity marker is noteworthy even after 1873. The importance of insistence on language
parameter while tampering the alienation of the tribals is inadequate and self destructive in the
20th century (Sengupta, 2006 ). Down the line in the contemporary, the question of who an
‘Assamese’ is lacks a unanimous definition. Rather its definition has many versions without a
consensus. Seeking the definition of Assamese recently in 2015 have set a spark in the legislative
assembly. Civil society, intellectuals and different cultural bodies in the state attempted to exact
the definition of Assamese. Yet a firm definition of Assamese is a lack that intrigues the
problems of identity politics in Assam.

In the search for Assamese identity, the tribal question and their numeric presence with
12.44% share of total population augments the crisis. Assam in the North- East of India is home
to as many as 23 tribal communities. The tribes of Assam may broadly be classified into two
categories: plain tribes and hill tribes. Of these nine are categorized into plain and fourteen into
hill tribes. The plain tribes are mainly concentrated in the plain areas of the state and the hill
tribes in the hilly areas. The tribal populations of Assam are highly differentiated in terms of
ethno-lingual characteristic as well as in term of socio-economic standard. The tribals of Assam
are generally classified on the basis of territory, language, occupation, physical characteristics
and cultural contacts. Like the rest of India while considering the tribal population there is some
difference with their nature. The tribes of Assam are not primitive, nor they are very backward
and all of them are not hill dwellers or forest dwellers. They are hardly cut-off physically and
socio – culturally from non–tribes. The identity question in the light of the tribal context has a
vivid and distinct interpretation in defining an Assamese as an identity. Identity crisis therefore is
not merely a concern of crisis, but also a contentious issues aggravated by assertion of self
determinism and right based demands of the indigenous tribal movements in Assam. In the
contemporary, identity politics intrinsically has been a heavyweight in situating the fate of
politics, culture and economy of the state. In this context, the catchy invocation for Jati, Mati
and Bheti (the political invocation of identity, land and base) has already taken a political grip.
While the resonance of it is yet sceptic with mixed reaction across identities and communities.

Politics of Identity and tribals: The analysis of identity politics contains element of ‘Identity’
and ‘Politics’. The former is a subject while the latter is a process or strategy that positions the
subject. The incapacity of politics has pushed the identity of tribal to a crisis. Identity as a subject
has elements of both cultural and economic aspects. The tribal traits in the form of language,
culture, economy and feature constitute the elements of tribal identity. The nature and extent of
accommodations and acceptance of these elements in the composite identity of Assamese
society has been determined by the politics. Politics of identity is not new to Assam. Identity
interest and role of politics in the state has its own historicity since the colonial period and is
perpetuated in contemporary days. Langman (Langman, 1994) view of identity politics as a
misplaced response to rapid social change due to economic dislocation explains the materialist
cause of the emergence of identity politics. Loss of lands to non tribal due to economic
dislocation causing subsequent scarcity in resource share has brought societal change in the
spheres of culture and politics. Understanding identity politics of the tribals as a means for the
marginalised groups to have a voice and to generate a self designated identity instantiated by its
constituents (Dalgliesh, 2013) is intrinsic to tribal movements. The tribal movements in the
realm of their identity politics asserts their identical and indigeneity of culture. This assertion
advocates identity politics as a cultural politics seeking for respect and recognition of the
inherent cultural differences (Bernstein, 2005).
 Identity politics in Assam in its historical juncture has been shaped by immigration.
Migration of different race group into Assam took place 200 years. before BC. Tribal groups
belonging to Austric and Mongoloid races were believed to be the first group to enter the region.
Tribal communities like the Bodo, Garo, Rabha, Deuries, Misings, Dimasas, Lalung, and Hajong
belongs to the Mongoloid race. Aryan migrants in Assam is said to have taken place during the 1
A.D (Srikanth, n.d.). In the erstwhile, the region was known as Pragjyotishpur. Later, the Barman
ruler ruled Assam from 350-650 AD and was renamed as Kamrup. The Barmans during the
period converted to hinduism and the process continued even in the periods of Salastambha (650
AD to 790 AD) and pal dynasties (up to 1142 AD). The coming of Ahoms in 1228 AD was
another landmark in the migration history of Assam. They ruled Assam for 600 years until the
kingdom was weakened by internal conflicts paving ways for Burmese invasion. Taking
opportunity of political crisis. the British took control of entire region in 1826 by the treaty of
Yandaboo. The majestic rule of Ahoms deterred the invasion of the Mughal rulers into the
region. However, the Ahoms in the process of establishing its kingdom had faced stiff resistance
from the tribal and local chiefs. In the subsequent periods, the British administration had
administratively restructured the whole of Assam.

