Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 1

IDSA Occasional Paper No.5

November 2009

Northeast India:
Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics

T T Haokip

Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

New Delhi
2 | T T Haokip

 Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, sorted in a

retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photo-copying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Institute
for Defence Studied and Analyses (IDSA).

ISBN: 81-86019-63-4

First Published: November 2009

Published by: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

No.1, Development Enclave, Rao Tula Ram Marg,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi - 110 010
Tel. (91-11) 2671-7983
Fax.(91-11) 2615 4191
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.idsa.in

Printed at: M/s Printline

H-10, IInd floor, NDSE-I
New Delhi - 110049
Tel: (91-11) 24651060, 24643119
Email: [email protected]
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 3

Contents

1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 5

2. Northeast India: Linguists' Paradise .............................................. 7

3. Language Politics in Northeast India ........................................... 17

4. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 23
4 | T T Haokip
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 5

1
Introduction
Language that differentiates one ethnic group from the other and
demarcates ethnic boundaries has been an existential issue for long. On
many occasions, language has become an increasingly sensitive and political
issue, becoming the basis for organising interest groups. It has been a
major factor in shaping ethnic relations in multiethnic societies of Asia.1
The non-Burman nationalities2 have viewed the adoption of Burmese3 as
the national language of Myanmar as a tool for discrimination against
them. Similarly, the decision of Pakistan to enshrine Urdu4 as the national
language set the stage for decades of ethnic conflict, as the Bengalis and
Sindhis, in particular, viewed it as a policy of privileging some ethnic groups
over others. The driving force behind East Pakistan’s secession was political
and economic disenfranchisement, galvanised by the language issue. The
state’s ideology of using Islam and Urdu, as symbols of Pakistani identity
and national integration did not change even after the secession of East
Pakistan.5 The colonial policy of favouring minority Tamils over the
majority Sinhalese disrupted the 2,000 years of cordial relations between
the two major linguistic groups in Sri Lanka. The passage of the Sinhala-
only Act of 1956, which made Sinhala the country’s official language, was
a turning point in the history of Sinhalese-Tamil relations. In India,
demands from regional groups for greater recognition of their identity

1. For details, see, M.E Brown and Sumit Ganguly (eds) Government Policies and Ethnic Relations
in Asia and the Pacific, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1997.
2. The term ‘non-Burman nationalities’, is used here to denote the ethnic nationalities of
Burma other than the ethnic Burmans. Majority of the non-Burmans have used this term
rather than ‘ethnic minorities’ to refer themselves collectively.
3. Burmese was the only language allowed in the Union Parliament and regardless of a legislator’s
proficiency in his dialect or language or his fluency in English, he was required to speak in
Burmese. The Nation, August 8, 1950, p.1; The Nation, March 14, 1959, p.1; The Guardian
Daily, March 14, 195, p.1.
4. Urdu is spoken by about 3.5 per cent of the total population as against Bangla spoken by
about 54.5 per cent of the total population of Pakistan. Urdu was projected as a major
symbol of national integration in the new country of Pakistan.
5. Many Pakistani historians have admitted that this policy was wrongly adapted. See Hasan
Zaheer, The Separation of Pakistan, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1996.
6 | T T Haokip

began soon after independence, with the demand for recognition of an

Andhra state,6 although the Indian state was initially unsympathetic to
such demand based on linguistic identity. However, the reorganisation of
states primarily on linguistic basis and the inclusion of certain languages
in the Eighth Schedule further helped strengthen the local push-pull of
linguistic identities. The Northeastern region has so many linguistic groups
that it is not realistically possible to reorganise it on linguistic lines.
Nevertheless, the creation of separate states based on linguistic principles
and ethnic identity began with the formation of Nagaland state in 1963.
Thus, linguistic issues continue to play an important role in the politics of
some Asian countries. The demands for more autonomy, separate states
and even secession based on language not only challenge and threaten the
political stability of these countries but also very often lead to ethnic
conflicts. This paper attempts to analyse the complex dynamics of language
politics in resolving or exacerbating ethnic relations in Northeast India.

