An Introduction to Indigeneity, Development, and Sustainability

Abstract

The inception of this compendium was the culmination of a protracted dialogue spanning a decade with erudite academicians and intellectuals, who were engaged in an in-depth exploration of the complexities inherent in the region of North East India (NEI).

Introduction: Northeast India

The inception of this compendium was the culmination of a protracted dialogue spanning a decade with erudite academicians and intellectuals, who were engaged in an in-depth exploration of the complexities inherent in the region of North East India (NEI). The demarcated territory encompassing the octet of northeastern states within the Indian subcontinent is conventionally referred to as India’s Northeast. The region in question bears significant significance due to its strategic location at the confluence of South, East, and Southeast Asia; its ecological assets; its varied assortment of botanical and zoological specimens; and its opulent cultural fabric. The Northeast region is home to some of the most diverse ecological habitats in the world, as seen in the presence of notable parks and sanctuaries such as the “Kaziranga National Park” in Assam, “Manas Wildlife Sanctuary” in Assam, “Namdhapha” in Arunachal Pradesh, “Keibul Namjao” in Manipur, “Balpakram” in Meghalaya, “Phawngpui Blue Mountain National Park” in Mizoram, “Intanki National Park” in Nagaland, “Khangchendzonga National Park” in Sikkim, and “Clouded Leopard National Park” in Tripura.

In recent times, there has been a significant increase in focus on the region in terms of policy formulation, tribal development, and governance (Rath, 2006; Mitra, 2006). This attention has primarily been directed towards understanding the complex dynamics of differentiation and ethnic electoral politics in the region (Chaube, 1973a, 1973b; Bhatt, 1975; Datta, 1986). As a result, the region is often portrayed as facing challenges related to development, inadequate infrastructure, and disputes over resources (A. Baruah, 2002; Fernandes & Barbora, 2002; Nag, 1990, 2002; Misra, 1988; S. Baruah, 2004, 2005). The region is frequently perceived as remote, isolated, and relatively less advanced, as evidenced by a conspicuous absence of economic progress (Chakrabarti, 2019). Within the framework of policy formulation, the region is commonly understood as a tangible and infrastructural entity, predominantly characterised by its geographic attributes. It is acknowledged that peace-building endeavours play a crucial role in facilitating development and mitigating inter-ethnic tensions (Bhaumik, 1996; Das, 2003, 2006; Chaudhury et al., 2005). The region is considered a strategic bridgehead that effectively connects South and Southeast Asia. However, its connection to the rest of India is rather precarious, as it relies on a narrow corridor known as the “Chicken’s Neck”, which spans a mere 21 kms in width. This corridor serves as the primary gateway for the Northeastern Railway. The prevalence of conceptualizations of infrastructure within the policy discourse of the region can be attributed to the significant weight placed on its geographical disadvantage.

The northeastern states exhibit a rich tapestry of ethnic diversity, which is intricately intertwined with a multitude of belief systems and cultural practices, resulting in a complex and multifaceted regional identity. Notwithstanding the inherent heterogeneity and pluriversal attributes, it is crucial to acknowledge the presence of underlying discourses that engender a semblance of homogeneity (Chakraborty, 2021b, 3–25). The vast diversity of ethnicities and cultures in the area has caused apprehension among academics and officials. Verghese (1996) has aptly observed that the northeastern region of India serves as a miniature representation of the nation’s heterogeneity, showcasing a multitude of unique attributes that remain relatively enigmatic and not entirely understood. The geographical area in question is renowned for its opulent cultural heterogeneity, boasting a plethora of ethnicities and corresponding linguistic variations.

Notwithstanding its inherent aesthetic appeal and profound cultural significance, the northeast region has encountered a plethora of obstacles throughout its history. One of the most exigent concerns pertains to insurgency, as numerous militant factions are currently operational within the vicinity (Das, 2003, 2006). The resultant effect of this phenomenon is a substantial deployment of military personnel in certain regions, which has engendered a feeling of estrangement among the indigenous inhabitants (Kikon, 2019). A prevailing challenge confronting the northeast region is the state of economic underdevelopment, whereby numerous areas are bereft of rudimentary infrastructure, including but not limited to roads and electricity. Notwithstanding the aforementioned challenges, the region also presents prospects for expansion and advancement. The region situated in the northeastern part of the country exhibits immense possibilities for the development of tourism, agriculture, generation of power, and other resources beyond tea and timber (Griffiths, 1967). Given adequate forethought and strategic allocation of resources, this particular geographical area holds great potential for development. The region of Northeast India has been indelibly moulded by its distinctive topography, historical events, and cultural traditions. Situated at the confluence of South and Southeast Asia, this geographical area harbours a multifarious assortment of ethnicities, dialects, and faiths (Mackenzie, 1884, 1979; Guha, 1991, 1977). Throughout history, the northeast region of India has been distinguished by its seclusion from the remainder of the country, owing in part to its challenging topography and arduous transportation networks. The phenomenon of isolation has played a pivotal role in fostering the emergence of unique cultural customs and political ideologies within the aforementioned area (Barooha & Scott, 1970; Barpujari, 1980, 1991, 1998). Presently, the northeast region of India holds a pivotal position in the nation’s geopolitical terrain, owing to its strategic location in close proximity to Bangladesh, China, and Myanmar. Notwithstanding the persistent obstacles pertaining to developmental and political constancy, the northeast region perseveres as a thriving and kinetic constituent of India’s collective ethos. As India progresses towards its ascension as a prominent global force, it is imperative for policymakers to acknowledge the distinctive contributions that this region can offer towards the nation’s regeneration.

The region has garnered significant scholarly interest in recent times, particularly with regard to its spatial organisation vis-a-vis the national and global domains for scholars, both domestic and international (Karlsson, 2009; Karlsson, 2017; van Schendel, 2002). Its profound diversity, interwoven with complex conflicts and marked by surface-level uniformity, also becomes a site for research. Although the formidable array of ethnographic heterogeneity and cultural diversity within the region has also proven to be a daunting challenge for academics and policymakers. From a policy-making standpoint, the aforementioned implications have predominantly been interpreted through the lens of a multifaceted geography of distinction—with the area being portrayed as confined and suffering from a lack of infrastructure. The aforementioned notion is gradually transforming as erudite individuals, and decision-makers acknowledge the prospective benefits of inter-regional interconnectivity in advancing economic expansion and progress. In recent years, considerable interest has been in regional integration through the transition from the Look East Policy to the Act East Policy. This is evident from the emergence of initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), among others. These initiatives seek to enhance collaborations, and logistic grids and trade-driven development strategies between different territorial jurisdictions (Brunner, 2010).

Furthermore, technological progressions have facilitated enhanced interconnectivity among various regions, thereby expediting the exchange of commodities, amenities, and concepts. Acknowledging the potential benefits of regional integration in promoting a more equitable allocation of resources and opportunities, thereby mitigating disparities within and among nations is on the rise. Notwithstanding, certain obstacles persist concerning the volition of political actors, the aptitude of institutions, and the amelioration of the exigencies of underprivileged demographics. In order to maximise the efficacy of regional integration, it is imperative to embrace a comprehensive methodology that incorporates multifaceted considerations encompassing societal, financial, and ecological aspects. Only through this course of action may we aspire to engender an authentically comprehensive and enduring prospect for the entirety of humanity.

The contemporary development drives have dismantled the age-old notion that the area is one of a void, characterised by its perceived remoteness, isolation, and relative underdevelopment. Within the rubrics of policy-making, the region is conceptualised in terms of its physical and infrastructural attributes, primarily as a geographical entity. It is regarded as a bridgehead linking the trans-Himalayas through the eastern Himalayas and the geopolitical constructions South Asia and Southeast Asia, with a tenuous connection to the Indian mainland (Pratt, 1992). The constricted passageway that has been in question has also become a source of apprehension with regard to the safeguarding and advancement of the locality, given that any disturbance in this vicinity has the potential to significantly impede the interconnectivity and financial expansion of the Northeastern region. Endeavours have been undertaken to enhance the region’s infrastructure and connectivity, encompassing the establishment of novel highways and railways, to mitigate reliance on this susceptible corridor. The preponderance of infrastructural imaginaries in the policy discourse on the region is a direct consequence of the accentuation of the “locational disadvantage” experienced by the area.

The contextual underpinnings of India’s northeast as a geographical region and a borderland are rooted in the residual aftermath of colonial politics and administration (Chakraborty & Banerjee, 2023). As aptly described by Phanjoubam (2009: 158) and Schendel (2017: 273), this region is deemed a “freak child of partition”, which has had a profound impact on the public discourse in the area. The noteworthy metamorphosis (or absence thereof) of the northeast classification, transitioning from a colonial-era “frontier” to a post-colonial “region”, holds great importance in comprehending the politics and poetics of infrastructure interventions in the area. The discourse of change in the region is influenced by national security concerns at the macro-level and the emergence of “ethnonationalism” at the micro-level. Despite this, the states in the region continue to struggle with generating revenue, resulting in a consistently high ratio of central grants-in-aid to their total revenue receipts. The interventions aimed at the region’s development are highly contentious, subject to intense debate, and perceived as being incongruous with the region’s natural resources and inhabitants.