During the Colonial rule, the tribal regions in different parts of Assam were brought
under British rule as well. Until carving out a separate Chief Commissionership of Assam in
1874, the region was under the umbrella of Bengal Presidency. Considering administrative
efficiency and tribal interest, the British institutionalised the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system in
1920. By the system, tribal inhabited regions were demarcated with an imaginary boundary
under protection from encroachment. In the like manner restructuring of British administration,
the inclusion of Bengali inhabited regions like Goalpara, Cachar and Sylhet districts have
stimulated the indignation of the Assamese. The fear psychic of subjugation and domination by
the Bengali speaking population was a concern of cultural and language identity for the
Assamese. Besides cultural concern, economic factor also had influenced the increasing identity
consciousness of the Assamese community. In this juncture of growing consciousness, the
Assamese nationalist sentiment projected the Bengali as enemy. Thereby the Bengali population
was ‘othered’ as outsiders and ‘non native’. The political expression of collective Assamese
consciousness by the middle class succeeded in spreading the same among the tribal
communities living in the Brahmaputra valley. Integration of the tribal community by the process
of national solidarity in building a greater Assamese society was a way forward in the formation
of identity. However, it has never been a desire of the tribal communities to immerse and
integrate with the Assamese language and culture at the cost of their distinct social, cultural and
economic features. Tribal communities albeit gradually have adopted hinduism and Assamese as
lingua franca, they still have maintained their cultural and language identity intact. The extent of
holding intact to their respective language and culture varies among the tribes. Bodos have
developed their language in devanagari script and Mising have adopted roman script in their
language. While tribes like Deuri, Tiwa and Rava have adopted Assamese script in their
language. The Bodo language in the state has also been recognised as an official language.
However, other tribal groups are yet to develop their language on par with the Assamese
language. Although Mising language of the Mising community was introduced at the primary
level in 1986, the implementation and development of the tribal language is lackadaisical with
least political will of the government till date. Effort of developing the Mising language had been
a mere one time appointment of language teacher in 1986. This lack of strong political will to
cater the interest of tribal identity and language has substantially failed. As a result of poor shape
of tribal languages, the educational development of the tribal in the state has been hard hit.
Noteworthily, the development of Assamese language is a result of interaction among different
tribal groups in Assam.

The increased identity assertion of the tribal arguably is a pertinent offshoot of the Assam
Official Language Act 1960. It caused suspicion of hegemonizing Assamese culture and
language among the tribals. Tribal groups realised and organised for asserting their identity as
separate. Thereby, various socio-cultural groups emerged for cultural revivalism. The Mising
community for instance formed various socio-cultural organisations viz. Takam Mising Porin
Kebang (1971), Mising Agom Kebang (1972), Mising Divrbi Kebang (1980) and Mising Mimag
Kebang (1993) (Bora, 2014). This wave of cultural revivalism of the tribal is an antithesis to the
idea of Assamese identity gradually moving from a position of ‘multilingual uniculture’ to one of
‘unilingual multicultural’ (Sengupta, 2006). Identity crisis since then has stepped into the
loggerheads of intra-ethnic identity competition,. The success of these tribal assertions is meagre
and partial in the rising complex socio-political nature of Assam. Demands and failure of
accommodating the tribal assertion has shaped the social movement of the tribals which have
witnessed sporadic violence in the recent past.