6. Dipankar Gupta, “Ethnicity and Politics” in Sudipta Kaviraj (ed.), Politics in India, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi, 1999, pp.244-5.
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 7

2
Northeast India: Linguists’ Paradise
The Northeastern region of India, comprising of seven states — Assam,
Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and
Tripura—is often referred to as ‘the Far East of India.’ The linguistic
diversity of the region indicates not only the spatial distribution of various
linguistic groups but also reflects the variegated ethno-cultural mosaic of
the region. The region presents a mixed and varied population of diverse
linguistic groups, each group having a distinct life-style and heritage, and
even aspiring for a separate political identity. An estimated 483 different
tribes with a comparable number of languages and dialects encompasses
the region, reflecting the enormous diversity of the people.7 Although
several linguistic minorities do have hundreds of thousands of speakers,
there are many languages with just a few hundred speakers, which are
being absorbed or in the process of being absorbed by the dominant languages.

Arunachal Pradesh
A heterogeneous state characterised by extraordinary ethnic, cultural,
religious and linguistic diversity, Arunachal Pradesh is very often called a
‘linguist’s paradise’. The population of Scheduled Tribes in Arunachal
Pradesh as per the 2001 census was 705,158. There are more than 100
communities speaking entirely different dialects. Of these, 25 tribes have
a population of over 5,000 as per the 2001 census. The five languages
spoken by the major tribes — Adi, Apatani, Bhoti, Khampti, and Nishi—
have been adopted as the third language under the three language formula.
None of these languages, except Khampti, had any script.8 Nefamese, a
pidgin of Assamese and Arunachalee that came into being due to the
constant contact between the people of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh,
served as the lingua franca of the state. Yet, a distinct Arunachalee identity
has not emerged because of cultural diversities. The identity question in
Arunachal has taken a different turn in the post-Independence period, as
one can locate various trends of identity formation among the numerically
dominant as well as smaller tribes or even sub-tribes.

7. Dipankar Banerjee, Myanmar and Northeast-India, Delhi Policy Group, New Delhi, 1997, p.11.
8. The Khamptis are the only tribe to have a script of their own called ‘Shan’ script.
8 | T T Haokip

Nagaland
The total population of Nagaland as per the 2001 Census was 1,9990,036.
Of these, 1,774,026 are Scheduled Tribes. The communities notified as
Scheduled Tribes in Nagaland are Garo, Kachari, Kuki, Mikir and Naga.
While Naga constitutes 98.2 per cent of the total Scheduled Tribe
population of the state, the Kuki tribe accounts for only 1.1 per cent.
Garo and Kachari account for less than 1 per cent. The Mikir, with a
population of 106 as per the 2001 Census, is the smallest tribe of Nagaland.
The 16 Naga tribes as mentioned in the 1971 Census for the first time
include Angami, Ao, Chakesang, Chang, Chirr, Khiamniungam, Konyak,
Lotha, Makware, Phom, Rengma, Sangtam, Sema, Tikhir, Yimchunger and
Zeliang. The inclusion of Pochury Naga to the list of Naga tribes in the
1991 Census has increased the number of Naga tribes from 16 to 17.
Surprisingly, no population of Makware was returned in the 2001 Census.
The Lotha, Ao, Angami, Konyak, Phom, Chakesang and Sema are the
major Naga tribes, each having a population of more than one lakh as per
the 2001 Census. Each Naga tribe is distinct in character from the others
in terms of customs, language, and attire. Indeed, one tribe does not
understand the language of another tribe. None of the Naga languages
has been declared as official or additional official language. Instead, an
artificial language known as Nagamese, based on the Assamese language,
has evolved as a common link language. Nagamese is not the mother tongue
of any of the tribes nor is it a written language. English, the official state
language, is widely spoken in official circles and is the medium of education
in Nagaland. The Scheduled Tribe population and linguistic profile of
Nagaland is given below.
Table 1: Scheduled Tribe Population of Nagaland, 2001 Census
Name of Total Population Proportion to the
the Tribe total ST population
All Scheduled Tribes 1,774,026 100%
Naga 1,741,692 98.
Kuki 20,195 1.1
Kachari 7,807
Garo 1,582 0.1
Source: Office of the Registrar General, India, 2001
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 9

Table 2: Population of Major Naga Tribes, 2001 Census

Ao 231823 13.2
Sema 241806 13.9
Konyak 243758 14.0
Angami 124696 7.2
Lotha 148210 8.5
Phom 115389 6.6
Chakesang 134646 7.7
Sangtam 83714 4.8
Yimchunger 75983 4.4
Zeliang 71871 4.1
Rengma 50966 2.9
Chang 60885 3.5
Pochury 15908 0.9

