Citizenship, identity and belonging: The Northeast migrants in Delhi
- Part 2 -

Heigrujam Premkumar *

It is the hegemonic society that they don't belong to but that characterises the space they live in when they migrate to heartlands. Whatever the flaws of the generalisation, it is one that ethnic minorities from the frontier make to distance themselves from the mainstream and reproduce their minority identities."

Contrary to the ideas of heartland and mainland Indian society is the idea of 'frontier' or 'periphery' representing and describing the Northeast. The Northeastern states are politically and geographically distant from Delhi. As McDuie-Ra argues, the distance between the people of the Northeast frontier and the rest of India is qualitatively different from other regional differences within the country. According to him, the 'Northeast migrants' commonly use the concept of frontier as a self-conscious reference to the distance of home from the rest of India.

The terms Northeast migrants and 'Northeasterners' refer to "those people from the Northeast who trace their lineage to East and Southeast Asia and as such are members of ethnic minorities racially distinct from the communities in the rest of India, even when accounting for the diversity of India's population."

Accordingly, visible difference separates the Northeast migrants from the rest of Indians. They are judged first and foremost by their appearance. "Physical features denoting Tai, Tibeto-Burman, and Mon-Khmer lineages mark migrants as separate from the Indian mainstream, even when accounting for the diversity of that mainstream. In fact, these features routinely lead to questioning of nationality and citizenship." Indeed, most of the time, the Northeast migrants are misrecognized as not belonging to India.

Quoting Wimmer, McDuie-Ra says that 'race' is pervasively present in the social fields in which individuals and groups exist. However, as Thomas Hylland Ericksen argues, there is no way to believe in the 'objective' existence of race. The object of the study here is the social, political and cultural relevance of the notion that race exists. The sole focus of this study, in other words, is 'the social construction of race'.

Interestingly, it is this socially and culturally constructed notion of race that captures the distinction made by Northeasterners themselves to denote their difference from other peoples in India and also the ways migrants from the Northeast are differentiated by the Indian mainstream. More frequently than not, the Northeast migrants are put together into a singular category because of their distinctive appearance. "The feeling of exception is experienced with such frequency and poignancy by migrants that it defines and orchestrates their interactions with the city and its inhabitants." "The production of this category also works in favour of building solidarity among Northeasterners, even across rifts considered irreparable back home."

One place that hugely represents Indian mainstream society in the spatial imaginary of people of the Northeast is Delhi. The relationship between the frontier and the heartland is often depicted in the form of Northeast and Delhi. Delhi is considered to have the highest number of Northeast migrants. The Northeast community in the city is also considered more diverse, consisting of those who come to study, work or to do both. At the same time, Delhi is also seen as an unpleasant, unfriendly, expensive and violent city.

Drawing from Mamdani's analysis of the "actuality of failed cultural, economic and political inclusion" of a different minority in a hegemonic society and "racialised expression of belonging," Yuval-Davis argues that "violence is central to projects of belonging." While Yuval-Davis's and Mamdani's account is of violence by the radicalised minority because the hegemonic society failed to include them, the case of the Northeast migrants is about racial violence being inflicted upon them by the mainland Indian society and at the same time absence of a cultural, economic and political inclusion of the group. In both, violence plays a central role to the projects of belonging.

Northeast migrants experience high levels of racism and racial violence in Delhi. "They are seen as racially distinct from other groups that make up India's diverse citizenry and physical appearance is central in interactions with members of other communities…. In fact, race routinely leads to the nationality and citizenship of [Northeast] migrants being questioned by other city dwellers."

It is noted that India is a diverse country where there are various group identities based on religion, caste, and even ethnicity. However, "the nationality and origin of these communities are not questioned at every turn. They can "blend in" to the heartland (rarely completely) in ways that north-east migrants cannot. This is not to argue that these "others" do not face discrimination and violence; rather, north-east migrants feel their experiences of racism are distinct. To put it simply, they look different from the other peoples of India. They are not viewed as yet another ethnic group in the vast Indian milieu; they are an exceptional population. As such, they are subject to different perceptions and treatment than other groups. This makes it "difficult for them to escape from their ethnic identity if they wish to."

