Who the hell is indigenous?

Jiten Bezboruah

Translated from Axomiya by Biswajit K. Bora

The discourse on indigeneity has been a bone of contention in the social and political
life in Assam. This discourse should be discarded.

It is a futile and meaningless exercise to determine a definition of the indigenous by

incorporating each and every community and ethnic group inhabiting in Assam at
present. But the more the timeline for this determination is pushed to the past, the more
discordances and disagreements we come to have. We may say that the definition of the
indigenous has become like a game of kabaddi – as much farther as possible, one party
drags it to the past, while the other party drags it to the present. This exercise has not
been beneficial for anyone, it has rather stirred up a hornet’s nest. Those communities
or ethnic groups who think that they would not come under the definition of the
indigenous or those whom other communities or ethnic groups demarcate as non-
indigenous have been trying their utmost to prove their indigeneity, because the
question of political rights is associated with indigeneity. If a community or ethnic
group is demarcated as indigenous, they would be entitled to have certain political
rights; if not, they would be denied those rights. Hence in such a situation it has become
imperative for everyone to proclaim to be indigenous. From this perspective, we
maintain that the discourse on indigeneity be discarded.

The idea of the indigenous solely as a historical category may be allowed to exist – it
should not be a bone of contention. Such ideas or categories will always be there in the
context of historical analysis – A or B was an indigenous community, later X or Y
migrated here, and so on. There may be debates and disputes regarding the criteria or
the point of time considered to determine the definition of the indigenous; but whatever
the definition be, some communities or ethnic groups living in Assam would always be
excluded from that definition. For instance, according to one definition of the
indigenous, if the tea tribes of Assam are excluded; according to another, the Muslim
miya community would be excluded. But there would not be an apple of discord if the
issue of political rights is not entangled with that definition. That is why we contend
that the idea of the indigenous be espoused only as a historical category, and the
question of political rights be totally dissociated from it. In other words, historically one
community or ethnic group may be demarcated as indigenous or non-indigenous, but
whether that community or ethnic group has political rights or not must not be based
only on their demarcation as indigenous or non-indigenous. In that case, no community
or ethnic group ought to bother about proving or establishing their indigeneity. In case
someone asserts that they are indigenous while some others are not, the answer to such
assertion should be, “So what? Do you have a problem?”

The discourse of indigeneity has exhausted the social and political life in Assam with
ethnic competition and never-ending clashes and conflicts. It is an avoidable quagmire,
and hence it is sensible to put an end to it. But even if the discourse of indigeneity is
done away with, problems and apprehensions of the communities and ethnic groups
would not vanish in thin air. Therefore political and constitutional measures are
required to safeguard the economic, political and social interests of the indigenous
groups, and there should not be any argument against it. But at the same time, similar
measure must be there to safeguard interests and securities of the non-indigenous
groups as well. There must be political and constitutional guarantees so that non-
indigenous communities are not subject to pressure or exploitation at the hands of
majority or indigenous groups. It would be worthwhile to have public debates and
discussions regarding how to do this. But it is favourable for all to discard the discourse
of indigeneity first and foremost.

The idea of the Assamese should be accepted as a universal and inclusive cultural
identity. Each and everyone except those who declare themselves as not being Assamese
should be accepted as Assamese, regardless of whether someone is indigenous or non-
indigenous. It would be easier to deal with the problems and apprehensions associated
with the Assamese identity – for instance, the fear of Assamese hegemony – if a practical
and effective political and constitutional formula is devised to safeguard the interests
and securities of all the communities and ethnic groups.

What we have put forward is only an abstract theoretical proposition. It is easier said
than done to carry it forward in concrete forms. Nevertheless, one must start at some
point! We have already wasted invaluable time trying to find the definition of the
Assamese or to determine the indigenous. What we need now is an alternative –
problematizing the discourse of indigeneity may be a starting point of it.

Postscript: According to news reports, the speaker of the 15th Assam Legislative
Assembly, Biswajit Daimary, said that the Adivasi tea tribes living in Assam are not
Assamese. We believe that nobody has any right to question after they themselves
identified as Assamese. But the leadership of the Assamese nation who demarcate the
Adivasi tea tribes as Assamese is also culpable at the same time – they are in fact more
guilty and answerable. In reality, taking into consideration how the tea garden
labourers are living their life in extreme misery and hardship, the Assamese nation
must be penitent. The mainstream Assamese society has always kept the Adivasi tea
tribe community away with casteist and racial prejudice and disregard, and the political
leadership has always deceived them. For the fact that in spite of all they have been
identifying themselves as Assamese, the Assamese nation must be grateful for them.

(23/05/2021)

[Date of Translation: 25/05/2021]