Political economy is crucial to understanding resource allocation conflicts that have plagued India's Northeast since independence. Northeast India has abundant natural resources yet is one of the least developed regions in India. This supports the “resource curse” idea and its implications. Northeast India has communal property rights, unlike the rest of India. Conflicts in the region are linked to system violations. To understand the conflicts related to the region's property rights system, one must understand it. Property rights for Northeast resources depend on the Inner Line Permit and Sixth Schedule. Indigenous property rights are protected in autonomous districts and regions created by the Sixth Schedule of the constitution. The system created six independent districts in Assam: United Khasi and Jaintia Hills, Garo Hills, Lushai Hills, Naga Hills, North Cachar Hills, and Mikir Hills. The Indian Constitution has included provisions aimed at protecting the region and its residents, which are in line with the provisions inherited from the colonial era. Various constitutional provisions have been enacted to safeguard the interests of indigenous populations residing in mountainous regions of Northeast India. Notably, Article 371A applies to Nagaland, Article 371B pertains to Assam, Article 371C is applicable to Manipur, Article 371F applies to Sikkim, Article 371G is specific to Mizoram, and Article 371H is designed for the protection of indigenous communities in Arunachal Pradesh. These provisions aim to ensure the well-being and preservation of the cultural identities of these populations. When some districts became entire states, discrimination protections were expanded to the state level. Scheduled Tribes have reserved seats in Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Meghalaya Legislative Assemblies. In Meghalaya, 55 of 60 seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribes, according to Baruah (2003a, 2003b).

Indigeneity in Northeast India

The region in northeastern India is known to harbour a plethora of over 200 ethnic groups, each of which boasts of its distinct culture and traditions. Numerous collectives have encountered obstacles in maintaining their native identity due to governmental regulations and external factors. The northeastern region of India is home to many autochthonous communities, each exhibiting their distinct cultures, traditions, and dialects. Notwithstanding the manifold obstacles encountered throughout history, such as forced relocation, social exclusion, and deprivation of territory and assets, these societies have successfully upheld their distinct cultural heritage and customary practices. In contemporary times, many individuals are fervently involved in endeavours to advocate for their entitlements and safeguard their ecological surroundings. Ethnic communities in the northeast have been actively vying for indigeneity and dedicating their collective intellectual efforts towards rewriting their histories (Naorem, 2020; Chakraborty, 2023c). Striving to reclaim their identities and assert their rights, they have faced marginalisation and being overlooked in mainstream narratives. Through these endeavours, their primary objective is safeguarding their cultural legacy and securing the acknowledgement and reverence they rightfully merit. Advocacy for acknowledging and protecting their rights, encompassing land rights and preserving their cultural heritage, has been a focal point of their efforts. This process has resulted in a more profound comprehension and admiration for the invaluable contributions rendered by these indigenous communities to the rich history and distinct identity of Northeast India. The process of re-writing history aids in fortifying their feeling of belonging and safeguarding their cultural heritage for the coming generations (Chakraborty, 2023c). As we progress, we must acknowledge and honour their invaluable contributions and strive towards constructing an all-encompassing society that cherishes heterogeneity and extols the virtues of indigenous cultures.

The term “Northeast” is considered by some scholars as a colonial construct or a remnant of colonial existence (Chaube (1973 1985); Samaddar, 2001, 1985). Discussion on the formulation of the nomenclature “North East India” and “Northeast India” is underway. The terminology of “North East India” and “Northeast India” has been a topic of extensive discourse. There exists a contention among certain individuals that the elimination of the interstice between “North” and “East” is necessary, given that it connotes a hierarchical association between the regions as mentioned above. There is a school of thought positing that the allocation of space is imperative to demarcate the distinct geographical territories of North India and East India.

Furthermore, there is a contention that utilising the nomenclature “Northeast India” obfuscates the heterogeneity inherent in the area, as it amalgamates diverse ethnicities and traditions. Conversely, some contend that using a unifying terminology for the area is paramount as it fosters a sense of cohesion and acknowledgement at a domestic scale. Notwithstanding these ongoing discussions, both designations are frequently employed within scholarly publications, official paperwork, and colloquial conversations. In the final analysis, selecting a particular terminology is contingent upon individual preference and situational factors.

The semantic formation of the “North East India” and “Northeast India” designations has been a subject of scholarly and policy-oriented discourse. The ongoing debate revolves around preserving the interstice between “North” and “East” to emphasise the region’s uniqueness versus the opposing viewpoint that such a demarcation is superfluous and may engender ambiguity. Furthermore, apprehensions exist regarding the potential perpetuation of a sentiment of marginalisation for the locality in question due to the usage of said terms. Notwithstanding the ongoing discourse, it is evident that the northeastern region of India harbours a multifarious spectrum of cultures, dialects, and customs. This particular region has encountered notable obstacles concerning its advancement and socio-political equilibrium. Consequently, any discourse of nomenclature necessitates a more comprehensive dialogue regarding the optimal means of bolstering and enabling this distinctive facet of India.

The northeastern region’s history is rich in diverse forms of state formation before British colonial intervention and subsequent cartographic reformulation. The significant rise of local dynasties/chieftaincies characterises the pre-colonial period of the northeast’s first phase. The second phase marked the impressive height of the Ahom Kingdom. These phases segregate the pre-colonial period in Assam into the pre-Ahom and the Ahom period. The waves of encounter and proselytisation by major belief systems such as Brahmanism, Tibetan Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam had varying impacts across the region. The indigenous revivalist movements also aimed to reconnect with their pre-proselytised ways of life, showcasing the diverse responses to these religious influences (Sen & Chakraborty, 2023). Reclaiming lost autonomies has led to the creation of hybrid cults and syncretic systems, which can be seen as a newer development. These borderlands are notably characterised by their porosity as contact zones. In this sense, the region and its inhabitants have embraced a rich blend of cultures, transforming into a truly diverse and inclusive space (Chakraborty & Banerjee, 2023). The British Raj’s administrative and cartographic interventions significantly impacted the demographic landscape. They facilitated the emergence of new forms of communication and interaction (Chakraborty, 2023b). The area’s proximity to maritime networks and Himalayan trade routes has facilitated diverse cultures through trade and entrepot activities (Camman, 1951; Pratt, 1992; Sen, 1989; Tyagi, 1986; Younghusband, 1910). The unique geo-topography of the region facilitated two distinct trajectories of encounter. On the one hand, the maritime networks allowed trade from the Bay of Bengal to reach the Chin-Lushai Hills, Naga-Patkai Hills, and beyond into Northeast India. On the other hand, the Himalayan trade routes through Arunachal into Tibet and China, as well as through Sikkim into Nepal and Tibet into China, enabled a different type of religio-cultural transaction (Chakrabarti, 2021; Sen & Chakraborty, 2023). These pre-colonial trade chains and cultural exchanges formed interconnected nodes of contact zones between the plains and hills of these borderlands.

Northeast India today continues to grapple with trans-border ethnic conflict, as well as cultural and economic engagements, much like it has in the past. The disputes over time have ultimately resulted in the region’s fragmentation due to federal politics, and this trend persists even today. The East India Company’s annexation of Assam in 1826 significantly impacted the region’s hill tribes. One notable consequence was the establishment of regular exchanges between the hill tribes and the plains people. This is evident from the developing pidgin languages like Nagamese among the Nagas. The influence of Bengali culture on the Tripuri tribes and the use of Sylhet-Cachar Bengali by the Zo/Mizo tribes is evident (Chatterjee, 1990: 6, 16, 149, 166). The punitive British expeditions successfully annexed the Naga Hills in 1878, the Mizo (Lushai) Hills in 1890, and the present-day Arunachal Pradesh. Since 1947, the tribes in Northeast India have impressively come together politically under generic identities (Chakraborty, 2010, 2021a, 2021b: 5). The territorial boundary inherited by Independent India was determined by the needs of a foreign imperialistic administration, which unfortunately resulted in cutting across numerous ethnic consolidations. Defining the boundary led to an unavoidable consequence. According to Weiner (1978: 84–87), the British control of Assam led to frequent changes in the map and boundaries.

The region’s administrative history from 1826 to 1874, 1905 to 1912, and 1947 to 1971 is characterised by significant territorial changes and disputes over cartography. These changes occurred as new states, including Nagaland, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, and Mizoram, were formed within the Union of India. According to Chakraborty (2010: 120–178), forming new states and establishing their boundaries required implementing new political systems and the creation of tailored ethnic identities for each region. According to Jelle Wouters (2022: 20), the concept of “excessive production of ethno-consciousness” is a strategic tool for political mobilisation. This involves the process of objectifying, defining, and politicising cultural, ritual, and material aspects through discourse and practice. According to Jelle Wouters (2022: 21), Northeast India’s postcolonial political history, characterised by tribal uprisings and ethnic movements, has resulted in a distinct ethnic repositioning of communities that seek to gain advantage from the state. The region’s shape-shifting terrain has successfully incorporated eight states under the umbrella of the northeast, showcasing impressive statecraft and innovative cartography. The geographical expanse of this region is impressively diverse, with a range of landscapes including the valleys of Assam’s Brahmaputra and Barak, the plains and hills of Tripura and Manipur, the plateau of Meghalaya, the serpentine hills and precincts of Nagaland and Mizoram, the snow-capped Arunachal Pradesh, and the historic Buddhist kingdom of Sikkim (Sen & Chakraborty, 2023). The region exhibits significant ethno-religio-linguistic diversity, rural–urban and social disparities and disproportionate human development indices across states. Wouters and Subba (2023) added that the concept of “Northeast India” as a unified entity is often questioned due to the significant internal differences within the region. Its status as a distinct location or place is seen as uncertain or existing amidst conflicting elements. Northeast India is undeniably a significant region at a political and administrative level. Despite being categorised arbitrarily, it holds substantial social significance and has tangible consequences. It is an imposed position within the larger Indian context.

Today, there is a strong and undeniable need to establish and confirm the meanings of the terms “native”, “indigenous”, “immigrant”, and “insider”, as well as to prove original habitation. It happens amidst various communities competing to create a mixture of conflicting historical accounts. The term “indigenous” should be used cautiously, as it was through colonial and postcolonial encounters that certain traditions were constructed as indigenous. To effectively challenge the belief that these traditions did not exist before the colonial/postcolonial encounter, we need to examine how these encounters were influenced and the resulting impacts on geography, history, maps, and government (Chakraborty, 2021b, 3–25).

