Abstract

The notion of ethnicity and identity assertion in Tripura emerged from the rampaging and near hysterical changes taking place in the demographic reality of the state. From these contexts of assertion and struggles emerged the Tripura Upajati Juba Samity (TUJS) in 1967, in which the radical act of re-historicising one’s age-old existence was revisited, reformulated and resurrected. This assertion manifested in indigenous peoples organic need to revive their history, reconstitute identity, stake historical claims over land, visibilise their systems of governance, stamp their physical and symbolic presence in socio-political space and above all renew their demand for some degree of representation in a new state system that suddenly treated them as peoples without histories. Attempting to revisit this very complex reality, the paper approaches the same historically through an Indigenous peoples perspective in Tripura. It also problematizes such processes from the lived experience of ‘Borok’ or ‘indigenous peoples of the land.

INTRODUCTION

Tripura was a princely State for more than 1300 years before its accession to the Union of India. The Manikya Royal was one of the oldest royal families in Eastern India. According to Rajmala or the Chronicles of Tripura as examined by Rev.James Long:

‘the ancient name of Tripura was Kirat (Hunter) from a person of that name of the Lunar or Indo-Scythian race, the brother of Puru, who was banished to the Eastern provinces by his father Yajati who held the Samrat or supreme Government of India. He built a city named Tribeg on the bank of the Kupal (Brahmaputra) and subsequently abdicating the throne, he retired to the jungles to devote his life to religious objects. His son Tripura succeeded him, a profligate tyrant who oppressed the worshippers of Siva’ (Long, 1850, p.6).

In the late eighteen century, Tripura was under British colonial rule and enjoyed a special status among the native states. This princely state was formally acceded to the Union of India in October 1949 under Part ‘C’ state post the partition of Indian sub-continent. Subsequently it became a union territory on 1 st November, 1956 and by 21 st January 1972, it attained statehood.

The rulers of Tripura were themselves tribes and this always had a profound historical impact on tribe and non-tribe relationship (Mukherjee and Singh,2006,p.317). Tribes of Tripura are broadly divided into ten communities; Tripuri, Deshi Tripuris, Jamatia, Noatias, Riangs, Kukis, Moghs, Chakmas, Halams and Garos. The Tripuris along with Deshi Tripuris, Jamatias, Noatia and Riangs are commonly considered to have been known as ‘Kshatriyas’ (Debvarma, 2012, p.17). The census of 1931 (Table No.XVII) as published in Bengali by the Government of Tripura also points out that the communities of Puratan Tripuri, Deshi Tripuri, Jamatia, Riang and Noatia were known under the generic name of Tripur-Kshatriyas (Saha, 1986,p.7). Most communities who identify themselves as indigenous tribes claim their connexion to Tripura-Kshatriyas, by usually sourcing or tracing their lineage to the royal family. Other writers such as Mukherjee and Singh (2006) on the other hand argues that the Indigenous communities such as Puran Tripura, Deshi Tripura, Jamatia, Reang and Noatia were categorised as ‘Tripura-Kshatriyas’ with specific reference to the sanskritization process that took place during the princely rule.

Currently there are nineteen tribes in Tripura as recorded by the Government of India. They are; Tripura or Tipras or Tripuri or Tippera, Reang, Jamatia, Noatia, Lushais, Uchoi, Mogs, Kukis, Chakmas, Khasis, Garos, Halams, Bhutias, Bhils, Mundas, Orangs, Lepchas, Santals and Chaimals. The Tribal peoples of Tripura are generally of medium stature, with flat nose and face, scanty hair on face and body, of brown skin colour, with oblique eye and epicanthic fold. These characteristics resemble a Mongoloid racial stock. In most common practices, fellow tribes recognise one another by the feature of their nose. The physical nature of having a flat nose distinguishes them from others. They usually associate themselves as ‘Bukung-bara’(1) (short nose).

Linguistically, the tribes of Tripura are akin to Tibeto-Burman linguistic group. There are nine major communities who speak Kokborok namely Debbarma, Tripura(2), Reang, Jamatia, Noatia, Kolai, Murasing, Rupini and Uchoi. In Tripuri language Kok means ‘word’ or ‘language’ and borok means ‘men’s word’ or ‘language’. It is also observed that Indigenous communities translate borok to mean ‘belongingness’ or ‘own’; such as ri-borok (own cloth); cha-borok (own food); and tak-borok (own dress) (Debbarma, 2007, p.114-15).