Source: Office of the Registrar General, India, 2001

Mizoram
The British after conquering Mizoram9 in 1890 annexed its southern region
to Bengal province and the northern one to Assam province. The southern
region was withdrawn from the Bengal province when the British came to
know that the people inhabiting the two regions were of the same ethnic
groups. Mizoram was then governed and administered by the Governor
of Assam. The organisation that embraced the whole of the then Lushai
Hills before the formation of the Mizo Union was the Young Lushai
Association (YLA), now called the Young Mizo Association (YMA). The
Sailo chiefs dominated the non-Lushais,10 locally known as Hnamchawm.
As a way to contest the monopoly of the Lushais in general and the Sailo

9. The present state of Mizoram, which became a district of Assam in 1898, was known as
Lushai Hills till August 1954.
10. The early Christian missionaries were popular with the commoners (non-Lushais) who
readily took to modern education and later on became a formidable force in the then Lushai
Hills. In contrast, the missionaries were initially not popular with the Lushai chiefs who
were upholders of customs and tradition.
10 | T T Haokip

chiefs in particular, the non-Lushais initiated the formation of the Mizo

Common People’s Union (MCPU), which was later changed to Mizo Union
(MU). The choice of Mizo and the formation of MU forged unity and
oneness among the non-Lushais. Interestingly, the Mizo Union not only
accepted the Duhlian dialect,11 the symbol of Lushai power, as the Mizo
dialect but also popularised and developed it as a link language. Many non-
Lushais, who spoke the Duhlian dialect but refused to enter themselves as
Lushais until 1951, accepted the Mizo nomenclature and by 1961, the
Mizo identity was a fait accompli.
The Mizo National Front (MNF) under the leadership of Laldenga further
popularised the Mizo identity and language beyond Mizoram by promising
to integrate all Mizo-inhabited areas under one administrative unit. Thus,
the process of Mizoisation set in and as a result, many numerically smaller
ethnic groups were completely Mizoised to the extent of forgetting their
original dialects and cultures. Today, the Mizo language spoken by about
77 per cent of the people is the official language of Mizoram and there is
no other additional official language. Important rules and regulations are
not published in the languages of the minority groups, which comprise 27
per cent of the state’s population. Mizoram has 15 communities notified
as Scheduled Tribes. The minority languages are Chakma, Lakher, Pawi,
any Kuki tribes, Hmar, Hindi, Nepali, Paite, etc.
Mizoram is no doubt an oasis of peace in the conflict-ridden Northeastern
region. However, some non-Lushais in Mizoram are now in the process
of reasserting their separate identities to the extent of reviving their
dormant dialects and cultures. The Mizo nomenclature, initially invented
to cover all the Chin-Kuki-Mizo groups, is increasingly identified with the
speakers of Duhlian or Mizo dialect. The minority ethnic groups of
Mizoram feel discriminated in terms of access to educational and
employment opportunities.12
The Scheduled Tribe population of Mizoram as per 2001 Census is
given below.

11. The Lushai originally spoke the Duhlian dialect. The numerically smaller non-Lushai clans
who were the subjects of the Sailo chiefs used the Duhlian dialect even though they had their
own dialects. In the process, many of the non-Lushai clans completely lost their own dialects.
12. Paritosh Chakma, “Mizoram: Minority Report,” Economic and Political Weekly, 44 (23), June 6,
2009.
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 11

Table 3: Scheduled Tribe Population of Mizoram, 2001 Census

Name of Total Population Proportion to ST
the Tribe Population
All ST Tribes 839,310 100%
Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribes 646,117 77
Chakma 71,282 8.5
Pawi 42,230 5.0
Lakher 36,018 4.3
Any Kuki Tribes 21,040 2.5
Hmar 18,155 2.2
Khasi 1,514 0.2
Any Naga Tribes 1,194 0.1
Synteng 419 **
Dimasa 95 **
Garo 74 **
Mikir 18 **
Man (Tai Speaking) 3 **
Hajong 2 **
** Very negligible
Source: Office of the Registrar General, India, 2001
12 | T T Haokip