Considering the tribals as sub nationalist group (Srikanth, 2000) of the composite
Assamese group has twofold consequences. Firstly, it subordinates the primacy of the tribal at
the helm of the composite Assamese supremacy. The vouch for greater Assamese society while
being ignorant of the tribal as an inalienable composite elements jeopardise and stimulates the
later to exert their assertion for autonomy and distinctness from the non tribals. This has been a
reason for the growth of tribal consciousness since the early decades of the 20th centuries.
Undermining the contribution of the tribal solidarity in building the Assamese society is a
hegemonic blunder that mounts to the indignation of the tribal. For a way forward, it is
essentially worthwhile introspecting the foundation of modern Assamese identity where the
hegemonic Bengali culture and language was a serious concern for today's established identity as
‘Assam’ and ‘Assamese’. Secondly, the subordinate position of the tribals as sub nationalist has
implication in the society, economy and politics of the communities. The tribal population in
Assam is predominantly rural with 95.3 per cent in rural settlement. Development of tribals in
the hills and plains has been stagnant with vast disparity in within the state. Taken the literacy
performance of the tribals as an indicator, it is still 13.24% behind the state’s literacy rate of
72.2%. The educational background of the tribal is more deteriorated while considering the
gender gap with a mere 49.35% tribal female literacy against the state’s 66.3% female literacy.
While, tribal economy is characterized by extreme dependence on agriculture at subsistence
level, low yield rates, low per capita productivity, under employment and unemployment is
inimical to the economic progress. Out migration of tribals into cities due to lack of access to
livelihood opportunity is an emerging scenario that impacts the agriculture of the tribals in the
rural. The hardship of tribal under development has been fuelled by different factors. Flood as an
annual natural calamities in Assam has hard hit the Mising tribes inhabiting the river banks of the
Brahmaputra. The politics of flood in Assam has become a primary concern attached to the tribal
movement of the Mising community. Similarly, Bodos and Karbis among other tribes have
witnessed turbulent times of violence erupting out of identity crisis.

The janajatikaran movement (the demands for ST status in Assam) and the The
Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 are two emerging challenges in the identity politics of
tribals in Assam. The former is a concerted movement of 6 ethnic groups demanding ST status.
While the latter is a constitutional amendment seeking to grant citizenship to illegal migrants
who are Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians from Bangladesh, Afghanistan
and Pakistan. Janajatikaran has been a political card despite rejection of their demands in the
past. It has created a further indignation among the tribals. The claim for inclusion in the ST list
begs further questions of who an ST is. The process is at halt under a review process where
modalities are sought for reformation. Tribal bodies have been opposing the demand and rather
concerted their voice in uplifting the status quo of the existing tribals. Meanwhile the zeal of the
Citizenship (Amendment) Bill is a paradox of the government’s Jati, Mati, Bheti promise where
the identity politics is pushed to a perilous identity crisis.

Tribal question and Autonomy: Tribe as an identity in Indian society lacks a blanket definition.
The identity has problems in empirical studies as to what constitute a tribal identity. Often, it also
surfaces academic discourses regarding tribe as an ‘indigenous people’. Nonetheless, attached
with these discourse also intrinsically contains the development aspects of the tribes. Tribes
albeit often considered as ‘primitive’ and ‘backward’ has been an integral part of the country’s
development planning. The question of tribal development was a primary concern dealt by Nehru
and Elwin in the dawn of the country’s independence and followed in the post independence
period as well.

Nehru and Elwin had differences in understanding a caste based society and a tribal
society. With his pro-tribal approach, Elwin distinguished tribal society from a caste society
where the latter is a dominant society involving in exploitation and destruction of tribal
economy. However, nehru refuted this distinction arguing that it has no structural and qualitative
differences, albeit superficial. The contestation on the tribal history in India, Nehru argues the
tribal historiography as a colonial construct and distortion of true evidence. On the other hand
Elwin argues tribal problem as economic exploitation and cultural destruction by the caste
society (Rath, 2006). His approached tribal development as a unitary and independent exercise of
their own economic structure and is replicated in his ‘leave them alone’, National Park’ or
‘isolation’. In the development debate of the tribal, Elwin had described himself as
‘protectionist’ while Nehru and anthropologist and sociologists like Ghurye and M.N Srinivas
rejected the isolationist approach. Elwin remarked that tribal problem should be seen in their
own context. While saying so, the economy of the tribes intrinsically has to do with the culture
and sovereignty of the tribe.