As observed in 1871 census of India, the percentage of Tripura tribes constitute 63.77 percent of the total population of the state. The decadal variation of population in Tripura between Tribe to non-tribe saw a steady growth except in the decade that followed the merger of Tripura to the Union of India. In 1941-51, the percentage of decadal variation of tribe from the non-tribe was 24.56 percent. Subsequently, in 1951-1961, an abnormal high decadal variation of growth rate of up to 78.71 per cent was registered (Bhattacharya, 1989, p.35; Tripura, 2014). This demographic complexity gradually became a vexed issue within the state and as it stands today, Tripura is the only state in India where the indigenous communities have been outnumbered and reduced to minority status by a massive inflow of immigrants (Bhattacharya, 1990,p.2210; Bhattacharya, 1989,p.38) which prompted Bareh ( 2007, p.11-7) to even point out that such demographic changes as observed in Tripura is an extremely rare event in any communities of the world, something that has no comparison in world history.

From Tribe to Borok-Indigenous Peoples

During the British regime the category ‘tribe’ was used to refer to all the hill peoples of Tripura (Hunter, as cited in Das et al.2011). Post 1949, after its merger with the Indian Union, hill peoples were categorised as “Scheduled Tribe” in accordance with Article 342(3) of the Constitution of India(4). The essential characteristics as laid down by the Lokur committee(5) to identify Scheduled Tribe emphasised on primitive traits, distinct culture, shyness of contact, geographical locations and backwardness(6). Premised on this logic, all hill peoples of Tripura became Scheduled Tribes and this categorization of hill peoples as Scheduled Tribe became predominant over time under the Indian state.

Although ascribed, the term ‘Upajati’ (Tribes) was vehemently propagated by tribal peoples and a distinct political category under the banner ‘Tripura Upajati Juba Samity (TUJS)’ which means ‘Tripura Tribal Youth Organisation’ was organised in the 1960s. This could be argued as an indication of the community’s acceptance of this politico-administrative category as distinct and having capacity to represent their needs.

The Tripura Tribal Area Autonomous District Council (TTAADC)(7) considers ‘tribal’ as the overarching identity of all hill peoples. In the present context, however, regional parties have started asserting the use of local word ‘Borok’ meaning ‘man’ as an ascriptive nomenclature; a post-tribal identity. Within this line of argument, ‘Borok’ began to be used and seen as being opposed to the word ‘upajati’ (tribal). Framed within this contestations, there arose a demand to rename the Autonomous Council as Borok Area Territorial Council (Bhaumik and Bhattacharya, 2005,p.217). The Bengali speaking community who now constitute the majority ethnic group in the state continue to refer to erstwhile indigenous hill peoples as upajati/pahari/Tribal. In such a context, ‘borok’ started becoming an identity construct in which struggles to reclaim their indigenous rights over land, territory and culture was formulated. In fact, history records this contestation over categories as leading to division among peoples along ‘Borok’ and ‘upajati’ identity constructs. In the post-1970s, assertions of identity around these categories coupled with struggles for state recognition under the rubric of Scheduled Tribes brought higher degree of complexities to an already highly conflictual situation.

However, the Kokborok Sahitya Sabha (KBSS 2012), conceives ‘Borok’ as an indigenous category which connects tribes to their shared historical experiences and community identity, symbolising social structure and their worldview as people belonging to one ethnic group. In this conception ‘Borok’ is a symbol of identity, articulation and assertion of the indigenous peoples of Tripura(8). The construct ‘Borok’ became a distinct identity marker that indicated differences with other communities in the state.

The usage of the category ‘indigenous peoples’ for referring to the hill peoples of Tripura is a recent phenomena. While being directly influenced by the overarching politico-historical processes defining Indigenous Peoples politics across the globe since I990s, with reference to Tripura, the creation of new regional political party; Indigenous Peoples Front of Tripura (IPFT) after the unification of Tripura Hills People Party (THPP) and Tripura Tribal National Conference (TTNC) in June 9, 1997 kick started politics along Indigenous peoples line. Since its formation the party directly used the category ‘indigenous peoples’ as a construct that refers to ‘Borok Peoples’ of Tripura. This formulation gained strength after it gained political power in the TTAADC election in the year 2000.

Drawing energy from this momentum, intellectuals within the community began formulating community assertion along this new found strategy of Indigenous identity, which encapsulates and establishes their shared history within homogenous cultural roots. It can also be observed that civil society organisations which emerged around this time began to articulate along Indigenous lines. The formation of the Borok Peoples Human Rights Organisation is a case in point. The struggles for the revival and rights of the age-old distinctive culture became prominent and this assertion by the Borok Peoples was further enhanced by the global Indigenous people’s movement recognition within the framework of ILO convention No.169 and UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). However, this frenzy led to an unfortunate incident when Bijoy Hrangkhawl(9) was charged for ‘sedition’ for a speech he delivered in the Indigenous Population Convention at Geneva, July 2002 (Paul and Dev, 2003,p.1457). His arguments for self determination for indigenous peoples was sensationalised by the mainstream media leading to state’s summon for legal action against Hrangkhawl.