Tripura
Formerly a princely state, Tripura was traditionally the abode of different
tribes, who had their distinct dialects, customs and traditions. The native
population has, however, been outnumbered by growing waves of migration
from erstwhile East Pakistan, which became Bangladesh in 1971. The tribes
of Tripura, who formed 70 per cent of the population in 1901, came
down to 56.37 per cent in 1951. The total population of the 19 notified
Scheduled Tribes as per the 2001 Census is 993,426, accounting for 31.1
per cent of the state’s total population. The major tribes include Tripura,
Reang, Jamatia, Chakma, Munda, Kuki tribes (Halam Kuki), etc. The official
languages of the state are English, Bengali and Kokborok. However, the
acts, rules, etc., have not been translated into Kokborok and representations
are received only in English and Bengali. Kokborok, Bishnupriya Manipuri,
Halam Kuki and Chakma are used as the medium of instruction at primary
levels.

Table 4: Population and Proportion of Major Tribes of Tripura,

2001 Census.
Name of Total Population Proportion to ST
the Tribe Population
Tripuri 543,848 54.7
Riang 165,103 14.6
Jamatia 74,949 7.5
Chakma 64,293 6.5
Halam (Kuki) 47,245 4.8
Mag 30,385 3.1
Munda 12,416 1.2
Any Kuki Tribes 11,674 1.2
Garo 11,180 1.1

Source: Office of the Registrar General, 2001, Census

 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 13

Meghalaya
Meghalaya is predominantly a Christian state with a population of 2,318,822
as per the Census of 2001. Of these, 1,992,862 persons are Scheduled
Tribes, accounting for 85.9 per cent of the state’s population. There are 17
notified Scheduled Tribes in the state. There is no regional language, as
the number of speakers of any language does not exceed 50 per cent.
Khasi comes close, with 49.54 per cent followed by Garo with 30.86 per
cent. Other languages are Bengali 8.13 per cent, Nepali 2.77 per cent,
Hindi 2.19 per cent, Assamese 1.92 per cent, Rabha 1.15 per cent and
Koch 1.05 per cent. There is no area where a language is spoken by more
than 60 per cent of the people. English is the official language of the
State. Meghalaya has emerged largely as a bilingual state, where Khasis are
relatively more urbanised and advanced than other tribes. The population
of major Scheduled Tribes is given below.

Table 5: Scheduled Tribe Population of Meghalaya, 2001 Census

Name of Total Population Proportion to Total
the Tribe ST Population
All Scheduled Tribes 1,992,862 100%
Khasi 1,123,490 56.4
Garo 689,639 34.6
Hajong 31,381 1.6
Rabha 28,153 1.4
Koch 21,381 1.1
Synteng 18,342 0.9
Mikir 11,399 0.6
Any Kuki tribes 10,085 0.5
Any Mizo (Lushai) Tribes 3,526 0.2
Any Naga Tribes 3,138 0.2
Bodo Kachari 2,932 0.1
Hmar 1,146 0.1
Source: Office of the Registrar General, India, 2001
14 | T T Haokip

Assam
Assam, the largest state in Northeast India, has long been a melting pot of
various linguistic groups and cultures. There was no community and
language called Assamese before the coming of Ahoms from upper Burma.
What existed were small principalities and chiefdoms. The Assamese or
the Asomiya community took shape only under the patronage of the Ahom
monarchy, who ruled Assam for 600 years (1228-1828) giving the state its
present name.13 Since the 19th century, the Assamese began to protect and
preserve their Assamese linguistic majority over the plain tribes and Bengali
Hindus. The Assamese intellectuals accepted immigrants Muslims who
returned Assamese as their mother tongue as na-assamiya or new Assamese
and then as Assamese.

The major tribes14 of Assam are Bodo/Bodo Kachari including Sonoval,

Mishing/Miri, Rava, Tiwa/Lalung, Deuri, Mon, Burman of Cachar,
Chakma, Dimasa Kachari, Garo, Khasi, Jaintia/Synteng, Hajong, Hojai,
Kuki, Mech, Kari/Mikir, Naga and other smaller tribes. As per the 2001
Census, there are 23 notified Scheduled tribes in Assam. However, no
population of Pawi tribe has been returned in 2001 Census. Sonovals and
Meches of Upper Assam have completely assimilated and now identify
themselves with the Assamiyas. The Bodos have developed their language
in Devanascript and Mishings have recently adopted the Roman script for
developing their language. In contrast, the Deuris, Tiwas and Ravas have
adopted the Assamiya script for developing their respective languages. In
the absence of a well-developed or a developing language of their own,
the tribes of the Brahmaputra valley had to accept Assamiya as their lingua
franca. As a result, the speakers of non-Assamese languages have always
been less than the number of their populations. It is estimated that one-
third of the tribes had apparently given up their language by 1971.15 Of
late, the tribes of Assam have become gradually conscious of their separate
identity and are gradually articulating it. The assertions of their identity, at
times through violent means, have generated tensions leading to ethnic
conflicts in the state.

