A national seminar on 'North East in the 21st Century' was organized in 2005 by the Department of Political Science at the University of Hyderabad. Various important issues, questions, suggestions and concerns pertaining to all North Eastern states (the "North East") were raised and discussed.

Surprisingly, the seminar did not cover Mizoram on the ground that there are no problems worth mentioning in Mizoram. Considering this, one can hastily presume that scholarly and intellectual concerns should not cross the limit of problems in the society. This view reveals how the positive aspect of institutional development has been largely ignored by various discourses in India.

In this article I shall briefly deal 'North east' in a larger Indian context. This theme simultaneously is so complicated that here my intention is not to present any final picture of it but instead to open some points for discussion. My presentation has one major point, i.e how North East has been marginalized in the larger Indian society.

It has been more than 50 years since India has been playing around with different paradigms in the North East such as 'cultural paradigm', 'security paradigm', 'join the mainstream paradigm', 'politics paradigm', 'economic package paradigm', and so on.

Despite efforts and possible solutions suggested by officials, intellectuals, medias, scholars and NGO activists, many questions are still left unanswered. Why is it so?

The North East has been a part and parcel of South Asia since time immemorial.

Assam, Manipur, Tripura have been known since the earliest times. Hill tribes maintained their commercial contact with the plain areas of Assam and Bengal. Even the minority group of Chakmas had trade relations with the Mughals. Contact between Nagas and Assamese produced a new hybrid language called Nagamese.

The sacred literature of Ram and Sita was known to the Mizos many years before the British colonialism held sway in the North East. Therefore, the region is not an isolated entity. The term 'isolated region' could validly be interpreted only in terms of India's policy towards the development of technology and means of communication in the region.

The distance between Delhi and Assam or Nagaland in the North East is perhaps lesser than distance between Delhi and Andhra Pradesh of southern India. But why do we still talk about North East as being isolated?

Discourse on the concept of 'North East' by mainstream officials, scholars, medias and social scientists have always been an enterprise implicit in the agenda of India's nationalism. The term 'North East' was invented by the colonialist to identify a geographical area, later on adopted by Indian officials, intellectuals and medias.

But, the 'reality' is far from this categorization. In sharp contrast to this concept, various ethnic groups in the North East prefer to identify themselves under their own specific group identity such as Assamese of Assam, Nagas of Nagaland, Mizos of Mizoram, Bodos of Assam and so on and so forth.

The local people do not use the term 'North East' and it has no viable meaning to them since there are apparent traits that mark a clear cut distinction between the various groups under discussion. One should not forget that North East India depicts diversity of languages and cultural practices.

This diversity within the North East has to be highlighted in its context, rather than portraying the region as a 'homogenous' entity.

The Post-Independence era was a period of confusion in the North East which also initiated various movements within or from outside the region. Because of negligence, people have been and are confused about their future and identity.

Continuous marginalization has fuelled up discontentment among various ethnic groups ultimately leading to the formation of many insurgency groups. Initially, the only result or answer they got for their demands from the Central government is the Indian army. But, we can see clear evidence of its failure in 56 years of independence.

The Indian army, the second largest in Asia is still unable to contain the insurgency groups of the region which are much smaller in numbers. The army has not provided a solution but merely infested the minds of the people with confusion and hatred. All northeastern states have shown resentment towards the occupation of the army in one way or the other.

Retaliation is never the best solution. Everyone wants to live a normal life but why do young men still want to risk their life by joining insurgency groups is the real question here.

The term 'insurgency' which becomes an officials' and intellectuals' categorization needs to be explicated here. There has been little attempt to clarify the concept of 'insurgency' in the context of the North East. Currently, the term has been applied from one particular angle alone, which is that of a rebellious nature.

The term insurgency etymologically comes from a Latin word 'insurgere' which means to 'rise up'. In English, the word could mean a 'rebel' or a 'revolutionary'.

Therefore, the official Indian perception or interpretation actually comes from the latter and is one sided. Explicitly infused with the English word, officials, media and social scientists have branded 'North East' as being infested by various 'insurgency groups' or 'rebel groups'.

On the contrary and taken from the original word, it can be concluded that people have 'risen up' against marginalization. The Mizo National Front movement in (1966-1987) Mizoram which was an autonomous district council under the state of Assam (1965) is a good example of such where people have 'risen up' against negligence of the state towards a devastating famine that ailed the region. This case could also apply to many parts of the North East. Can we consider that some of the demands made by the local people are genuine?

The media has shaped the mainstream Indian's perception of the North East. Insurgency, weird cultural practices and dirty politics has been the favorite topics of mainstream reporters. They frequently fail in accurately reporting on the communities of the region. There have been a few efforts to change the situation.

These images soon become ingrained in the consciousness of every Indian citizen. Occasionally, stories about cultural activities appear on some news paper but these are usually given only a passing mention. Insurgency, ethnic conflicts and crises get reported, genuine people stories rarely do. There are an awful lot of good things happening that are not reported in the mainstream media, unless somebody pushes to get them there.

This has sowed the seed of suspicion and hatred in the minds of people of the region. And they outwardly reject any suspicious attempt to sabotage their cultural prominence. The Naga Students' Federation who had forbidden a non-Naga to write on Naga history without their prior approval (Frontline, Sept. 2003) is a good example.

Marginalization of the North Eastern region could be seen in the trend of historical writings in India. Well known intellectuals of the academic world such as Peter Burke's 'Popular Culture', E.P Thompson's 'Unsung Voices of History', Genovese's 'Objects and Subjects of History', Hobsbawm's 'Social Banditry', Ranajit Guha's 'Subaltern', Said's 'Orientalism' and many others question the existing orthodoxy of historical discourse.

This is also true in the context of the North East as the region has been ignored by the academic community till of recent. The greatest challenge to the Indian historian is to incorporate regional histories in the broader framework of Indian history. This indifferent attitude towards the North East is evident in national curricula.

The cultural history of various communities of the North East has hardly found space in national curricula. Their heroes are forgotten and instead fed with the stories of kings and kingdoms of the rest of India that largely does not appeal to the people of the North East. The struggle of Khasis, Mizo Chiefs, Jaintias and Nagas against the British have no place at all in the history of India.

This is not only sad but also extremely unfair. The question remains the same with when Spivak asks 'Can the Subaltern Speak'! ('Can the Northeasterner Speak'). The answer is still 'No' in Indian history unless a comprehensive change in the historical discourse of India takes place.

Finally, to undo the marginalization of India's North East, one more experiment has to be done; i.e the 'inside view of North East' should be revealed. Consequently, the North East will be truly capable of subsisting within the cultural diversity of India.