On Indigenous Peoples Questions in Tripura

During the period 1930 to 1950 Tripura observed the formations of new forms of socio-political organisation growing under the aegis of the monarch such asJana Mongal Samity (JMS in 1936); Jana Shiksha Samity (JSS in 1945); Tripura Proja Mondal (TPM in 1946); Sen-Krak (militant tribal political union formed in 1947); and Tripura Rajya Gana Mukti Parishad (TRGP in 1948) [Gosh, 2003,p.224; Bhattacharya, 1989,p.127].

Jana Mongal Samity (JMS)

Jana Mongal Samity (JMS) was formed by a group of Agartala based Bengali professionals. It was an elite upper middle class organisation in pre-dominantly Bengali concentrated part of the city of Agartala. It aimed for a ‘responsible government’ under the tutelage of the monarch in all legitimate ways and on the basis of the reforms. Biren Dutt, the founder of the Tripura communist played an important role in JMS. The JMS in a way eulogized the monarchs but was seen as antagonistic to Bengali (official) bureaucrats who were involved in the official work of the monarchy. As the princely administration did not tolerate any form of agitation, it expelled leaders who were identified to have been involved within the activities of JMS. However, the persuasion of ‘Tribal question’ and a tribal assertion against the Bengali bureaucrats to incorporate genuine peasants demand were seen as limiting in JMS perspective. The communist further radicalised the JMS but they were not able to put forward the ‘tribal question’ as fundamental in any way (Bhattacharya, 1990,p.2210-2211). For most Tripura communist, the question of ‘tribal/indigenous peoples’ was conceived more of ‘a question of social, economic and political development of the natives to whom the tribal rulers had exploited for centuries’(Gosh, 2003,p.225).

Jana Shiksha Samity (JSS)

Jana Shiksha Samity (JSS) was the first tribal organisation formed in December 27, 1945 through the initiative of few educated tribal youths, who launched a mass literary campaign. A sense of power derived from Tripuri nationalism and anti-illiteracy struggles (when literacy rate in 1941 was a mere 8 percent) provided impetus to set off such a campaign. The main objective of this campaign was to reduce illiteracy as it was considered central to the under development of the tribes. In this movement the settlers were not perceived as oppressors, although a feeling of antagonism began setting in among them. The emergence of JSS was neither communal nor anti-Bengali. It was perceived much more as a search for Tripuri identity (Bhattacharya, 1990,p.2212).

Emergence of Tripura Upajati Juba Samity (TUJS)

The emergence of Tripura Upajati Juba Samity (TUJS) in June 10, 1967 is remarkable in the history of political movements in Tripura. Losing faith in the Congress party and coupled with a trust deficit in the communist party, many were compelled to form their own distinct political party. Their noted slogan; ‘Kachak Koophor Chwng Siya, Buini Tola Chwng Tonglia’ (we are neither communist nor are we congress… we stand for the cause of Jhum cultivators) indicates their anger against the politics of the congress and the communist parties. A banner constructed with two colours; one in green and the other in white with an insignia of two daosanda symbol ofHuk/Jhum or shifting cultivation became their logo (Mukherjee and Singh, 2006, p.323).

The emergence of TUJS is at times considered to be inspired by the assertions of Nagas, Garos and Khasis in neighbouring states for safeguarding land and culture (Bhattacharya, 1989, p.129; Gosh, 2003). The TUJS framed its principle of assertion along four points: (i) Creation of an autonomous district council within the Sixth Schedule of the constitution of India; (ii) Restoration of the tribal land from the non-tribal that were illegally transferred; (iii) Recognition of Kokborok language; and (iv) Adoption of Kokborok to be written in Roman script. The movement gained momentum after the government of Tripura brought out an ordinance to distribute 300 square miles of Tribal reserved land out of the total area of 2060 square miles (Mukherjee and Singh, 2006, p.324) that was held by the princely state in a special case for the indigenous communities. However, in the experience of the people, such ordinance actually turned out to be an anti-people strategy of the Government of Tripura. This is so because it further marginalized and alienated the indigenous communities from their land.

In the post 1970s, TUJS focused on de-sanskritization and asserted for greater cultural autonomy. The spread of Kokborok as mother tongue amongst the tribes both orally and writing were strongly emphasised by the indigenous tribes. There was a sudden conscious move away from the Bengali hindu religion and traditional religion was revived. The Bengali hindu priest were replaced by tribal priest; emphasising on the women to wear richa-pachara (traditional attire of Tripura Tribe). This assertion also initiated a process of social change that was not heard in the past (Gosh, 2003). As a result, both the Indigenous communities and non-tribal became conscious of one another, leading to social tension. The concept of an aggressive immigrant got constructed in these circumstances giving rise to Amra Bangali(10).