Tribal question in Assam can be understood into two categories viz. Autochtones and non
autochtones tribes. Non autochtones are migrants groups who came into Assam during the
British period as tea plantation labourer. They mainly migrated from Jharkhand and other eastern
part of India (Hussain, 1992). Although they are tribals in their erstwhile homeland, these groups
are not included in the Scheduled Tribe category in Assam. Rather, they are called as ‘adivasis’
or ‘bagania’ (tea gardeners). While the autochthonous tribes are the tribal groups included in the
scheduled tribal list. Furthermore, the autochthonous tribal groups are classified into two groups
viz. The hill tribes and the plain tribes. The term plain tribe was used by the Britishers in a semi
geographical and semi sociological terms thereby conglomerating a large set of people (Pathak,
2010). The usage of the term since then has been crafted as an identity in the
politico-administrative unit of the state.

The classification of tribal into different groups in different parts of the country begs the
question as to who the tribals are? According to the Lokur committee, a tribe is defined with 5
characteristic features. They are (i) primitive traits, (ii) distinctive culture, (iii) geographical
isolation, (iv) shyness of contact with the outside world, and (v) backwardness. The
contemporary relevance of ‘primitive’ characteristic reputed as defunct in defining a tribal
community. The usage of the term according to V. K. Srivastava in defining a tribe in the
contemporary ‘is paradoxical, and it justly deserves elimination from our vocabulary for
defusing simple, preliterate societies’ (Srivastava, 2008). Nonetheless, the Draft National Tribal
Policy (NTP) 2004 continued to use the concept of Lokur committee in defining tribes. The draft
notes tribal communities as follows:-

‘are known to dwell in compact areas, follow a community way of life, in harmony with
nature, and have a uniqueness of culture, distinctive customs, traditions and beliefs which are
simple, direct and non-acquisitive by nature (Ministry of Tribal Affairs n.d; p 2)’.

Given the operational concept of unique culture, distinctive custom, tradition and beliefs
the constitutional right to protection, promotion of culture and the preservation of languages of
the tribe is a pertinent question embedded in the tribal identity politics. The question as to who
will preserve their interest fundamentally is an imperative responsibility of the state. The failure
and lukewarm attitude of the states in serving the tribal interest has been a question in the gamut
of politics. Resultantly, the tribal communities have concerted voice through collective
mobilisation and movement. The rationale of such movements in Assam has friction in the larger
question of nationality and sub nationality. Contemporary relevance of these movements has
included larger issues of development discourse in its ambit. The demands of the tribal
movement are centered in the constitutional principles and values of democracy, justice and
equality. Assertion of tribalism and its constitutional safeguard of tribal autonomy has been the
consistent demand of the tribals in the larger spectrum. Demands of autonomy in the recent past
have aggravated due to the indifferent attitude of the state and the so called greater Assamese
society towards the tribal fears of being outnumbered and of being dispossessed of land and
resources in the face of emerging socio economic and political complexity in the identity politics
of the state.

The tribal question in Assam in relation to the ‘son of soil theory’ provides another
paradigm of examining identity crisis. Historian Bipan Chandra in his book India Since
Independence argues the doctrine as ugly face of regionalism that emerged in the 1950s
(Chandra at el, 2008: 160). According to him it underlies the view that a state belongs to those
inhabiting there or are settled whose mother tongue is the main language. The theory with
language as a specific criterion has exclusivity and inclusivity. The formers are ‘outsiders’ while
the latter are ‘local/native’. The theory essentially is relevant to the development of regionalism
in Assam. The Assam language agitation (1960) and the Assam Movement (1979-1985)
reflected development of regionalism in aversion to the Bengali speaking population. However,
the operationalisation of the theory in linguistic parameters has contestation with tribal identity.
The tribals in Assam have their distinct language. Albeit Assamese is an official language, the
tribals subscribe to their own languages. Assamese for the tribals is not a mother tongue but
lingua franca. Therefore, defining non Assamese in tribal context as those natives of Assam who
live in Assam and whose mother tongue is not Assamese is an inherent problem of the theory.
The theory with linguistic criterion is repugnant to the tribal movement asserting for cultural
revivalism.