Indigenous People, Ecology, and Sustainability

The indigenous population profoundly comprehends the natural realm and the interdependence among all animate entities. Throughout the ages, they have cultivated sustainable methodologies that place a premium on the well-being of the natural world and its finite assets, intending to bequeath them to posterity. Through the acknowledgement and reverence of their expertise and customs, we can strive towards a more ecologically viable and equitable future for every individual. The indigenous populace has been renowned for their profound affiliation with the natural realm and adeptness in coexisting with the ecosystem. The intergenerational transmission of customary knowledge and practices has yielded a plethora of insights into the preservation of ecological equilibrium and the advancement of sustainability. Regrettably, the advent of modernisation, extraction, and industrialisation has frequently disrupted these intricate ecosystems, resulting in catastrophic ramifications for the environment and native populations. There has been an escalating acknowledgement of the significance of assimilating indigenous viewpoints into environmental regulations and preservation endeavours. Through collaborative efforts with indigenous populations, we can devise more ecologically sound resolutions that enhance the natural ecosystem and adjacent societies. This encompasses the veneration of customary land stewardship methodologies, safeguarding areas of high biodiversity significance, and advancing the utilisation of sustainable energy alternatives. In essence, the recognition and appreciation of the erudition and proficiency of aboriginal communities can pave the way towards a fairer and enduring prospect for humanity.

When contemplated through ecological stress and its reverberations in Northeast India, development assumes a profound philosophical dimension. It compels us to delve into the intricate interplay between human progress and the delicate equilibrium of the natural world. Within this paradigm, pursuing development necessitates a conscientious examination of its consequences on the region’s ecological fabric. In this philosophical exploration, we are confronted with the imperative to harmonise human aspirations with the preservation of the environment. The intricate web of life in Northeast India, with its diverse ecosystems and fragile biodiversity, demands a nuanced approach. Development in the face of adversity is an intricate tapestry woven across various corners of the world, encompassing the ecologically abundant and culturally vibrant Northeast India. The region’s complex ecological and socio-environmental circumstances frequently challenge its sustainable development, necessitating inventive solutions and ecocritical strategies. In the face of these challenges, Northeast India has exhibited remarkable resilience and demonstrated its inherent potential for growth as it endeavours to harness its abundant natural resources and foster sustainable development practices. Development under duress encompasses the intricate interplay between human progress and the ecological challenges and obstacles encountered along the way. In the ecocritical developmental framework, the region of Northeast India has been entangled in many socio-economic and political challenges that have impeded its sustainable progress over time. These challenges encompass the insufficiency of eco-friendly infrastructure, the disruption caused by insurgencies, the ecological consequences of ethnic conflicts, and the detrimental effects of geographical isolation, all of which have collectively hindered the region’s sustainable developmental trajectory. In the face of these ecological challenges, conscientious endeavours are being undertaken to confront these concerns and foster ecologically sustainable progress in Northeast India by means of initiatives like enhanced connectivity.

Are Indigenous Practices Always Sustainable?

The deleterious consequences of non-indigenous development on human societies and the natural environment have been widely acknowledged globally. The inquiry into the sustainability of indigenous practices necessitates a nuanced examination of their inherent characteristics and contextual factors. It is imperative to approach this question critically, as sustainability is multifaceted and subject to interpretation. Acknowledging that not all autochthonous customs are ecologically viable and that certain practices may engender deleterious environmental effects is imperative. Hence, engaging in collaborative efforts with indigenous communities is imperative to discern and propagate sustainable methodologies that are mutually advantageous to the ecosystem and the local populace. Acknowledging the significance of autochthonous knowledge and customs in advancing sustainable progress is imperative (Chakrabarti, 2011). Through collaboration with indigenous communities, we can devise ecologically sustainable and ethically sound approaches. This necessitates the observance of customary land governance methodologies refined over successive generations to guarantee the sustained well-being of ecological systems. Furthermore, it entails safeguarding areas of high biodiversity, commonly situated on indigenous territories that serve as crucial habitats for diverse organisms. Furthermore, advocating for the utilisation of sustainable energy resources can effectively mitigate the release of harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere while simultaneously fostering economic prospects for neighbouring societies. By assimilating the wisdom of the native people into our strategy for preserving the environment, we can establish a future that is characterised by fairness and durability for the entire populace. It is of utmost importance to refrain from perpetuating detrimental generalisations regarding the customs and traditions of indigenous communities, as this has the potential to impede endeavours aimed at fostering mutual reliance and cooperation. We must acknowledge the significance of multifarious viewpoints and collaborate harmoniously towards mutually advantageous objectives that serve the interests of humanity and the environment. Through collaborative efforts with indigenous communities, we can effectively leverage their invaluable knowledge and expertise to develop sustainable solutions that mutually benefit the environment and the local populace. This entails upholding customary land management methodologies, such as cyclic pasturing and silvopastoral, that have been empirically demonstrated to foster ecological diversity and soil vitality. Moreover, it encompasses the imperative task of preserving areas teeming with abundant biodiversity, such as the ethereal realms of tropical rainforests and the mesmerising depths of coral reefs, which are undeniably essential for sustaining resilient ecological frameworks. Furthermore, advocating for the utilisation of sustainable energy alternatives such as solar and wind power has the potential to mitigate the release of harmful greenhouse gases, all the while facilitating the provision of unpolluted energy to isolated populations. By due appreciation to indigenous communities’ distinctive viewpoints, we can construct a future that is both equitable and environmentally viable for humanity. Recognising that antecedent colonialism and persistent systemic subjugation have played a role in adopting unsustainable methodologies among indigenous societies is imperative. Consequently, pursuing sustainability necessitates a collaborative approach with indigenous leaders and a resolute dedication to rectifying past inequities. For an extended period, the Aboriginal communities have acted as caretakers of the environment, employing customary wisdom and techniques to maintain the ecological balance of natural resources. The advent of contemporary industrialisation and unsustainable practices has frequently resulted in the marginalisation of these communities and the exacerbation of environmental degradation. To effectively tackle this matter, it is imperative to accord precedence to mutually advantageous remedies to the ecosystem and the neighbouring populace. This objective can be attained by reverence for conventional land management practices, safeguarding areas of high biodiversity significance, and advancing the utilisation of sustainable energy alternatives. By placing a high regard on the wisdom and proficiency of indigenous communities, we can establish a future that is both equitable and environmentally sound for the entirety of society. It is of utmost significance to acknowledge that the indigenous populace does not pose hindrances to advancement but serves as pivotal collaborators in pursuing a fairer and ecologically aware community. Through cooperative efforts and reciprocal regard, we may strive for a forthcoming era in which humanity and the environment flourish in unison.

Indigenous Patriarchies, Access, and Allocation-Dissemination of Resources

The influence of indigenous patriarchal (also matrilineal) systems on the allocation and availability of resources within their respective societies is noteworthy. The conventional societal norms of gender frequently determine the individuals who wield authority over the land, water, and other ecological assets, resulting in an imbalanced allocation and restricted admittance for specific constituents of the populace. Furthermore, the advent of colonialism and modernisation has engendered further upheaval of customary resource management frameworks, thereby augmenting indigenous communities’ predicaments in retaining dominion over their resources. The intricate matter of indigenous patriarchies and their correlation with resource allocation and accessibility necessitates a sophisticated comprehension of cultural customs and hegemonic structures. It is paramount to conscientiously interact with indigenous communities in a mutually beneficial and cooperative fashion to tackle these concerns in a manner that honours their customs and principles. The impact of indigenous patriarchies on the allocation and availability of resources within their respective societies has been noteworthy. The exclusionary practices of patriarchal structures have frequently been criticised due to their resultant marginalisation of women and other historically marginalised groups.

Notwithstanding, there exists a school of thought positing that said structures are imperative in upholding societal harmony and safeguarding the continuity of autochthonous traditions. Notwithstanding the ongoing discussions, it is evident that an imperative exists for heightened levels of transparency and accountability in allocating resources within indigenous communities. The imperative lies in a transition towards more comprehensive decision-making procedures, just in terms of gender, wherein the heterogeneous requirements and viewpoints of all constituents of the community are duly considered. Furthermore, it is imperative to undertake endeavours to remedy systemic disparities that impede specific demographics from obtaining essential resources, such as educational opportunities or land ownership. Through the pursuit of a more equitable allocation of resources, indigenous communities can effectively bolster the well-being of their constituents and foster sustainable development for posterity.

Indigenous Women and Development

Indigenous women have been consistently marginalised and impoverished due to their exclusion from development initiatives and decision-making processes throughout history. Prioritising the inclusion and active participation of individuals in development programmes is crucial to protect their rights and amplify their voices. Indigenous women have been subject to systematic marginalisation by development initiatives for a significant duration, resulting in frequent exclusion from decision-making processes and deprivation of access to resources and opportunities. To even begin to tackle the pervasive gender disparities that persist in developing societies, it is imperative to possess a comprehensive understanding of the intricate dynamics within gendered spaces. Various formal and informal institutions heavily influence the distribution of resources, freedoms, and privileges within a society. These institutions wield significant power in shaping the social dynamics and determining who benefits and who is left behind (Chakraborty, 2008; 2009; 2021a, 2021b). Given the existing disparities, modern initiatives have addressed these inequalities and empowered indigenous women to serve as agents of change. Through prioritising knowledge acquisition, entrepreneurial cultivation, and leadership development initiatives, indigenous women acquire the necessary competencies to actively engage in their societies and make meaningful contributions to sustainable progress. The efforts mentioned above are currently contributing to increasing awareness about the unique challenges faced by indigenous women, including discrimination, violence, and environmental degradation. By advancing the empowerment of indigenous women, it is possible to cultivate the growth of more equitable and inclusive societies that prioritise the core tenets of human rights and dignity for all members of society.