Politics of land alienation

Historically ‘Huk cultivation’ (11) or Shifting Cultivation is the source of livelihood for the indigenous communities in Tripura. The practice of shifting cultivation yields approximately up to 20 crops(12) in a single season unlike the settled type of cultivation(13). The cultivation sites are collectively arrived at through customary practice, and a given site is usually cultivated for a period of 3 years. In recent times, shifting cultivation has been criticized as creating ecological imbalances and pressure on the land.

Settled cultivation is also an important livelihood practice among people. In fact, there is evidence of the practice of settled cultivation among people which was encouraged by the Maharaja of Tripura to generate revenue. This created some degree of land alienation among tribes. It is worthy to note that settled agriculture and land alienation escalated with the rise of the ‘modern’ state system. As it stands today, settled form of cultivation has become common practice even in remote areas. The idea of weaning the tribes away from shifting cultivation to settled cultivation began as early as 1931 during the princely rule (Bhattacharya, 1989). However, it was observed that indigenous communities resisted ‘settled cultivation’ as they were not willing to alter their traditional practice of ‘Huk cultivation’. Gupta (1990) observes that the plain cultivable lands were given to the non-tribes for practicing settled agriculture. In the process, tribes began to experience marginalisation and were slowly subsumed into the new practice. There was a growing need by the Indigenous communities to cultivate and produce more, thereby creating a situation of dependency on local moneylenders. This pushed them into the settled cultivation processes. This form of market economy altered the realities of the indigenous peoples with local indigenous markets coming under the influence of non-tribal traders. Most essential commodities came under the control of non-tribal traders. Even a most essential commodity such as ‘baraman’ (dry fish) began to be produced and sold only by the non-tribes. These organic conditions created increased economic dependency on the non-tribal that in due course of time were a cause of land alienation, when money was traded for land that was force into a system of mortgaging.

When indigenous peoples failed to pay back the amount borrowed, the money lenders took ownership rights over the mortgaged land. Selling and mortgaging their lands in exchange for money became a necessity in order to be able to repay loans, rendering the indigenous peoples defenceless in a relationship that non-tribes dominated (also see Gupta, 1991,p.2113). Moreover, the non-tribes began to hold on to knowledge over technology and the know-how of cultivation, and tribes who were willing to practice settled cultivation became subservient to them because of this need for knowledge. However, it is observed that many indigenous communities still practice shifting cultivation, in spite of an aggressive state policy to turn them into settled cultivators. In a recent study on ‘Shifting cultivation and the Reang Tribe in Tripura’ by Mayuri Sengupta (2013), it was found that government programmes on settled cultivation have widened social disparities among Reang tribes while Jhum cultivation is still remunerative in comparison to other forms of cultivation.

Tribal unrest in Tripura has its root in the experiences of land alienation post its merger with the Union of India. Bhattacharya (1989) points out that land alienation in Tripura was mainly due to the influx of immigrants from erstwhile East Pakistan (Bangladesh) beginning 1947. The immigrants overcrowded the plains and hills forcing the tribes to move into the forest interiors. Some on the other hand point to the fact that the policy of converting raw forest into settled cultivation began with Maharaja himself who encouraged the non-tribal immigrants from Bengal to settle in Tripura and engage in settled agriculture to increase land revenue (Gupta, 1991,p.2113). Such processes created a situation where availability of land for the rehabilitation of Huk cultivators (Jhumias) to distribute among the landless Indigenous Communities was minimal. The emergence of new elites, traders and money lenders further led to more alienation of tribal land. The immediate impact of the settlement of the refugees in Tripura also created a massive alienation of tribal land with refugees encroaching into the traditional habitats of indigenous communities for cultivation (Economic and Political Weekly 1997:1225).