The term indigenous is unquestionably wide used to refer the tribals in India (Virginius,
1999). The tribals being indigenous are contending to the son of the soil theory where they do
not subscribe to Assamese as their mother tongue. The ingenuity of the tribal in such wisdom
cannot be denied under the canvass of linguistic criterion. The tribals are indigenous with their
own distinctiveness of culture and language who in its historicity has been marginalised. Despite
marginalisation, the tribals in Assam proudly assert in maintaining their own trait of institution in
governing their social, economic and cultural life. The reflections of tribal self governance are
evidently acknowledged through the 6th schedule of the Indian constitution and also through
state legislative act of granting autonomous councils. Despite being granted partial autonomy, the
contemporary tribal movement in Assam is a vivid votary of tribal revivalism. The tribal
demands in contemporary can be read as a movement to adjust tribal position in consonance to
the larger identity politics of the state.

Conclusion: Identity politics in Assam intrinsically opens the pandora’s box of identity crisis.
The crisis of greater Assamese identity and the tribal identity as distinct from the hinduised
Assamese society is a contestation of nationalism and subnationalism in within the state. The
distinction between the two had been advocated by the rising tribal consciousness in the early
part of the 20th century. The Tribal league formed in 1933 as the flagbearer of tribal identity
asserted the differentness between tribal and caste hindu society. Today’s tribal movement is an
advancement of the league’s legacy. The discourse of ‘tribal’ as an ‘identity’ claims
independency of their distinctiveness. On the contrary, the dominant Assamese caste hindu is
reluctant to acknowledge the tribal identity as a distinct entity. The vouch for Assam as a
pilgrimage land for Shankar and Azan Fakir has less relevant while subjugating and denying the
primacy and interest of the tribals. The tribal assertion of their distinctiveness has its own roots
whose formation and evolution of identity lies in the same land of Shankar and Azan Fakir.
Rather, the discourse on Assamese identity as a composite and greater Assamese society with
simultaneous ignorance of tribals as a constituent element is a mere appeasement. Passive
acceptance and active denial of tribal primacy in Assamese society is responded by more
assertive tribal movements. Rather it lies in the wisdom of the greater Assamese society’s
acceptance of their distinction. Needless to state, the role of state in accommodating the tribal
interest and demands in the ambit of constitutional provision is the only way forward. The
otherwise has already witnessed virulent tribal movement albeit sporadic. While the wave is
being more traversed with demands of state within states.
References:

Bernstein, M (2005): “Identity Politics,” Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 47-74.

Bora, P (2014): “The Mising Movement in Assam: Awaited Accord and Unanswered
Questions,” Social Change and Development,Xi, 63-72. Retrieved July 22, 2017, from
http://okd.in/downloads/jr_14_july/Pankaj.pdf

Chandra, B (2008), India since independence, B Chandra, M Mukherjee M and A Mukherjee

(eds.), Penguin Publication, New Delhi:.

Dalgliesh, B (2013): “Problematising the Political Theory of Identity Politics: Towards an

Agonistic Freedom,” Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy,7(1), 69-95. doi:10.25138/7.1.a.5

Hussain, M (1992): “Tribal Question in Assam,” Economic and Political Weekly, 27(20/21),
1047-1050. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4397885

Langman, L (1994): “From capitalist tragedy to postmodern farce: the eighteenth broomstick of
H. Ross Perot.” Rethinking Marxism. 7(4): 115 37

Ministry of Tribal Affairs (nd): “The National Tribal Policy (draft), 2006, New Delhi:
Government Press.

Pathak, S (2010): “Tribal Politics in the Assam: 1933-1947”. Economic and Political Weekly,
45(10), 61-69. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25664196

Rath, G C. (2006). Tribal development in India: the contemporary debate, New Delhi: Sage
Publications.

Sengupta, M (2006): “Historiography Of The Formation Of Assamese Identity: A Review,”

Peace and Democracy in South Asia, Volume 2, 121-134.

Srikanth, H. (2000). Militancy and Identity Politics in Assam. Retrieved January 19, 2018, from
http://www.epw.in/system/files/pdf/2000_35/47/Militancy_and_Identity_Politics_in_Assam.pdf

Srivastava, V (2008): “Concept of 'Tribe' in the Draft National Tribal Policy,” Economic and
Political Weekly, 43(50), 29-35. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40278288

Xaxa, V (1999): “Tribes as Indigenous People of India,” Economic and Political Weekly, 34(51),
3589-3595.