13. Udayon Misra, The Transformation of Assamese Identity: A Historical Survey, North East India
History Association, Shillong, 2001, p.2.
14. For details, see Census of India, (1991), Assam.
15. In the 1971 Census, out of 16,06,648 tribals, only 10,99,008 spoke tribal languages.
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 15

Table 6: Population of Major STs of Assam, 2001 Census

Name of Total Population Proportion to the
the Tribe Total ST Population
All STs 1. 3,308,570 100%
Boro 1,352,771 40.9
Miri 587,310 17.8
Mikir 353,513 10.7
Rabha 277,517 8.4
Kachari 235,881 7.1
Lalung 170,622 5.2
Dimasa 110,976 3.4
Deori 41,161 1.2

Source: Office of the Registrar General, India, 2001

16 | T T Haokip
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 17

3
Language Politics in Northeast India

Language politics in Northeastern India stems from objectively distinct

ethnic groups’ aspirations for achieving certain rights, ranging from
recognition to the right of forming a separate state, autonomy, and even
sovereignty.16 The continuing process of reinvention and reassertion of
identities by smaller linguistic communities to demarcate an exclusivist
territory for themselves and coercion by the dominant linguistic
communities to impose their languages for homogeneity or cohesiveness
have often led to political manifestation of language rivalry. The majority
languages/dialects assume more powerful and privileged role, rendering
the minority languages unimportant, weak and underprivileged. The
minority linguistic groups interpret their losses in terms of generic
discrimination against the majority linguistic groups. Similarly, some
minority linguistic groups, in order to assert their identity with a common
language against the majority, have put other minority languages under
threat. The ethnic communities of the region are in the process of reviving
and reinventing their dormant languages/dialects and identities to carve
out political and economic space on the lines of their social spaces.

Assam: Reinventing Identities

The colonial government fostered Assamese community consciousness
by first encouraging immigration into Assam and then by imposing
Bengali,17 which predated language standardisation in Assam, as the official
language of the province in 1836. However, there was no perceptible
reaction against the decision till 1853. Significantly, the missionaries, who
emphasised the distinctness of the Assamese language, continued to teach
Assamese.18 The demand for restoration of Assamese as a language of

16. Mrinal Miri (ed.), Linguistic Situation in Northeast India, Ri Khasi Press, Shillong, 1982, p.1.
17. For details, see A.K. Baruah, Social Tensions in Assam Middle Class Politics, Purbanchal, Guwahati,
1991; S. Nag, Roots of Ethnic Conflict: Nationality Questions in North East India. Manohar, New
Delhi, 1990; S. Baruah, India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Identity, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi, 2001
18. The American Mission from Sibsagar started the first Assamese journal Arundel in 1846.
18 | T T Haokip

education and courts was voiced for the first time by Ananda Ram Dhekial
Phukan.19 Since then, the emergence of Assamese nationalism has been
intimately linked with their opposition to the Bengali language. Indeed,
Assamese nationalism was often sustained by positing ‘Bengali
expansionism’ as the main obstacle in the way of the development of
Assamese language and culture. The official language bill passed in
December 1960 discarded both Hindi and English, and declared Assamese
as the official language of the state. In protest, the Sangram Parishad, an
organisation of the Bengalis living in Assam, launched a civil disobedience
campaign in support of the Bengali language. The 1960 Assam Language
Act protected tribal languages only in the districts where they were spoken,
while Assamese was to be the official State language in other areas of the
state. These and other issues resulted in the two Mizo Union MLAs
resigning their seats in 1962. In the same way as the Assamese suspected
the Bengali expansion, the Assamese too were suspected of expansionism
by other nationalities such as Mizo, Khasi, and Naga, who also nurtured
their languages with pride and aspired for autonomy in some form or the
other. Indeed, attempts at making Assamese the official language in 1960
boomeranged. Consequently, the size of Assam state was reduced from 1,
47,624 sq km to 78,525 sq. km, with the creation of Nagaland in 1963,
Meghalaya in 1969 and Mizoram in 1972. Thus, Assam, which was the
first state in the region to oppose the Bengali language, also became its
first victim of language politics.