Gendering Development

The discourse surrounding the inclusion of women in/led development and sustainability is fraught with theoretical and practical complexities. While recognising women’s agency and their indispensable role in these domains is commendable, it is imperative to critically examine the underlying assumptions and power dynamics that shape these narratives. The notion of “women in development” and engaging in gender neutrality in development raises profound concerns that warrant critical examination. The idea of gender neutrality, while seemingly well intentioned, may inadvertently perpetuate the very power dynamics it seeks to dismantle. By advocating for a neutral approach, we risk obscuring the structural inequalities and systemic biases that underpin gender disparities. This approach fails to acknowledge the historical and social context in which gender inequalities are deeply entrenched. Moreover, the pursuit of gender neutrality in development overlooks the importance of recognising and addressing the unique needs as the concept of gender extends beyond the confines of women, encompassing all individuals within its purview.

Gendered exclusions in Northeast India have significantly impacted indigenous development. The intricate matter of indigenous development and gendered exclusions in Northeast India is multifaceted and nuanced. The matrices pertaining to men’s public visibility in relation to the masculinity code must be thoroughly examined to gain a comprehensive understanding of men’s immense pressures within societies that uphold rigid gender norms (Chakraborty, 2021a, 2021b). The region, celebrated for its vibrant gender diversity and abundant natural resources, has historically grappled with economic marginalisation and social inequity challenges. Indigenous communities, traditionally the custodians of the land, often face systemic discrimination and exclusion from mainstream gender development processes.

Additionally, individuals assigned female at birth within these communities experience multiple forms of discrimination, which can restrict their education, health care, and economic participation opportunities. The intricate matter of indigenous development and gendered exclusions in Northeast India is a multifaceted issue that requires careful examination. While efforts have been made to address the overall development of indigenous communities in the region, there remains a significant gap in managing the development of gender identities within these communities. This calls for a more inclusive approach that considers the development of gender identity and gender dynamics to ensure holistic development for all individuals in Northeast India, considering the unique experiences and perspectives of different genders.

Local Autonomy and “Sons/Daughters of Soil Theory”

The concept of local autonomy pertains to the capacity of a given locality or community to exercise self-governance and determine courses of action autonomously. The “Sons of Soil Theory” is a theoretical construct that underscores the significance of safeguarding the cultural essence and customs of a specific locality or populace. The intertwinement of these two concepts is often observed, given that local autonomy affords a greater degree of authority in safeguarding cultural legacy and customs. Notwithstanding, there exists a school of thought positing that an excessive focus on regional self-governance and the “indigenous inhabitants” doctrine may engender discriminatory behaviours and curtail heterogeneity within a given populace. The discourse surrounding the notions of regional self-governance and the “sons of soil theory” has been a topic of considerable deliberation in the past and continues to do so in contemporary times. The concept of local autonomy posits that communities ought to possess greater agency in managing their affairs instead of being subject to the dictates of a centralised governing body. This phenomenon has the potential to engender heightened levels of civic involvement and investment, as well as facilitate more efficacious deliberation and resolution.

Conversely, the “doctrine of autochthony” accentuates the significance of cultural and historical affinities with a specific locality or geographic location. The phenomenon mentioned above may be interpreted as a means of safeguarding indigenous practices and norms, albeit it may also engender a proclivity for ostracism towards non-native individuals. In essence, attaining equilibrium between the methodologies above is pivotal in establishing dynamic and comprehensive societies that can flourish in an evermore interlinked global landscape. By espousing the virtues of regional self-governance and collective consciousness, we can cultivate more robust and adaptable societies that are aptly prepared to confront the necessities of tomorrow.

Indigeneity and Development

The interrelated notions of indigeneity and development have been the subject of extensive discourse within both scholarly and governmental spheres. The intricate interplay between development and indigenous communities is multifaceted, as the former can engender favourable and unfavourable consequences for the latter. As an illustration, it is worth noting that while developmental initiatives may engender economic advantages for indigenous communities, they may also result in uprooting, erosion of their cultural legacy, and deterioration of the environment. Hence, guaranteeing that the developmental undertakings encompass indigenous outlooks and preferences is of utmost importance.

The notions of indigeneity and development have been the focal point of considerable discourse in contemporary times. The discourse surrounding the necessity of development for the advancement of indigenous communities is met with counterarguments positing that it may engender the gradual dissolution of their customary lifestyle. Attaining equilibrium between these two viewpoints is contingent upon acknowledging indigenous communities’ distinct necessities and principles. This entails engaging them in decision-making and upholding their entitlement to autonomy. Furthermore, it emphasises sustainable development methodologies that consider financial advancement’s ecological, communal, and traditional consequences. Through collaborative efforts with indigenous communities, we can forge a path towards a future conducive to prosperity and reverential towards their invaluable cultural legacy.

Nonetheless, such a transformation necessitates a departure from conventional developmental paradigms that prioritise financial gain above human welfare and, instead, a more comprehensive methodology that esteems diversity and integration. In essence, incorporating indigeneity into our shared identity is imperative to establish a genuinely sustainable future that benefits all. The question remains, how can one grasp at the fundamental idea of “shared identity”, in a place like the “northeast” which is so different and divided? Determining how communities establish and develop their “shared identity” by drawing inspiration from potential indicators of indigeneity, identifying historical connections, contextualising their deep roots, and adopting homing practises is a complex task that cannot be predetermined. The contentious character of these webbed methods of indigeneity and claims to “localness” can be observed in the continuing strife in Manipur. The conflicts in the northeast are also related to opposition to the Indian state's homogenization agenda, which stresses a “one state, one nation” ideology and gauges Indianization by the degree of Aryanization, in addition to the commercialization of their resources. The nation-building endeavours of the Indian state have been subject to significant critique stemming from its conspicuous neglect of the intricate cultural and ethnic identities of the heterogeneous communities inhabiting its territorial confines. The assertion has been made that the state, in its actions, demonstrates a disregard for the distinctive religious and cultural practices of indigenous tribes. The indigenous communities, in response to the efforts aimed at limiting their means of sustenance and imposing standardised cultural practices, exhibit a strong resistance. Furthermore, it is crucial to acknowledge the prevailing sentiment of dissatisfaction regarding the perceived proximity of certain communities, such as the Bengali community in Tripura, the Meitei in Manipur, and the Ahom in Assam, to positions of power; access to resources; and the production, dissemination, and circulation of knowledge. The emergence of separatist aspirations can be understood as a consequence of sub-nationalism that challenges the authority of the central power structure. Simultaneously, discontentment with locally dominant groups can manifest as a demand for increased autonomy. The interaction has purportedly exerted a significant influence on the region's historical trajectory. The assertion made by Barbora (2002) regarding the impact of land use pattern on ethnic violence in Northeast India is a significant aspect to consider. In the pre-independence era, the British strategically imported a cohort of individuals perceived as “outsiders” to serve as labourers, thereby perpetuating a system of exploitation and control. This deliberate act of importing external workers was accompanied by the establishment of lucrative plantation crops, further consolidating the colonial power's economic dominance. The prevailing consequence has resulted in a profound societal disintegration, characterised by a palpable divide between the indigenous population and the external entities. The intricate interplay between forced migration and resource conflict cannot be overlooked. In the context of Northeast India, it is pertinent to highlight the existence of an ethnic group that asserts its exclusive entitlement to a particular territory, which has been designated as their “homeland” owing to their status as the indigenous population of the region. Within the same ideological framework, it has been argued that individuals who lack affiliation with a specific community are devoid of the entitlement to establish permanent residency.

The disputes within the indigenous population are included in the conflicts in the region, in addition to interactions between non-tribal and tribal groups. After independence, the Sub-Committee of the Constituent Assembly and the ensuing debates, led by G. Bordoloi, proposed a resolution supporting the establishment of regional autonomy as a form of governance for indigenous populations. The establishment of the Sixth Schedule was subsequently determined. In light of this, it is important to note that the district councils, although ostensibly accountable to the Assamese government, engendered a sense of deep-seated scepticism among the distinct tribal population towards the dominant ruling class/community represented by the Assamese. It is worth mentioning that during this period, the Assamese themselves were grappling with the process of constructing their Ahom/Axom identity, further exacerbating the power dynamics at play. The emergence of cultural revivals and the assertion of indigeneity can be understood as a response to the complex dynamics of ethnic claims and contests. This process has led to the formation of new tribal states, namely, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur, Tripura, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh. These states have emerged as a result of the evolving dynamics of ethnic identities and the struggles for recognition and autonomy. The manifestation of ethnic contests and conflicts in the northeastern borderlands can be traced back to their historical origins that predate the colonial encounter.

Research conducted by Kamei (2004) revealed that the Meitei ruler used Kukis as a means of thwarting Naga assaults. The Kukis carried out violent acts, like as raids and killings of the Naga people, in an effort to get access to resources and expand their territory. Targeting adult males and females as well as children, the assailants carried out a savage act of mass murder while using force to take over the Nagas’ homeland. Furthermore, the Nagas were subjected to tax imposition. The invaders forced the subjugated Nagas to pay a hefty tribute, and they punished them severely if they failed to do so. The Kukis tried to exert control over the Nagas in addition to obtaining tribute from them. The Kukis’ series of invasions caused the Nagas to become weaker on the outside, and some sub-tribes’ practice of head-hunting contributed to their internal decline. As such, their existence and culture were in danger of being lost. The aforementioned incident had a long-lasting effect on the relationships between the Kuki and Naga people. For instance, the plan to make the Sardar Hills, a Senapati district subdivision, a separate entity has also caused friction between the Naga and the Kuki. The Sardar Hills region, which was originally inhabited by the Naga people, was transferred to the Kuki clan as part of a strategic decision made by the Manipur Maharaja and the British Political Agent. The goal of this choice was to create a barrier between the Naga and Meitei communities. The Kuki population residing in the periphery of Moreh Town were imposed with levies by the Naga insurgent group, which was one of the contributing factors that precipitated the Naga-Kuki conflict. The region is a powerful example of how opposing and rigid perspectives on territoriality and historiography, along with a contested claims making and oratures, make ethnic demographic concerns, and notions of citizenship and belonging extremely difficult to resolve.

