Since the ethnic violence of May 2023, Kuki-Zo civil bodies, MLAs, and SoO groups have converged on the political demand for “Separate Administration under the Constitution of India.” The demand was framed primarily around security failure, loss of trust in the Manipur state government, and the need for neutral governance. De facto territorial separation - buffer zones and segregated habitation has reinforced the political imagination of administrative bifurcation. Engagement preference has shifted from the state government to direct negotiation with the Union Government. Multiple constitutional models are discussed: Union Territory, Autonomous State, or expanded Sixth Schedule autonomy. Presently, there is partial administrative disengagement from state institutions in Kuki-Zo hill areas. The movement draws strength from ethnic consolidation, legislator backing, and alignment with SoO armed groups. Key constraints include Naga territorial overlaps, constitutional complexity, and Delhi’s reluctance to set precedents. Likely pathways include phased negotiations, interim autonomous arrangements, and tripartite peace accords. Overall trajectory suggests a long-term, negotiation-driven autonomy process rather than immediate territorial reorganisation.
1. Background: Why the “Separate Administration” Demand Emerged (Since May 2023)
After the outbreak of ethnic violence in Manipur on 3 May 2023, Kuki-Zo civil society organisations (CSOs), militant groups under Suspension of Operations (SoO), and elected representatives from Kuki-Zo areas began articulating a consolidated political demand.
Core triggers (as framed by Kuki-Zo bodies)
a) Security breakdown
• Loss of trust in the Manipur state government’s ability to protect hill minorities.
• Allegations that state forces were partisan or ineffective.
• Demand for Union-controlled security arrangement.
b) Territorial segregation (de facto)
• Physical separation between valley (Meitei) and hill (Kuki-Zo) populations.
• Buffer zones enforced by central forces.
• This hardened political imagination of administrative separation.
c) Historical autonomy aspirations
• Earlier demands for:
o Autonomous Hill Councils strengthening
o Territorial Council
o Statehood within India (e.g., “Kukiland” narratives in past decades)
d) Collapse of coexistence framework
• Civil bodies declared “no possibility of living under Meitei-dominated administration” (political messaging used in rallies and memoranda).
2. Institutional Voices Articulating the Demand
Key actors shaping the standpoint:
- Kuki Inpi Manipur (KIM)
- Zomi Council
- Kuki-Zo MLAs (10 legislators)
- SoO militant umbrellas:
- KNO (Kuki National Organisation)
- UPF (United People’s Front)
- ITLF (Indigenous Tribal Leaders’ Forum)
Their common political formulation
“Separate Administration under the Constitution of India.” Importantly, this wording is strategic:
• It avoids secessionist framing.
• It seeks legitimacy within Indian federal structure.
3. Forms of “Separate Administration” Proposed
Different models have been discussed internally and in memoranda:
1. Union Territory (UT)
• Direct rule by the Central Government.
• With or without legislature.
Political logic: Security guarantee + administrative neutrality.
2. Territorial Council / Autonomous State
Under Articles 244A or Sixth Schedule-type expansion.
Political logic: Maximum autonomy without full UT separation.
3. Separate Hill State (long-term maximalist vision)
Not formally adopted in all memoranda but present in ideological discourse.
Standpoints Since May 2023 — Key Political Positions
Standpoint 1: “Irreversible Separation”
Many Kuki-Zo bodies declared:
• Coexistence under the current Manipur government is “impossible.”
• Administrative bifurcation is the “only solution.”
Standpoint 2: Negotiation Only With the Centre
Shift in engagement strategy:
• Refusal to engage with the Manipur state government.
• Preference for talks mediated by:
o Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
o Interlocutors
Standpoint 3: Linkage With Peace Talks
SoO militant groups tied political settlement to:
• Ongoing Naga peace process parity
• Territorial safeguards
• Political package
Standpoint 4: Protection of Tribal Land Regime
Demand includes:
• Constitutional protection of hill land
• No valley administrative control over hill districts
5. Status After Formation of the “Popular Government” in Manipur
(Refers to the elected government continuing/re-asserting authority after President’s Rule debates and political instability.)