The protagonists of Assamese identity like the All Assam Students’ Union
(AASU) and the Asom Sahitya Sabha are trying to redefine the Assamese
community. The AASU at one stage demanded the abolition of the Sixth
Schedule, which provides safeguards to the language and culture of the
tribals.20 The Assam movement of the 1979-85 and the aftermath of the
Assam Accord further created an identity consciousness amongst both
the tribes of the plains and the hill areas. Significantly, clause 6 of the 1985
Assam Accord provided for protecting the cultural and social heritage of
the Assamese but no mention has been made of other ethnic groups. The

19. Deputed by the Bengal Government to report on Assam, the A.K. Moffat Mills’ Report,
Appendix J, favoured Assamese language.
20. The plains tribals were not given any protection under the provisions of the Sixth Schedule
because they were seen as yet another sub-nationality of the Assamese.
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 19

continuing process of reinvention of identities by tribes and by non-

scheduled tribes is a part of the region’s political strategy. Thus, the various
tribes’ demand for exclusivise territory and political space to the exclusion
of others living in the same space. Similarly, some ethnic groups have
sought reclassification as Scheduled Tribes. The movements of the Bodos,
Karbis, and Dimasa Kacharis for the creation of separate states and the
autonomy movements of some ethnic groups in their respective areas
reflect the complex nationality question in Assam. While the parameters
of Assamese identity have been expanding over the decades, the nationality
question in Assam is very complex.21 Some of the important issues include
the steady influx of Muslim population from across the border, the
integration of the immigrant neo-Assamese with the Assamese nationality,
the struggle for economic space between the na-assamiya and the plain
tribes, and the gradual alienation of the plain tribes of Assam from the
Assamese mainstream.

Tripura: Bengali Versus Kokborok

The unrestricted flow of refugees transformed the state of Tripura from
a predominantly tribal state to a non-tribal majority state. The immigrants
now constitute 69 per cent of the state’s population. Additionally, Bengali
is the official state language against Kokborok, which enjoys the status of
second language. The term ‘Kokborok’ was coined by Radhamohan Thakur
for the Tripuri language and it is spoken by about 80 per cent of the tribes
and was the main language for inter-tribe communications. Hence, politics
of language (adoption of script for Kokborok) assumes a crucial issue for
them.22 Although the Kokborok language varies little from region to region,
area to area and clan to clan, the basic structure remains the same. The
Kokborok speaking people want to use the Roman script for developing
their language. The Tripura Upajatiya Juba Samiti (TUJS) made the demand
for introduction of Kokborok in the Roman script for the first time in
1967. However, the Left Front government of Tripura wanted to impose
the Bengali script on the Kokborok language, although the Bhasha

21. For details see Monirul Hussain, “Tribal Question in Assam” in AK Baruah, (ed.),
Understanding Society and Politics: Selected Essays on Contemporary Issues, North-East India Political
Science Association, Guwahati, 1992.
22. See Sukhendu Debbarma, “An Uprising For Linguistic Rights”, The Telegraph, Kolkata, June
6, 2004.
20 | T T Haokip

Commission recommended introducing the Roman script for Kokborok.

Adoption of Bengali script for Kokborok language, according to the
Tripuris, is nothing but a ‘policy of ethnocide’, and a policy to absorb and
assimilate the indigenous people into Bengali culture and traditions. On
their part, a section of the Bengali elite has been insisting on retaining
their script to construct the idea of superiority of their language and culture
in the minds of the Tripuris. The Left Front Government recognised
Kokborok as the second official language in 1979. However, the Congress-
Tripura Upajati Juba Samiti (TUJS) coalition that came to power in the late
1980s decided to introduce the Roman script for Kokborok language, a
move that the Left Front leaders declared “was communal politics”.23
Subsequently, when the Left Front Government came to power in 1993, it
re-introduced the Bengali script for Kokborok. It was only in 2000 that
the Tripuris decided to use the Roman script for Kokborok language. The
Bengalis, being apprehensive of such move, manoeuvred to resist this
challenge. Thus, the consistent efforts of the Bengalis for retaining Bengali
script and the determined efforts of the Kokborok speakers to oppose
the Bengali script needs to be debated, discussed and understood in the
larger context of their identity and future. The reason lies not in the script
or language but involves the larger socio-political question of identity and
the struggle for political space.