Another instance of fear of mobile populations’ flows in the region can be seen in the Assam Legislative Assembly Debates (1973), which claimed over 90% of the state's population was made up of rural residents who depended on agriculture and allied industries for their subsistence. And that the ensuing years witnessed a noticeable uptick in the rate of population expansion. It mentioned that the amount of land in the area suited for farming was rather small, which contributed to a noticeable rise in agricultural unrest, especially since 1972. After the events of 1979, disputes over land policy became more community in nature. The main force behind this change was the large number of Bangladeshi Muslims living among the peasantry, who were viewed as “foreigners” and encountered hostility from the Movement. About 2000 migrants lost their lives as a result of the Assam Movement, which was led by the All Assam Student's Union (AASU) and occurred in the early 1980s (Baruah, 2002; Sinha and Subba 2003). The Assam Accord was eventually established as a result of this campaign. The terms of the Accord have not been implemented, and the “silent invasion” has continued. The majority of the infiltration has occurred through the lower Assamese districts of Dhubri, which borders West Bengal, and Karimganj, and Cachar, which border Bangladesh. Conflicts over jobs do occasionally occur; one such instance is the Assamese-Bihari dispute in November 2003, which centred on the distribution of 2,000 railway jobs. A reductionist economic perspective continues to hold land and employment as a vital source of economic survival as well as the main cause of ethnic strifes.

Naturally the notions of indigeneity and development frequently find themselves in a state of discordance. From one perspective, the development process is perceived as an indispensable stride towards advancement and contemporisation. Conversely, indigeneity embodies a manner of existence that is profoundly entrenched in customary practises and cultural mores. The task at hand is to discover a means of harmonising these two ostensibly conflicting. An effective strategy to tackle this challenge involves adopting a comprehensive perspective on development that factors in the requirements and ambitions of native populations. This entails a departure from the conventional development paradigm that places paramount importance on economic expansion regardless of the consequences and instead directs attention towards sustainable development that advances the welfare of society, culture, and the environment. A salient facet of harmonising indigeneity and development involves acknowledging the distinctive knowledge and competencies that indigenous communities possess and offer. Indigenous communities possess a profound comprehension of their immediate surroundings and ecological systems, coupled with customary methodologies for preserving and regulating natural resources. We can engender more productive and enduring outcomes by assimilating this erudition into the development blueprint.

The intricate interweaving of India’s northeast’s historical context, as both a geographical region and a borderland, is inextricably linked to the legacy of colonial politics and administration (Chakraborty & Banerjee, 2023). The consequence of this event has led to the region being regarded as a consequence of partition and “statelessness”, an unusual and irregular entity that still holds significant sway over the public dialogue in the vicinity (Alam, 2023; Chakraborty & Chakraborty, 2016). The transformation or lack thereof in the classification of the northeast as a “frontier” during colonial times to a “region” in postcolonial contexts is a crucial factor in understanding the politics and aesthetics of infrastructure interventions in that area. At the macro-level, the discourse of change in the region is influenced by national security considerations, while at the micro-level, it is shaped by the concept of “ethnonationalism”. Notwithstanding this fact, the states within the aforementioned locality demonstrate a comparatively feeble ability to generate revenue, as evidenced by a persistent elevation in the proportion of central grants-in-aid in relation to their overall revenue receipts. The execution of developmental strategies in the area is a highly intricate affair, replete with fervent discourse, and deemed incompatible with the region’s ecological assets and populace.

The region under consideration possesses a substantial and noteworthy geopolitical significance. Academic inquiries have thoroughly explored the notion of regions as a convergence of diverse cultures, ethnicities, languages, and religions. On the contrary, it has been observed by some individuals that specific sections of those aforementioned regions can be classified as contact zones, borderlands, or territories that evoke a sense of discomfort in terms of cartography (Chakraborty & Banerjee, 2023). Through the astute realignment of multifarious viewpoints and adroitly managing contentious dialogues, we can progress towards a deviation from the inclination towards uniformity. Through active participation in this endeavour, we are effectively questioning and reevaluating our preconceived limitations that have been ingrained through strict adherence to the methodological parameters of a discipline-specific knowledge production framework. In essence, the understanding of NEI affords us an erudite viewpoint that delineates the pathways of fluid and interdisciplinary understanding.

The pervasive issue of corruption in the Northeast region of India has been observed to have a detrimental impact on the political landscape, resulting in a phenomenon known as the politics of de-development. The circumstances prevailing in the Northeastern region of India are intricate and characterised by a multitude of factors. Notwithstanding the endeavours to infuse developmental interventions into the area, the outcomes have been unsatisfactory. The locality persists in a state of feebleness, characterised by a persistent elevation in the proportion of central grants-in-aid in relation to their overall revenue receipts. The current state of affairs has engendered a palpable sentiment of disillusionment and vexation among the populace residing in the area, which harbour a perception that their natural endowments are being utilised for the advantage of external entities. Furthermore, the predicament of corruption looms large in the Northeastern region of India, where numerous politicians tend to exploit their authority for their individual interests rather than serving the welfare of the populace they are accountable for. The aforementioned phenomenon has given rise to a political climate that fosters de-development, characterised by sluggish and arduous progress. Notwithstanding these obstacles, there exist grounds for optimism. Numerous individuals in the Northeastern region of India are expending considerable effort towards fostering constructive transformation and constructing a more promising tomorrow for both themselves and their respective societies. Given sustained backing and capital infusion, it is plausible that this locality can surmount its obstacles and manifest as a thriving and affluent constituent of India.

The nascent transnational developmental dialogue in Northeast India is intricately intertwined with India’s novel economic policy, which embraces foreign development aid for diverse developmental initiatives, such as road infrastructure and energy. The ongoing statist enterprise of the BJP-led NDA Government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has strategically allocated a staggering sum of USD 5351.29 billion towards a multitude of connectivity projects aimed at bolstering the infrastructure in the northeast region. The Indian Railways, for instance, has allocated a substantial investment of 95,261 crores towards the implementation of two projects. These projects aim to establish connectivity between the state capitals of Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Manipur by the year 2023 and Nagaland by the year 2026. In pursuit of “Enhancing line capacity”, the mean fund allocation per annum over the past 8 years has exhibited a growth of 254 percent in comparison to the mean yearly fund allocation during the period of 2009–2014.

The recent action taken by the Government of India has paved the way for growth prospects in diverse domains, encompassing transport infrastructure and power generation. India’s economic growth and development prospects are set to receive a significant boost with the approval of bilateral assistance, enabling the country to tap into a broader spectrum of funding sources. The significance of this matter is particularly pronounced in a nation such as India, where there exists a notable requirement for investment in crucial domains, including infrastructure. By prioritising these sectors, the government is effectively communicating its unwavering dedication to enhancing the quality of life for its populace and fostering a future marked by greater prosperity and well-being for all. Given the current scenario, it is highly probable that we shall witness persistent capital infusion in these domains in the forthcoming years as India endeavours to capitalise on its recent economic triumphs and cement its position as a significant contender in the international arena.

Frequently, we ponder over the rationale behind development initiatives that predominantly encompass a “uncompromising” undertaking and a course of action or regulation that does not necessitate the involvement of the populace. Through a critical examination of development as a deliberate and calculated undertaking by both the state and global capital rather than a mere conceptual construct, we aim to provide a comprehensive response to this inquiry. The notion of “development aggression” may offer an alternative perspective to pursuing a more fulfilling existence, as elaborated upon in the ensuing discourse. Within the post-colonial Indian milieu, the concept of development has been regarded as a product of historical evolution and a targeted reaction to structural impediments, including but not limited to insufficient capital accumulation, low productivity, rural underdevelopment, and unemployment. The concept of development, both as a cognitive process and a practical endeavour, is a direct outcome of the anti-colonial nationalist legacy of economic strategising and goals. Concurrently, the advancement of society is a process contingent upon the established structure of governance predicated on the principle of universal suffrage.

Neo-Marxist scholars have put forth a compelling critique of development planning in India. According to Chatterjee’s (1998) analysis, India’s development planning followed a linear trajectory, with a clear direction towards singular or multiple objectives that were demarcated by distinct stages. The statement suggests the need to establish a hierarchy of priorities between objectives that span over extended periods and those that are more immediate in nature while also making deliberate decisions regarding alternative pathways. The foundation of this concept was based on the principles of logical cognition and volition. Given that development was conceptualised as a phenomenon with broad societal implications, it was also predicated on a singular consciousness and discretion, that being that of the collective entity. Specific details must be integrated into the entirety and aligned with the collective welfare. According to Chatterjee, adopting a developmental ideology predicated on rational thought, conscious choice, and a unified consciousness will constitute an integral aspect of the self-definition of post-colonial states. The concept of the state embodies the universal, encompassing all that requires subsumption within its entirety.

The symbiotic relationship between the state and its citizenry is not solely contingent upon the procedural mechanisms of a representative government but also upon implementing a comprehensive economic development agenda that serves the nation’s interests (Chakraborty, 2023a, 2023b). As is characteristic of any form of government that espouses liberal principles, the former establishes a nexus between the legal-political sovereignty of the state and the sovereignty of the people. The former proposition posits a direct correlation between the state’s sovereign authority and the populace’s financial prosperity (Chatterjee, 1998). Notwithstanding, it is imperative to note that the two aforementioned connections may not necessarily bear identical implications for a given state (Chatterjee, 1998). It is imperative that individuals are able to articulate their desires through the representative channels of the political system, as their volition may not necessarily align with their financial prosperity. The state’s perception of what is imperative for the advancement of the nation’s economy may not necessarily align with the ratified decisions made through representative channels. The dual standards of representation and legitimacy may potentially yield conflicting implications for governmental policy. The inherent paradox arises from the necessity of a developmental ideology to firmly adhere to the state as the primary instrument for fulfilling its historical mandate (Chatterjee, 1998).