Until post-1960s, there was no initiative taken to restore tribal alienated land. Subsequently, the then Maharani de-reserved 777 square miles of land in 1948 to increase the land revenue and resolve the rehabilitation problem. Later, the state government through an ordinance also de-reserve 300 square miles of Tribal reserved land out of the total of 2060 square miles. It was at this juncture that the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act (TLRLR), 1960 came into force to restrict the transfer of tribal land to non-tribal. As per section 187 of the Act; no transfer of land by a person who is a member of Scheduled Tribe to a person who is not a member of any tribe shall be valid without the previous permission of the collector in writing (TLRLR Act, 1960, No.43). The drawback of this Act however was that it did not provide any provisions for restoration of illegally transferred land. The Act was amended in 1974 which rectified this lacuna in the form of a provision for restoration of the illegal transferred land. As per the provision of the amended Act; if a transfer of land belonging to Scheduled Tribe is made on or after first January 1969, in contravention of the provisions of sub-section [1](14), any revenue officer appointed for the purpose by the state government may provide an opportunity to the transferee to be heard, and by an order in writing eject the transferee and restore the transferred land (TLRLR Act 1960, second Amendment Act, 1974). In 1986, the total number of petition received by Sub-Divisional Officers (S.D.Os) and Collectors were 19,089 (total land involved=18,840.22 acres) out of which 3,633 no. of petition has been restored physically (total land involved=3,226.51 acres)(15). This Act however is critiqued for asserting 1968 as the cut off year, which indigenous peoples opine has no rational or logical basis. There has not been any explanation provided by the state as to why 1968 was made the cut off year to rationalise the transfer of land. Khakchang Debbarma (2007) argued that the Act virtually legalised the (illegal) transfer of Boroks lands that had taken place before January 1969. Many argue that it would have been far more efficacious to identify the cut off year as 1960 if any genuine effort for land restoration is to take place to indigenous communities. This is so because real and massive influx actually began only in 1961 with the settlement of refugees from East Bengal who now have become a clear majority in Tripura dominating both its landscapes and its politics.

At this point it is also important to note that the commissioning of Gumti hydel project in Gomuti district (erstwhile south Tripura) in 1976 also dispossessed thousands of indigenous communities from their land. Official records shows that 2,558 tribal families were deposed while unofficial records estimates that between 8,000 to 10,000 families or about 60,000-70,000 tribes were displaced due to the project (Bhaumik,2012). Only those people who could produce land records were rehabilitated.

The system of maintaining a land deed against an individual name is a recent phenomenon in Tripura. On this ground, it is not justifiable for the state to demand land deeds for the purpose of rehabilitating project affected people. Bhaumik (2012) in a policy note suggest that Gumti Hydel Project must be decommissioned on two reasons: First; on the basis that the project is not producing estimated power; Second; the state can instead concentrate on thermal power projects given Tripura’s huge natural gas reserves. On this pretext, while referring to struggles against land alienation, some have gone as far as claiming that militant struggles have been the chief cause for some land remaining in tribal hands. That tribes of Tripura still have some hold over land was never because of any genuine or sincere policy effort of the government post-1985.

Some Reflections on Governance and the notion of Self-determination

Historically, the tribes of Tripura led an isolated life. Traditionally their governance system functioned through a village based administrative structure confined to a single village. Each tribe organise themselves under a chieftainship. The Maharajas exercised their authority over subjects especially in tax collection through the village chiefs and officials. A person appointed as ‘missip’ act as liaison officer between the Maharaja and the village headman of each tribe (Bhattacharya, 1989,p.123).

At this juncture, it is important to revisit some of the initial attempts to address the question of land alienation among tribes in Tripura. For example, when the Maharaja (Manikya ruler) invited the Bengali professionals or peasants to modernise the administration and to increase land revenue, he also created a ‘tribal reserve’ land. This was a precursor to the present boundary and formation of TTAADC. The ‘tribal reserve’ land which expands up to 2,050 sq. kms miles is coterminous in location and size with the present tribal council. Presently the TTAADC constitutes of about 7,132.56 sq. Kms with a purpose to introduce internal autonomy and thereby protect socio-economic and cultural interest of the tribal populations within these protected areas.

Besides the legendary Tribal communist leader and once member of parliament; Dasarat Dev, who drew the attention of the Government of India to the issue of illegal influx in Tripura from East Pakistan in 1960, the chief commissioner of Tripura, N.M Patnaik also expressed his views to U.N. Dhebar Commission pertaining to reserve specific land for the tribes in Tripura under the Fifth Schedule (Bhaumik and Bhattacharya, 2005, p. 224). By 1967, concerns related to protection of land and culture became a key stated objective of most struggles for tribal autonomy under Sixth Schedule especially with relations to the political struggles led by TUJS. As observed by Bhaumik and Bhattacharya (ibid) the movement for tribal autonomy gained momentum for three reasons: (a) since 1967, ethnicity began to shape the politics of Tripura with an emphasis by the tribal leaders on the marginalization of the tribes; (b) The challenge posed by TUJS against the Tripura communist became more prominent with their demand for tribal autonomy; (c) Central Government saw the process of giving tribal autonomy as a means to resolve and control tribal militancy in Tripura.