Mizoram: Duhlian Versus Non-Duhlian

Rev. Savidge and Lorraine of the London Baptist Mission adopted the
Roman script for the Lushai dialect for the first time in 1898.24 The Sailo
chiefs, who were the upholders of customs and tradition, did not object to
it. The commoners (non-Lushais) who contested the dictatorship of the
Sailo chiefs also accepted the Lushai dialect as Mizo dialect and developed
it as a link language,25 although they considered it as a Lushai symbol of
power. Since then, the Lushai dialect has become more and more dominant
and it was also recognised as an official language in the then Lushai Hills.
With the renaming of Mizo Commoner People’s Union as Mizo Union

23. Kunal Ghosh, “Religion and Linguistic Separatism in North-East India”, The Organiser, July
30, 2000.
24. Chitta Ranjan Nag, Post-colonial Mizo Politics 1947-1998, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi,
1993, pp. 72-73.
25. Amiresh Ray, Mizoram, National Book Trust, New Delhi, 1993, p.48.
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 21

(MU) in 1947 and Lushai Hills as Mizo Hills, the Mizo identity became
inclusive, although the Lushai Federation opposed the act on the ground
that the word Mizo had no distinctive existence. The Mizo Union would
not have been formed and the process of Mizo integration too would
have been delayed had there been no Mr. McDonald.26Additionally, the
1954 acquisition of the rights of chiefship27 practically marked the end of
the dominant role of the Sailo chiefs. The Mizo National Front further
popularised the Mizo identity and language beyond Mizoram when
Laldenga met over 100 Kuki-Chin-Mizo leaders at Kawnpui in
Churachandpur district of Manipur in 1965.28 The creation of a single
administrative unit for the Kuki-Chin-Mizo people was the underpinning
objective of the Kawnpui convention. Ever since, many ethnic groups in
Mizoram and other parts of northeast India have either completely or
partially assimilated with the dominant Mizo culture and tradition, with
the exceptions of the Maras (Lakhers) and Lais (Pawis), who continue to
maintain their own ethnic identity, culture and tradition. Had there been
no separate autonomous district councils (ADCs) for the Maras and Lais,
they too might have been assimilated to Mizo identity. The population of
Lai and Mara as per 2001 Census was 51,878 and 50,188, respectively.29
The Chakma population is 32,807 inhabiting in 69 villages. The Chakma
ADC30 employs 996 persons.

The advantages of having a separate ADC in the new democratic

dispensation led a section of Hmars, Brus, Paites, etc., to also demand

26. Mr. ARH McDonald, Superintendent of Lushai Hills, publicly declared on January 16, 1946
that the land belonged to the people who lived on it and not to the chiefs, contrary to the
popular belief of old that the land belonged to the chief and his legal heirs. He also dismissed
four prominent chiefs on the same day.
27. While there were less than 100 chiefs when the British annexed the Lushai Hills, there were
more than 300 chiefs when the institution of chiefship was abolished in 1954.
28. B.K. Roy Burman, Mainstream, 22 (46), July 14, 1984, p.29. The organisations present at the
Kawnpui convention were the Paite National Council, Vaiphei National Organisation, Simte
National Organisation, Zoumi National Organisation, Mizo Union, Mizoram, Mizo National
Front, Chin National Union, Mizo National Union, Hmar National Union, Kuki National
Assembly, Gangte Tribal Union, Kom National Union, and Biete Convention Council.
29. See Draft 10th Five-Year Plan (2002-2007), Government of Mizoram’s Memorandum to
Tenth Finance Commission, February 2004.
30. There have been calls by the Mizo public organisations for the abolition of Chakma ADC.
However, no such calls have been made for Mara and Lai ADCs.
22 | T T Haokip

separate ADCs to protect their cultural identity. However, there are some
sections of Hmars who are today fully Mizoised and consider themselves
as part of Mizo society. Nevertheless, it was only after the formation of
HPC in 1986 that the Mizoram government agreed to recognise Hmar
language as one of the major languages of Mizoram. However, the Shinlung
Hills Development Council (SHDC) has little control over land and
resources of the Hmar community as compared to other ADCs. The Paite
National Council (now Paite Tribe Council) has also been demanding a
District Council. Surprisingly, no Paite was returned in the census of India
and a majority of them no longer speak the Paite dialect, although they
claim themselves to be one of the original inhabitants of Mizoram. At
present, there are 32 Paite villages in Mizoram. Paite is recognised as a
tribe of Mizoram since 2003. Again, the Brus are also demanding an ADC.
Thus, the non-Lushai communities, who assimilated to Mizo identity in
the past, are now in the process of asserting their separate identity at
different levels. Their main grievance is the dominant role played by the
original Duhlian speakers, who were concentrated in central and northern
parts of Mizoram.