The intricate interplay between the state and the nation, or the populace, has been the subject of extensive discourse in India (Chakravarty, 1987; Chatterjee, 1998; Zachariah, 2005). The strategic blueprint for the advancement of India was an integral component of the Indian nationalist crusade. The inception of the National Planning Committee (NPC) and the Bombay Plan (BP) in 1944 marked a pivotal juncture in the annals of planning. The aforementioned endeavours were not solely significant events of the past, but rather pivotal moments that established the groundwork for India’s post-colonial era. They established a crucial connection between the state’s primary obligation of promoting progress and the populace’s role as the beneficiaries of such progress. The similarities between the NPC and BP are noteworthy. Zachariah (2005) established a clear correlation between economic revitalization initiatives and advancement and the more extensive undertaking of fostering national identity. Throughout the course of events, the nation was delineated as a cohesive entity embodying a collective persona and ethos, notwithstanding its multifariousness. We must comprehend not only the political intricacies of planning in India, but also underscore the persistent influence of the state’s rationale in shaping India’s developmental initiatives as a nation.

This concise discourse yields a handful of pivotal takeaways. Primarily, the state serves as a crucial apparatus for progress and advancement. Subsequently, it is imperative to acknowledge that the state’s perception of the requisites for the nation’s economic advancement may not necessarily align with the ratified decisions made through representative mechanisms whereby individuals elect the government. Thirdly, a discernible correlation exists between the advancement of economic growth and the construction of a cohesive national identity. This comprehension of the state carries significant ramifications. The term “development” is commonly understood as the appropriate economic course of action, policy, or programme as perceived by the state. As per this line of reasoning, it becomes apparent that the crux of the issue lies in that development is fundamentally an incontestable notion (and deed) for those who stand to benefit from it. A preconceived notion exists that society is not a reliable collaborator or progenitor of progress. An additional inference that can be drawn is that the development process does not necessarily require a comprehensive consultation with the individuals directly impacted by it. From a theoretical standpoint, it can be argued that the determination of development is fundamentally contingent upon the decisions made by the governing authority. The aforementioned logic effectively precludes any opportunity for societal discourse or dissent regarding economic policies or programmes.

In light of these hereditary imprints on the process of growth and progress, the Northeast Vision 2020 manuscript, regarded as a fundamental policy directive by the authorities for the advancement of the northeastern region, prioritises the development of infrastructure as the principal tactic for realising its objectives. The Indian perspective on development has consistently viewed the northeast as a region with an absence of development and has placed significant reliance on bolstering infrastructure capabilities. As anticipated, the Look/Act East Policy and the ambitious developmental agenda of Prime Minister Narendra Modi aim to enhance the infrastructure of the region through the construction of roads and highways, augmentation of air connectivity, extension of railway networks, establishment of trade routes, and creation of conducive infrastructural conditions for border trade. These developments have effectively placed the northeast region on a trajectory of rapid infrastructural expansion. The Ministry of Urban Development has primarily directed its attention towards the region through its various flagship schemes. It has been proclaimed that nine urban centres situated in the northeastern region have been designated as “Smart Cities”—namely, Agartala, Guwahati, Imphal, Kohima, Namchi, Gangtok, Pasighat, Itanagar, and Aizawl. In the initial phase of the Smart City Mission in the northeastern region, a substantial sum of Rs 14,124 crore has been allocated towards the funding of 464 projects. Fundamentally, a policy direction of this nature entails a substantial number of bridges, highways, railroads, and airports. The proposed connectivity framework, encompassing both wired and wireless technologies, aims to facilitate a seamless flow of digital transactions within the banking sector as well as a wave of statist scrutiny of such digital flows. This integration is expected to address the numerous complexities associated with financial operations. The proposed connectivity initiative aims to exploit the phenomenon of in-migration and out-migration from the region to other areas. How does the hyper-development drive impact the region and its populace? To what extent do hyper-development drives during the neoliberal era impinge upon the imperative to safeguard tribal autonomies, indigenous cultures, and traditional ways of life? How exactly do these hyper-development drives address indigenous communities’ needs and aspirations regarding their involvement in development and sustainability?

From a comprehensive perspective, infrastructure can be perceived as a multifaceted concept that encompasses both practical implementation and theoretical discourse. It takes on physical and non-physical manifestations, such as networks and institutions, that are palpable and intangible. In the northeastern region, in addition to delineating international and state borders, intangible yet palpable boundaries intersect the area, including fiscal, legal, illegal, and emotional borders. These borders are not typically cartographically represented and are rooted in a comparable “broader logic” of partitioning interconnected territories and peoples (Tunyi & Wouter, 2016; Karlsson, 2000). How do infrastructure development phenomena interact with these intricacies of the indigenous modes of development inherited since aeons?

The concept of infrastructure transcends material limitations and encompasses establishing and fortifying boundaries and demarcations. As a result, the flow and character of infrastructure play a pivotal role in shaping social identities. The widespread expansion of transport infrastructure, encompassing railways, bridges, and roads, is frequently viewed as a potential infringement upon and threat to the indigenous sense of identity and attachment to the earth. The facilitation and availability of the locality are perceived as a conduit to link the vicinity from the periphery to the centre.

The complex and nuanced interactions among the demands of progress, the assertion of cultural identity, and the art of political negotiation in the aforementioned cases serve as prime examples of cooperative initiatives and discussions within the domain of “contentious politics” of “ethnic enclaves” and “ethnic cocooning” (Chakraborty, 2015). As mentioned above, the highlights recognise the dissolution of boundaries between institutionalised and non-institutionalised forms of politics, as Mcadam, Tarrow, and Tilly posited in 2001. The contentions above and negotiations serve as a manifestation of how societies contend with the intricacies of development.

In light of Northeast India’s current state of large-scale infrastructural transformation and shifting political economy, it is pertinent to note the neoliberal context of jobless growth and increasingly unregulated and precarious forms of employment, as highlighted by Menon and Sundar (2018: 2). This development adds to the already broad lens of “security” through which the region is perceived. It is worth noting that the state’s focus on infrastructural expansion is primarily aimed at strengthening governance practices, with little regard for internal equality, environmental impact, and social fabric in the region (Karlsson, 2000, 2009; Nafis, 2018).

The volume aims to delve into these trajectories by reassessing the enduring and complex dilemmas pertaining to “development” and its intricate interdependence with indigeneity in the area. The attainment of this objective shall be realised through the amalgamated wisdom of a heterogeneous assemblage of erudite individuals originating from diverse disciplines, epochs, origins, and proficiency domains. The magnitude of the matter at hand convolutes the intricacies of progress, endurance, and self-governance within the locality. The proposed academic pursuit presents an opportunity to explore Northeast India from a novel perspective, catalysing further reflection beyond established knowledge. The intricate interplay between sustainability and development dynamics in the region of Northeast India unveils a delicate and vulnerable space that demands our utmost attention. This captivating terrain, characterised by its unique ecological and cultural tapestry, beckons us to delve deeper into the profound complexities that underlie its existence. By exploring the intricate relationship between sustainability and development, we embark on a journey that seeks to unravel the intricate web of challenges and opportunities that define this fragile space.

The Layout of the Volume

From the onset, it is crucial to acknowledge the inherent complexity of attempting to encapsulate the multifaceted nature of indigeneity, development, and sustainability within the confines of a single volume. The interplay between these three fundamental concepts, as indicated by the title, gives rise to a plethora of intricate issues that warrant comprehensive examination. The intricate nature of the situation is compounded by the unique dynamics of India's northeastern region. The intricate nature of India’s northeast region can be attributed to a multitude of factors, including historical, geopolitical, social, linguistic, and cultural variables. These variables are instrumental in delineating boundaries between and among diverse tribal communities and the non-homogenous non-tribal population, thereby contributing to the complexity observed in this region. In light of the numerous challenges faced, this comprehensive publication has made a concerted effort to intricately intertwine the intricate matters of indigeneity, development, and sustainability, with a particular emphasis on the northeast region of India. This comprehensive edited volume delves into a myriad of pressing issues, spanning from the inception of the colonial concept of the “frontier” to the contemporary phenomenon of out-migration. It examines the intricate dynamics of border economies and labour markets, shedding light on the intricate web of factors that contribute to these complex systems. Additionally, it critically analyses the distressing realities of women and child trafficking, offering valuable insights into this grave issue. Moreover, this volume employs cartographic and policy analysis techniques to provide an examination of the multifaceted topics at hand.

The northeast region of India is grappling with a range of significant issues (beyond the ones mentioned and discussed in this volume) that warrant attention from a political analysis perspective. These include the challenging phenomenon of ethnic policing, which has implications for social cohesion and intergroup relations. Additionally, the region is confronted with the complexities of local governance bureaucracy, which hinders effective decision-making and hinders the efficient delivery of public services. Moreover, the structures of public services in the northeast are in need of scrutiny, as they may not adequately cater to the diverse needs of the population. Also, the region faces deficits in ethnic and fund distribution, particularly in the context of Ward management and the election process. Furthermore, there are significant ecological issues associated with the intertwining narratives of resource conflicts, the disappearance of sacred forests and indigenous knowledge about forests due to religious conversion and the absence of cultural revitalization, the displacement of ethnic communities from areas abundant in resources, and the continuously growing carbon footprints. These issues are of utmost relevance and require careful examination to ensure the equitable development and stability of the northeast region. Overall, this volume endeavours to tackle a wide range of pertinent issues, making it an essential resource for those seeking a deeper understanding of these complex concerns.