The TTAADC was created by an Act of the Parliament in 1979 and was brought under the Seventh Schedule of the Indian constitution. Until the infamous post-1980s riots, there were no elections conducted. However by 1982, ADC election was held and a council was formed. Resolution to the problem was not forthcoming as tribal political activist led a protest against TTAADC being brought under the Seventh Schedule. The Central Government gave in to this demand and brought TTAADC under Sixth Schedule in April 1985. Election to the TTAADC under the Sixth Schedule was first held in June and a new council was reinstated in July 1985.

TTAADC is structured on the premise of a generic and a composite entity; a council for ‘Tribal areas’. However, TTAADC has failed on many fronts and the gap between its initial conception and its current functioning has widened over time. The role and impact of the council on greater degree of political empowerment to the indigenous people is still a matter of debate. In most discussions, there is a sense of resignation to the failure of the TTAADC to live up to its initial expectations. Reasons and solutions proposed as to the failure of the TTAADC are as follows: more financial autonomy must be provided to the council; the three seats reserved for the non-tribes as members of the council contradicts the spirit of Tribal self governance; the running of the council with retired officers and administrators makes the council slacker and slower; inability of the council to hold regular village council elections adds to inefficiency; customary law is yet to be codified by the council and over dependency on the state government are the causes of the TTAADC being reduced to a state of redundancy (Sukendu, 1999, as cited in Bhaumik 2005) .

Moreover, the current village committee(16) established under the Tripura Tribal Area Autonomous District (establishment of village committee) Act, 1994 failed to exercise its role as per TTAADC Act. There are no defined roles and functions of the committee in the TTAADC. It is difficult to differentiate between administration of the ADC area and the non-ADC areas. The existing roles and functions of the sub-zonal office and zonal development office are minimized and have nearly become obsolete. On this issue, it is observed that the present functions of sub-zonal office and zonal-development office is almost defunct and the roles of village committee were subsumed within the general pattern as in non-ADC area. For instance, the role of sub-zonal office and the members of the village committee were located within the Block development office. This arrangement basically arises due to the absence of allocation of funds and neglect of states as per the provisions of Sixth Schedule [Articles 224 (2) and 275 (1)]. As a reaction to the present condition and functioning of TTAADC, the indigenous communities have began asserting again demanding more power to be vested on TTAADC and for direct funding by the Central Government. Along these lines, a state regional party by the name of ‘Indigenous Peoples Front of Tripura’ (IPFT) have also raised the banner of separate statehood proposed to be called ‘Twipraland’. Twipraland is imagined to encapsulate the whole of present day areas under ADC.

On Peoples, Language and the Politics of Representation

During the period of princely rule, tribal languages were not recognised. However, change came with Doulat Ahmed in 1897 when recognition of tribal languages took place for the first time and some degree of patronisation was forthcoming. Besides, the Maharaja gave responsibility to Thakur Radha Mohan Debbarma, a member of the royal court to draft a book on tribal language. Thakur Radha Mohan Debbarma kept the name of the tribal dialects under a single nomenclature known as ‘Kokborok’ as it is spoken by eight communities (Acharyya, 2007).

The Jana Shiksha Samity (JSS) during the rule of the last Maharaja; Bir Bikram, initiated the process of education for the hill peoples of Tripura. However, Bengali script and language was proposed as the medium of instruction. This event gave rise to what we came to know today as language consciousness and the felt need to make a local tribal language the medium of instruction. Towards this effort, the TUJS asserted a slogan, ‘Introduce mother tongue Kokborok as medium of instruction’ (Choudhury, 2005,p.84-5). Even though the JSS was a remarkable movement in the history of the literary movement in Tripura, it failed to popularise the use of Kokborok as the core medium of instruction. The state government established ‘language cell’ in 1972 under the department of education and facilitated the writing of textbooks in Kokborok language. It also introduced the language in primary schools. Post 1980s, Kokborok teachers (KBTs) were recruited by the government of Tripura to teach in Kokborok. However, there is still a dilemma in the teaching and writing of the language as some argue for the usage of the Roman script while others prefers the Bengali script. From this dilemma has also arisen different political positions and ideologies. Presently all teachers recruited as ‘Kokborok Teachers’, use Bengali as a medium of instruction (Tripura, 2014). Even though in January 19, 1979 ‘Kokborok’ has been recognised as the state language by Tripura legislative assembly, contestations of the nature as explicated above remains alive, politically sensitive and controversial.

Nonetheless after 1970s, it was observed that there were an increasing number of indigenous peoples favouring the use of the Roman script while writing the Kokborok language. This process could also be argued to be augmented by the popularisation of Kokborok in the Roman script by missionaries. While the controversy remains, recently some members of Indigenous communities have also propagated the use of Kokborok in the Devnagiri Script.