The recruitment rules of various government departments make it

mandatory for a candidate to have studied the Mizo language up to middle
school level, disqualifying other non-Mizos no matter how talented they
may be. The search for a separate identity has gained momentum among
those who are not fully Mizoised. In the same way as the people of Lushai
Hills (Mizoram) viewed the introduction of Assamese as the official
language in 1960 as Assamese imperialism, some ethnic groups in Mizoram
have begun to suspect the Lushai dominated-Mizo nomenclature.
Considered by many as a melting pot, Mizoram is today heading towards
the Pentecostal days of the Bible, speaking in mutually intelligible dialects
instead of one dominant Duhlian dialect. The future outcome will depend
on whether identity construction and mobilisation in Mizoram is inclusive
and aggregative, or partisan and exclusionary. Much will depend on how
the Mizoram government takes its minority ethnic groups on the path of
development. The Duhlian speakers should exercise equal concern for the
dialects of smaller groups who still want to preserve their dialects and
cultures. Otherwise, it may lead to damaging consequences to the inclusive
Mizo identity as well as the unity and integrity of Mizoram.
 Northeast India: Linguistic Diversity and Language Politics | 23

4
Conclusion

The impressive and unique linguistic diversity of the Northeast region,

capable of contributing to the enrichment of a composite culture, has
been the main source of conflict and a fundamental and intractable obstacle
to peace and development. Multiple and linguistically rich ethnic identities
are in conflict with not only the Indian state but also with each other,
although the underlying current of all ethnic movements in the region is
that of widespread dissatisfaction with the existing set-up and a deep urge
for recognition of their identity, autonomy and statehood. The Indian
government sees these ethnic movements as foreign-inspired, anti-national,
and destructive, and has thus opted for military solutions. The deployment
of armed forces, however, has led to the institutionalisation of military
power in the region where ‘human security’ is under constant fear and
threat. The inability of political establishments in coping with the challenges
of linguistic diversity in Northeast India and the constant fear of possible
exclusion very often leads to re-assertion and reconstruction of their socio-
political identity. This often results in giving loyalty to social formations
such as the community or language. In such situations, language become
tools deployed for the acquisition of power. The continuing process of
reinvention and reassertion of identities by smaller linguistic communities
to demarcate an exclusivist territory for themselves and coercion by the
dominant linguistic communities to impose their languages for homogeneity
or cohesiveness is to carve out political and economic space on the lines
of their social spaces.

The language issue in a multilingual society like Northeast India is no

doubt baffling and complex, and has the potential to explode into ethnic
conflicts. The movements for restoration of ancient indigenous scripts or
revival of dormant languages and dialects have to be analysed in the broader
issues of the political process of re-asserting and re-constructing their
socio-political identity and the struggle for political space. The language
issue of Northeast India cannot be treated in isolation from other long
list of issues that surround the subject of identity politics in the region.
The solution to the language problem needs a careful study of the situation,
24 | T T Haokip

the needs and aspirations of the people. The most important step is to
acknowledge the sensitivity and complexity of language issue that can divide
communities. The recent history of Asia in general and Assam in particular
has demonstrated the dual role of language as a unifier and divider. The
move to make Assamese as the official language of the state led to the
creation of Meghalaya and Mizoram and to the partition of Assam. Any
attempts by any majority linguistic group to assimilate other smaller
linguistic groups will lead to further alienation of the latter. Instead, the
preservation, protection and development of languages/dialects and
cultures of smaller linguistic groups needs to be emphasised. There should
not be any question of opposing languages/dialects of a group or a
community by others and certainly not that of the predominance of one
or few languages/dialects over others. The language issue in the region
requires critical analysis and farsighted action from both the state and
central governments, although the extraordinary ethno-geographic and
linguistic diversity of the region preludes uniform solutions.