As discussed in this chapter, the term Northeast/Northeast/Northeastern India has often been accepted without applying sufficient critical scrutiny. It has become common-sensical and a common place to symbolise the Northeast in a linear, homogenous, and amorphous fashion. This volume intends to break that pattern, and the first Section, Northeast: Then and Now, problematises the “construct”. Rakhee Bhattacharya’s chapter India’s Northeastern Region as Developmental Construct portrays how the area comprising the Eastern Himalayas to the extended Brahmaputra Valley into the Indo-Myanmar frontier has been legitimised as India’s northeastern region, marked by dominant reference to international borders, boundedness, and geopolitics. In other words, a politico-economic geographical understanding remained paramount and sequential for different temporal specificities reflecting the changing trajectories of India’s region-making process vis-a-vis Northeastern India. However, this has largely fallen short in heeding the diverse ethno-cultural complexities, sovereign entities, cross-border ethnic-community relations, and exchange relations, often conflated through a domain of illegality. The chapter further discusses how a homogenised construct has been dominant, aided as a state project from the colonial through the early postcolonial to the neoliberal times. This chapter critically argues that the contemporary developmental construct of the Indian state, which re-validates the idea of the northeastern region as a geographical unit, interprets it through an over-arching infrastructural thrust glossing over the contestations and conflictual realities that otherwise mark this region. Carrying the discussion on the developmental thrust associated with northeast forward, Anindita Dasgupta and T B Subba’s chapter Society, Culture and Tribal Development in Northeast India deals with some of the major challenges faced in this one of the most socially, culturally, linguistically, and biologically diverse regions of India. They argue against the commonly held idea that tribes are backwards because of their culture. The chapter recalls how the region was brought under planned development only after the 1962 India-China war. The role played by Verrier Elwin, Advisor to the Governor or (undivided) Assam on tribal affairs, in the process of development of the region and tribal development, in particular, has been critically contextualised while exploring the veracity of the tribal panchsheel as one of the alternative ways of developing the region in the face of a mad rush for infrastructure development. The chapter further looks at what this region is likely to gain or lose, in terms of development by opening up to the Look/Act East Policy. Evy Mehzabeen traces the linkages among resources, territory, and colonisation associated with the Northeast since the colonial times in the chapter Historicising Development: Colonisation, Cartography and Explorations in India’s North East. The chapter identifies that the interface with modern conceptions of “development” in the region began with its identification as a resource territory by the Empire. It argues that the evolution of the development paradigm for the Northeast remains largely embedded in the colonialist encounter, understanding, and vision of this geography as an accessible place amidst a rugged “inaccessible” terrain of the Eastern Himalayas. The “development” activities of the region once initiated through colonisation, in the form of an elaborate enactment of governing resources, under sanctioned control of the imperialist military, through cartographic surveys and explorations. It reimagined a “wild tribal cul-de-sac” as one of the Empire’s most crucial geopolitical hold. By focusing on explorations, cartographic surveys, mapping, and administrative tours, the chapter looks at the imaginaries of how the “Empires” agenda to “develop” the region's resource potential was built. Based on archival research, the chapter further locates itself in the colonial nineteenth century and discusses how colonial pursuits of engaging with the region shaped the development agendas of the Empire and, after that, what it meant for the future of the region.

The over-arching development agenda that has been thrust upon the region has a panacea to its “backwardness” since the “age of empires” to the contemporary has been situated in an overall intersectional perspective, where various imperatives crisscross each other. This has been discussed in five different chapters in the second section, Vexed Geopolitics and Geoeconomics: Lessons from the Borderlands. Anjan Chakrabarti, Soham Hazra, and Abhinash Rai, in their chapter Tracing Northeast Region Amidst the tangle of Geo-politics between India and China, contemporise the development agenda for the region in the threshold of the twenty-first century through Look/Act East Policy. While the underlying text associated with this policy aspires to situate the inclusion of the northeast region into the global development agenda, the covert message appears to be enmeshed in a vision seeking to counter the expanding Chinese influence on the maritime silk route and the Indian Ocean. This chapter seeks to disentangle the complex geospatial making and unmaking of perspectives on the northeast as a bridgehead for India’s global outreach for a multilateral market framework around exports of “biodiversity, hydro-potential, oil and gas, coal, limestone and forest wealth”. Within such a framework, the chapter further analyses the infrastructural thrust in the region and the build-up of geopolitical tensions around it. Rajdeep Singha, in the chapter Economics of Borderland and Labour Market: Understanding of North East India, discusses the livelihood patterns of many inhabitants in these areas that directly or indirectly depend on the domestic policies in India and the bilateral relationship among its neighbours. A region otherwise celebrated as a pathway of historical trade/silk routes now finds itself surrounded by nation states of Nepal, China, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, each critically enmeshed in the overall geopolitics of South Asia. The continuity and discontinuity of these regimes have direct implications for the people in the borderland of Northeast India. The chapter looks into the degree of associations through the evaluation of different policy regimes and their implications on the economics of this region and, in the process, understands how changing border dynamics impact the labour markets in the region. Anup Shekhar Chakraborty, in the chapter Disgruntled Geographies and Contested Connectivities in North East India: Between Wireless and Wiremore, discusses how the ethnic communities and religious groups celebrate “shared heritages” of interconnected historical, ethnic, cultural, and religious ties while the ethnic rumblings and cartographic discontent mark the neighbourly relations between India, Bangladesh, and Myanmar in the northeastern borderlands. Elucidating various cases from the states of the region, the chapter gleans into the inherited cartographic spaces and the ethnic communities therein and analyses the contemporary spill-overs of the “partition”, border-making exercises and “othering” of people from across the borders. The discussion complicates the much celebrated “peace” and projected Democracy in the state of Mizoram vis-a-vis the continued ethnic angst towards the Chakma, the Bru, the Chins/“Burma mi”, and other minorities in the self-declared “Ideal Zo Christian State”. In this regard, the chapter further discusses the questions of connectivity propelled by the gaze of Act East Policy by construing the policy imaginations and juxtaposing them with rumblings from the fields of implementations taking the case of the movement of commodities and materials “to, through, and from” the region and elsewhere, what the chapter identifies as the “disgruntled geographies” of South Asia. It also discusses the everyday challenges the nations face to translate their visions of closer connectedness amidst the vexed issues of wireless and wiremore connectivity into actuality in these borderlands. The convergence and divergence between the geopolitics and geoeconomics associated with Northeast is showcased in Swargajyoti Gohain’s chapter Arunachal as Gateway and Arunachal as Frontier. It contrasts two narratives on Arunachal Pradesh, where both are equally visible in policy and media spaces. One envisions Arunachal as a global trade gateway, implying open borders and the other views the region as a securitised frontier whose borders require surveillance and protection. On the surface, these appear to be contradictory visions. The chapter, however, argues that Arunachal as a global gateway for trade and Arunachal as a frontier are not incommensurable narratives operating through opposite spatial logics. Both are strategies of border management in which nation-state territoriality is upheld while bypassing the interests of the inhabitants. The chapter describes how Arunachal as a security frontier means that even when it is included in development and infrastructure schemes, such as border trade and road construction, national security interests are prioritised over local welfare. For this reason, Arunachal as the gateway and Arunachal as a securitised frontier can co-exist as complicit representations of the space of this border region. Tame Ramya and Sarit Kumar Chaudhuri’s chapter Understanding Underdevelopment: A Study on Select Tribes of Arunachal Pradesh showcases that this state, erstwhile known as NEFA, is the homeland for 26 tribes and many smaller tribes that have gained substantial ethnographic attention during the colonial to post-colonial phase. Though this tribal state has undergone a meaningful transformation, one can observe significant intertribal and/or intra-tribal inequalities in these developmental initiatives. This chapter analyses how various factors affected the progress of tribal communities in one of the most backward districts of Arunachal Pradesh. The investigation into core internal causes of continuing underdevelopment highlights why the people of the backward areas in Arunachal Pradesh have consistently lagged in economic development and why its further progress in the emerging future looks confusing.