Language is a controversial subject in Tripura amongst tribes. This is more so because there are eleven tribes in Tripura whose mother tongue is non-Kokborok. For instance post the recognition of Kokborok as medium of instruction in primary schools, the Chakma community showed resistance to learn Kokborok as it is not their mother-tongue. In this regards the Government of Tripura has cleared the proposal for accepting the Chakma script on August 8, 2012(17). While controversial and complex, this could be seen as a progressive act by the government to acknowledge differences among tribes and arrive at some consensus on the basis of language representation.

Conclusion

In the experiences of Indigenous communities of Tripura, consciousness of subjective experiences of marginality gave rise to assertion, reconstruction and struggle. Under the leadership of Jana Shiksha Samity (JSS), indigenous peoples consciousness was awakened and the struggle to emancipate themselves from being trapped at the margins was propelled. The need for formulating ones premise of struggle either with the category ‘tribe’ (Upajati), Borok or Indigenous Peoples as its core, in different politico-historical phases, gave rise to different episteme. Consequently, the dynamics of ethnicity and identity emerged from fast changing structural dynamics with direct impact on the demographic reality of the locale, that also became a fundamental reason for mass alienation of historically inhabited land. From this perspective the issue of ethnicity and ethnic mobilization is rather a last bit struggle for survival rather than an exclusivist assertion against the other. These assertions are indeed complex as it involves an increased sense of social, cultural, demographic and economic marginalization. Nonetheless, land and culture are foundational elements in these assertions. Land being a constant variable and a definitive factor in defining the demographic complexity of Tripura which is further amplified by a physical process of being pushed out by the acts of land alienation.

Within such an understanding, it is important to take note that resistance of indigenous peoples in different forms to be ‘different’ need not always be conceived as a needless primordial activity. This assertion at times occurs due to relative deprivation of indigenous communities, plus a constant organic urge to feel at ease with one’s culturo-political space, which includes consonance and symmetry of worldview and one’s lived experiences. Towards this understanding, the reality of land, language and autonomy as a social necessity in the experiences of indigenous communities is fundamental in any empowering engagement. To this effect, sharing, listening and dialogue is imperative to resolve historical cleavages.

Notes

1. ‘Bukung-bara’ is translated in Kokoborok as flat nose/short nose. It basically refers to the indigenous communities of Tripura to differentiate themselves from the non-tribal or an outsider.

2. ‘Tripura’ tribe is wrongly listed as ‘Tripuris’ according to the records of the Government of Tripura. Its distinct identity has been subsumed either by recognising them as ‘Noatia’ tribe or by including them as Tripuris (denotes to a group of community who write their titled as ‘Debbarma’). ‘Tripura’ having been recognised as distinct tribe includes 9 tribes in Tripura who speaks ‘Korokborok’. Also See K.N Jena and Babu Dhan Tripura (2009): Changing Face of Tripura Tribe, P: 3-42.

3. Article 342 (1) of the Indian constitution states that “The President may with respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union territory, as the case may be”. See http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/768139/ .

4. See Article 366 (25) of the Constitution of India in reference to Scheduled Tribes.

5. Lokur Committee is the Advisory committee on the Revision of SC/ST list, 1965. Details see National Commission for Scheduled Tribes Report. See http://ncst.nic.in/writereaddata/linkimages/Agenda22022010-I590394170.pdf

6. Statistical Profile of Scheduled Tribes in India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India. see www.tribal.nic.in , accessed on 11 th July, 2013

7. The Tripura Tribal Area Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) was constituted on August 23, 1984 under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India. See http://ttaadc.nic.in/introduction.htm, accessed on 11 th July, 2013.

8. See http://www.borokpeople.com/links/identity.html, accessed on 11 th July, 2013

9. Bijoy Kumar Hrangkhawl is the leader of the Indigenous Nationalistic Party of Twipra, a political party based in the Indian state of Tripura. He began his political career as an organising secretary of Tripura Upajati Juba Samity (TUJS), the first Tribal political party in Tripura.

10. Amra Bangali is a radical political party whose objective operates within the idea of Bengali nationalist and on the restoration and development of Bengali language and culture.

11. ‘Huk Cultivation’ literally means shifting cultivation. To practice ‘Huk cultivation’ one needs to observe eight stages of cultivation: 1.selection of the Huk-field and performing adequate rituals 2.Cutting 3. Burning 4.Sowing of seeds 5.Weeding and sprouting 6.Protection 7.harvesting and 8.Threshing and storing. See K.N Jena and Babu Dhan Tripura (2009): Changing Face of Tripura Tribe, p-106.