Besides, the Northeast migrants are subjected to epithets such as "chinky" in the city. While it is argued that the use of such epithets are common such as 'South Indians' are called 'madrasis', it is to be noted that this naming is only based on cultural rejection, not on racialised thinking. Both are abusive and to be condemned. However, it should be noted that the racialised abuse is targeted only towards people from the Northeast, not to any other group in the country.

On the other hand, Northeast migrants are often criticised for their alleged failure to assimilate to the mainstream Indian society. However, many Northeast migrants find that the question for assimilation is only one way that they are asked to assimilate while the mainlanders fail to even acknowledge the cultural difference that people of the Northeast exhibit.

In the recent years, there have been many reports of alleged racial discrimination against the Northeast migrants in Delhi. The killing of Nido Tania, a college student from Arunachal Pradesh and many other cases of alleged racial violence has been making headlines recently. Despite efforts by the Government, these incidents of alleged racial violence continue to occur thereby constantly making Northeast migrants feel discriminated.

These experiences of Northeast migrants in the capital city provoke the questions of citizenship, identity, belonging and the politics of belonging that they themselves ask and they are being asked.

What is interesting here is that there seems to be a boundary in the project of the politics of belonging, the 'imagined communities' maintained and protected by the mainstream Indian society not allowing the people of the Northeast being part of this 'imagined communities'. This may be a conscious or subconscious effort. But in any way, because of their different appearance, distinct culture and lifestyle, their visible difference the people from the Northeast are excluded when the public mind constructs their project of politics of belonging.

The exclusion from the idea of national belonging has led to two interrelated developments: first, the boundaries of the politics of belonging has been strongly contested and challenged by the Northeast migrants, and second, the Northeast migrants have started identity-making in which they have discovered and constructed 'difference'. As it is argued earlier, people's construction of themselves and their identities become stronger whenever they feel they are more threatened and less secure.

Similarly, "although a common Northeast identity is elusive in the frontier itself," McDuie-Ra finds, "among the different ethnic minority groups a nascent pan-Northeast identity exists among [Northeast] migrants, forged through shared experiences of life in an Indian city and a reconsideration of the ties that binds communities from the frontier." He reiterates that "although the idea of the Northeast may be deeply contested in the frontier, in Delhi it gives migrants from the region an identity that is inclusive and but also distinct from the Indian mainstream."

McDuie-Ra also argues that "being in Delhi allows divisive politics of home to be tempered, allows solidarity among north-easterners to be articulated, and most importantly, allows Indian citizenship to be enacted by making claims on national, state, and city governments." The finest example for such solidarity is in the form of protests the Northeast migrants carry out in opposition to racism and violence in Delhi.

The existence of a pan-Northeast identity is reiterated by many scholars from the region as well. Ngaihte and Haokip argues that the existence of a pan-Northeast identity is very much real. Sanjib Baruah also argues for the same.

In all their arguments it is emphasised that the long persisting sense of alienation, the increasing incidents of alleged racial violence against the Northeast migrants has led the Northeast migrants discovering and constructing their identity as belonging to one region, despite differences back home, often showing this in the form of collective protests against these alleged racial violence. At the same time, they continuously challenge the existing imagination of national belonging, asserting themselves as being part of Indian nation-state.

Concluding Remarks

According to Renato Rosaldo, Toby Miller and many others who are associated with the concept of cultural citizenship, a citizen has the right to be different and belong to a participatory democratic sense. Scholars such as Will Kymlicka have argued that liberal societies need to become more welcoming than they are in respect of group rights.

The people from the Northeast in Delhi have a 'difference' and that has to be accepted in and by the mainstream Indian society. Without a positive recognition of the 'difference', it will be difficult to make them feel 'at home'. The social reality constructed should also be accommodative of this 'difference'.

The feeling of being alienated and discriminated should be removed through a positive recognition of their particular cultural setting. While arguing about the 'politics of recognition', Charles Taylor argues that "identity is partly shaped by recognition or its absence….. Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict harm, can be a form of oppression, imprisoning someone in a false, distorted, and reduced mode of being."

Already made part of the conjecture, it is reiterated here that if the nation is an 'imagined community' where this imagined community is created and developed through continuous dialogue and discourse, then a real affiliation to this imagined community, the feeling of being part of it in the truest sense requires a positive recognition and acknowledgement of difference in and by the mainstream.

(Concluded......)