Northeast India, as a borderland, has been accustomed to many fluxes where in-migration and out-migration have been one such phenomenon. The third section, Between Leaving and Living: People in Motion, contains four chapters dealing with aspects related to people in flux. Ambiguous Sexualities and Pink Migration: Politics of Sexualities, Regimentation and Control among Gorkhas in North East India by Anup Shekhar Chakraborty explains how military sensibilities inherited from the colonial to the post-colonial state in India have vociferously engaged with ethnic policing, regimentation, and control, where “queerness” has been made invisible by masculinities, as the patriarchy-driven images of the “self” are injected in the ideas of “sacred and profane” of the communities’ cosmology. The chapter engages with the militarised masculinities of the Gorkha, where one repeatedly hears of a “Bir Gorkha”, a “Gorkha Cheli Beti”, but never a Queer Gorkha. The chapter untangles the knotty braids of a militarised masculine Gorkha identity and problematises masculinities and queerness. Post-decriminalising Sect. 377 of the Indian Penal Code by the Supreme Court of India, an army man’s sexual orientation would not be a hindrance, nor would it mean a guaranteed free pass to indulge in gay sex. The chapter weaves the ethno-narratives of military services and other services among the sexually ambivalent native Nepali-speaking/Gorkha men in/from India’s Northeast, where the sexually ambivalent are in the constant quest to seek spaces that provide an escape from one’s kin and region. Naorem Pushparani Chanu and Gorky Chakraborty’s chapter Analyzing Out-Migration: The Unfolding Saga of NEI Out-Migrants to Delhi deals with a recent aspect of migration in the Northeast. The chapter recalls that historically the region has been perceived as a space where people and communities have in-migrated from various surrounding places and beyond. Even the contemporary politics of citizenship engulfing the region has been too overwhelmingly embedded in the politics of in-migration. However, since 1991, the census data suggests that the tendency to out-migrate from the region has increased substantially, whereby the gap between “in” and “out-migration” has narrowed significantly. The chapter explains that the region is now observed from an emerging dynamic of “out-migration” and out-migrants. It further analyses that the census rounds from 1991 to 2011 exhibit that Delhi is increasingly becoming one of the most preferred destinations for NEI out-migrants and identifies the “determinants” of out-migration and the reasons behind the choice of place. Analysing data from various census rounds and collating it with field-level information from Delhi, the chapter seeks to unearth the out-migration dynamics as an emerging process in the region. The notion of “people in flux” also becomes evident in the next chapter by Hassan Momin and Gorky Chakraborty, The Missing Fluvio-social Dynamics of a Braided River: A Study on a Select Stretch of the Brahmaputra in Assam. The Brahmaputra River, one of the longest rivers in the world, enters Assam from Arunachal Pradesh and meanders through the valley, generating flood and erosion, affecting several population groups who inhabit these floodplains. The chapter analyses the flow pattern of the Brahmaputra and establishes a convergence between the physical and social factors in the riparian zone. The chapter further describes that a lack of understanding between the physical and its implications on the social produces a blinkered vision about certain population groups who migrate in desperation as victims of flood and erosion. The chapter focuses on the Morigaon District, which has one of the highest vulnerability to flood and erosion, in the Brahmaputra Valley and traces the river’s shifting course over the last 50 years and its impact on land, livelihood, and life of the communities that inhabit this riparian zone. The chapter situates its understanding of how group identity formation accompanies such a process that ultimately influences the nationality question in Assam. The last chapter in this section, Discourse on Migration and Human Trafficking from Manipur: Coercion vs. Voluntary by Gaithoilu Gangmei, deals with human trafficking within the migration discourse in an era of globalisation. Scanning official records, the chapter notes the unprecedented increase in the trafficking of underage women and children from Manipur, which is often interpreted as a part of voluntary migration. The chapter analyses the cause, which more than often appears to be cases of coerced labour with the promise by the middlemen as a dream way to escape the social and economic hardship of their existence within the state. This chapter, based on ethnographic fieldwork, both in rural and urban areas in the two hill districts of Churachandpur and Tamenglong, further deals with the complex domestic and global problem of human trafficking and its relation with the prevailing labour economy both within the state, region, and across the border, where the demand for women and children of particular age group remains high.

Another related and important dimension that emanates from the “people in a flux” is the question related to identity and citizenship. The fourth section Betwixt and Between: Belonging and Unbelonging critically assess these issues through five chapters. Samir Kumar Das’s chapter, The Fragmented ‘Indigenes’: Travails of Becoming Bengali in Modern Assam, outlines how the Partition of 1947 constituted the Bengalis of Barak Valley into a community distinct from the Bengalis of both East Pakistan/Bangladesh and West Bengal. As most of Sylhet went to East Pakistan through the referendum of July 1947, there was a huge influx of mainly Bengali Hindus who, after that, settled predominantly in the three districts of the Barak Valley in Assam. The chapter poignantly questions that while India was celebrating Independence; for these Bengali Hindus, Partition “robbed their independence” and simultaneously closed all other alternative possibilities of returning. The chapter further stresses that although one may assume that they were “free”, in another sense, they had no language to “articulate their unfreedom”, which gradually continued to be a paradox they faced in their newly constituted land. The chapter argues that in the face of this closure, much of the politics of the Bengalis flows inwards, engages in the project of making their collective self and takes refuge in it. The chapter, therefore, draws attention to three major—albeit overlapping—projects of self-making in this connection. The next chapter Citizenship, Inheritances and Borderlands: Assam’s Entangled Histories by Samik Roy Chowdhury and Gorky Chakraborty stretches similar ideas to multiple locations within several bounded geographies in Assam. The chapter shows that borders in popular culture are often imagined as precise demarcations of a nation-state’s authority, which should be maintained in a sacrosanct way. But ironically, borders themselves do not exist in an uncontested space, and their effectiveness remains contingent on how the border is internalised in a borderland. This creates a dissonance between the perception of a border within the popular discourse and the reality of borderlands. While the state seeks to spatialise time through border-making, the focus remains on how it deals with borderland rather than how borderland deals with the state. The chapter moves the focus beyond such a statist gaze and understands how communities living in the borderlands interact and adapt to the state’s gaze. In the process, the chapter discusses how such interactions generate unique yet adversarial articulations of citizenship. In other words, how the presence of a border fundamentally amplifies social and political fault lines among the communities residing in borderlands, which may even predate the state's existence. In such a framework, the chapter interprets how popular social movements have developed in Assam in opposition to illegal immigration from the neighbouring country of Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan/East Bengal), which provides a fertile ground for visualising how the entangled inheritances of an existing borderland affect the legal narratives of belonging. The next chapter, Forest, Land and Peasant: The Case of Doyang Reserve Forest in Assam, India, by Indrani Talukdar and Gorky Chakraborty, is on a forest space in the disputed Assam-Nagaland border. The chapter traces the stories of enclosures and enclave-border, forest reserve, and socially contested boundary-making among nature, agriculture, and state-making that leads to the dichotomy of the “inside-outside” and, thereby “insider–outsider”—within the forest enclaves over the disputed border or over who should have how much control over land and resources on the forest land. The chapter thereby unearths the multiple layers that are factored-in in the making of the peasantry and peasant politics in Doyang. Further, it situates the intrinsic relationship between the peasantry and the State and the structural changes the latter seeks to force on the former reflected through a process of control, e.g., the peasantisation of forest lands. Deepak Naorem’s chapter Making a ‘Peter the Great’ in an Imperial Frontier Educating ‘Natives’ and Introducing English Language and Roman Script in Manipur seeks to understand why the English language and Roman script have a ubiquitous presence in the literary scape of Northeast India today. English has emerged as the new lingua franca, and many local languages are currently written with orthographies formulated with the Roman script. As the region gradually came under the control of the empire through the Treaty of Yandaboo, 1826, educating the “natives” continued to be an important part of the colonial agenda. This chapter looks at a similar process of colonial educational experiment in the former princely state of Manipur in the 1830s. It argues that such an experiment was largely meant to establish the hegemony of language and script in the state by adopting Macaulay’s downward filtration approach in British India. It was to specifically educate the minor Raja of Manipur with European disciplines, English language and Roman script, to emancipate him from the Brahmanical fold as if to mould him like Peter the Great of Russia, whom the British perceived as an oriental yet enlightened ruler. The chapter evinces the contentious and entangled history of the English language, Roman script and colonial education in Manipur and the accompanying process of generation of ineffaceable cultural legacies.

These scenarios of flux and tumultuous histories, as discussed so far, were the contentious issues related to nature, biodiversity, and ecology in the region. Chapters in the last section, Sustainability: Old Problems and Neo-Contentions, deal with similar issues selectively. Ringcher Basumatary and Manjit Das’s chapter Extent of Dependence on Forest Resources by Forest Dwellers and its Impact on Forest in Western Assam, India, with special reference to Kachugaon, Haltugaon, and Parbatjhora Forest Divisions, provides an approximate assessment of the extent of continuous dependence on forest resources in the foothills of Bhutan’s tropical forest by the forest dwellers of the Western Assam. The chapter is based on primary data collected from sample households located in three forest divisions, namely, Kachugaon, Haltugaon, and Parbatjhora Forest Divisions within the Kokrajhar District. It was found that 58 percent share of income was generated through the collection or extraction of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) like firewood, fodder, wild edible green leaves and medicinal plant, etc. as against the production of Non-Forest Products (NFP) like Paddy cultivation, Betel Nut Cultivation, etc. Although these forest products traditionally play an important role in providing livelihood to the marginal section of the community, their excessive use and extraction of natural resources led to multiple effects on the natural ecosystem, including the disappearance of plants and species, degraded forest ecosystem, loss of habitation, and loss of biodiversity. Further, excessive anthropogenic disturbance in the forest due to extensive penetration of market forces has affected the species, flora and fauna, disturbing the age-old dependence on forest resources by tribal populations. The next chapter Human-Wildlife Conflict: A Case Study of Manas National Park, Assam, by Subarna Moni Pradhan and Sanghamitra Choudhury, traces an increasing phenomenon of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) worldwide. The HWC largely occurs when the needs and behaviour of wildlife negatively impact the goals of human societies and vice versa. While wild animals require habitats for sustenance, it overlaps with human settlements and agricultural lands near Protected Areas (PAs), which often adversely affects the relational balance leading to conflict. Within such a scenario, the chapter based on HWC in Manas National Park (MNP) in Assam and its fringes elaborately discusses the numerous forms, ranging from livestock depredation, property damage, human and wildlife injury and death and crop raids. The chapter also analyses how HWC in the MNP seriously challenges the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty).

2 (Zero Hunger) and 15 (Life on Land). The chapter uses the radical Ecological Democracy (RED) framework to understand the social, political, and economic arrangement of the Protected Areas, wherein communities living in and around the MNP have the right and full opportunity to participate in decision-making based on the twin principles of ecological sustainability and human-equity. Sudakhina Mitra, Rajesh Chatterjee, and Debarshi Mukherjee’s chapter Impact of Mahatma Gandhi Rural Employment Generation Scheme (MGNREGS) ON Sustainable Rural Livelihood Generation in Tripura situates the issue of sustainability within the rural scape. This scheme, in its legal framework, is expected to increase livelihood security on a sustained basis by developing economic and social infrastructure in rural areas and thereby help to improve the quality of life for marginalised people facilitating them with access to essential amenities. The chapter highlights that economic problems have been severe in Northeast India, especially in Tripura, mainly due to insufficient support for the infrastructural services and failure to exploit natural resources, whereby the state’s development has fallen short in reaching the desired goals. MGNREGS, in this regard, has been critical for a land-locked state, Tripura. The chapter assesses the programme’s impact on rural livelihood and overall sustainable development in the state.