12. Information elicited on 25/05/13 from the ex-Huk cultivator who reside in Karbook sub-division, Tripura.

13. Settled type of cultivation in reference to Tripura refers to Wet-land type of cultivation.

14.see Tripura land revenue and land reforms Act, 1960 No.43 of 1960, Section 187, Sub-section (1) pp.69

15. See Annual Tribal Sub-Plan, Government of Tripura, 1987-88 p.6. Also cited in S.R Bhattacharya- Tribal Insurgency in Tripura: A Study in Exploration of causes.

16. “Village committee” means a committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3(1) (e) of the Sixth Schedule to the constitution of India and as per the Tripura Tribal Area Autonomous District (Establishment of Village Committee) Act 1994.

17.State Government resolves to introduce Chakma script in schools. See http://www.tripurainfo.com/Info/ArchiveDet.aspx?WhatId=10748 , accessed on 11 th July, 2013.

REFERENCES

• Acharyya, R. (2007). Kok Borok-People’s Language. In R. Acharyya, Development of Tribal Languages-A hope for the mission (pp. 61-66). Agartala: Tribal Research Institute.
• Bareh, H. M. (2007). Encyclopedia of North-East India. New Delhi: Mittal Publication, p, 11-17.
• Bhattacharya, S. B. (2005). Autonomy in the Northeast: The hills of Tripura and Mizoram. In R. Samaddar, The Politics of Autonomy (pp. 216-241). New Delhi: Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd.
• Bhattacharya.S.R. (1989). Tribal Insurgency in Tripura: A Study in Exploration of causes. New Delhi: M.C Mittal Inter-India Publication.
• Bhattacharyya, Harihar (1990). Communism, Nationalism and Tribal Questions in Tripura. Economic and Political Weekly, Volume XXV, No.39, 2209-2214.
• Bhaumik, Subir (2012). Tripura: Ethnic Conflict, Militancy and Counterinsurgency. Politics and Practices 52, Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group-Kolkata, August 2012
• Choudhury, K. K. (2007). Introduction of Kokborok As Medium of Instruction: Problems and Prospects (An Analytical Assessment). In R. Acharyya, Development of Tribal Language: A hope for the mission (pp. 81-82). Agartala: Tribal Research Institute.
• Debbarma, Khakchang (2007). Politics of Land Alienation and Problems of its Restoration in Tripura. Eastern Quarterly, Vol.4, Issue II, July-September 2007.
• Debbarma, Sukendu (2005). The Reangs of Tripura. In S. K. Chaudhari, Primitive Tribes in Contemporary India (pp. 221-228). New Delhi: Mittal publication.
• Debbarma, S. L. (2007). An Evaluation of Kokborok Language and Literature. In R. Acharya, Development of Tribal Language-A hope for the mission (pp. 114-115). Agartala: Tribal Reseach Institute.
• Dev,Rajesh and Paul, Manas (2003). Ethnic Tensions and Democratic Concensus-Assembly Elections, 2003. Economic and Political Weekly, pp. April, 1455-1458.
• Economic and Political Weekly (1997). Tribal Poor in a Trap, May 31, 1997
• Gosh, Biswajit (2003). Ethnicity and Insurgency in Tripura. Sociological Bulletin, 52(2), September, pp. 221-242.
• Dasgupta, Malavika. D (1991). Land Alienation among Tripura Tribals. Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 2113-2118, September 7.
• K.S.Singh, B. M. (2006). Tribal Movements in Tripura. In K. S. Singh, Tribal Movements in India, Vol I (pp. 317-337). New Delhi: Manohar Publishers.
• Jena,K.N and Tripura, Babudan (2009). Changing Face of Tripura Tribe. New Delhi: Abhijeet Publications.
• Long, James (2008). Analysis of Rajmala or Chronicles of Tripura . Agartala : Tripura State Tribal Research Cultural Research Instiutute and Museum.
• Manoshi Das, J. C. (2011). Tripura Tribe-A Status analysis . Agartala : Tribal Research and Cultural Institute .
• Ministry of Tribal Affairs (2010). Statistical Profile of Scheduled Tribes in India. New Delhi
• Ramunny, Murkot (1988). Changing Face of Tripura. Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 1879-1880, September 10.
• S.B.Saha (1986). Socio-Economic Survey of the Noatia Tribes . Agartala : Tripura Welfare Department.
• Sengupta, Mayuri (2013).Shifting Cultivation and the Reang Tribe in Tripura. Economic and Political Weekly pp.59-65, October 5, Vol XLVIII NO. 40
• Tripura, Biswaranjan (2014). Educational Experiences of the Indigenous Peoples. New Delhi–Mittal Publications.
• UN (2007). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples.http://issuu.com/karinzylsaw/docs/un_declaration_rights_indigenous_peoples?mode: UN General Assembly.
• Varman, S. (2012). The Tribes of Tripura-A Dissertation. Agartala: Tribal Research and Cultural Institute.

 

Have you like this article?