Kuki-Zo Political Response
1. Non-recognition in practice
• Continued refusal to operate under state administrative authority in many areas.
• Parallel reliance on:
o CSOs
o Village authorities
o Armed group influence in some pockets
2. MLAs’ ambiguous positioning
• Kuki-Zo MLAs did not fully integrate politically with the state government machinery.
• Some functioned from outside the state capital due to security concerns.
3. Administrative disengagement
Examples reported in public discourse:
• Boycott of state-level meetings.
• Demand that central funds bypass the state and go directly to hill administration.
4. Security still centralised
• Law & order heavily dependent on:
o Assam Rifles
o Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs)
This indirectly sustains the “separate administration reality,” though not constitutionally formalised.
6. Political Strengths of the Movement
From a political strategy lens:
✔ Ethnic consolidation
• Rare unity across Kuki, Zomi, and smaller Zo tribes.
✔ Legislator backing
• Support from elected MLAs adds democratic legitimacy.
✔ Armed group alignment
• SoO groups politically synchronized with civil demands.
✔ Diaspora lobbying
• Advocacy in Delhi and internationally.
✔ Humanitarian narrative
• IDP crisis used to frame moral urgency.
________________________________________
7. Political Constraints / Weaknesses
✖ Constitutional complexity
Creating UT/state requires:
• Parliamentary approval
• National political consensus
________________________________________
✖ Territorial contestation
• Naga groups claim overlapping areas.
• Could trigger inter-tribal conflict.
________________________________________
✖ Central Government caution
Delhi fears:
• Balkanisation precedent.
• Domino demands across Northeast.
________________________________________
✖ Economic viability questions
Critics question:
• Revenue base
• Administrative infrastructure
________________________________________
✖ Internal diversity
Not all Zo tribes uniformly agree on final political model.
________________________________________
8. Present Movement Trajectory (2024–2026 trend analysis)
Observed direction:
1. From emotional demand → structured constitutional demand.
2. From street protest → memorandum diplomacy.
3. From state confrontation → central negotiation focus.
4. From militant narrative → humanitarian-political framing.
________________________________________
9. Possible Future Political Steps (Strategic Pathways)
Below is an analytical roadmap — not prescriptive advocacy — of what movements in similar contexts typically pursue:
________________________________________
Step 1: Political Codification of Demand
Why important
• Delhi negotiates only with clearly defined proposals.
Actions
• Publish White Paper.
• Define boundaries.
• Clarify administrative model (UT vs Autonomous State).
________________________________________
Step 2: Broaden Democratic Legitimacy
Methods
• Resolutions by:
o Village authorities
o Tribal councils
o Church bodies
• Public referendums (symbolic, not constitutional).
________________________________________
Step 3: Parliamentary Lobbying
Engage:
• Tribal Affairs Ministry
• Northeast MPs
• Parliamentary Standing Committees
Goal: Nationalise the issue beyond Manipur.
________________________________________
Step 4: Negotiation Through SoO Political Talks
Leverage:
• Existing peace dialogue frameworks.
• Demand political settlement package.
This mirrors:
• Bodo Territorial Region model
• Gorkhaland Territorial Administration model
________________________________________
Step 5: Administrative De-Facto Consolidation
Without formal separation, movements often build:
• Regional councils
• Civil secretariats
• Development boards
Creates governance capacity argument.
________________________________________
Step 6: Legal-Constitutional Route
File for:
• Sixth Schedule inclusion expansion
• Article 3 state reorganisation debate
Requires national coalition building.
________________________________________
Step 7: Conflict De-Escalation Diplomacy
Paradoxically essential.
Delhi is unlikely to concede reorganisation amid active violence.
Thus movements often:
• Support ceasefires
• Facilitate rehabilitation
• Engage in inter-ethnic dialogue (even if politically distant)
________________________________________
10. Scenario Mapping (Political Futures)
Scenario Probability (analytical) Outcome
Status quo with buffer zones High De facto separation continues
Enhanced Autonomous Council Medium Administrative autonomy without UT
Union Territory Low–Medium Depends on national politics
Full statehood Low Long-term possibility only
Reintegration under Manipur Low currently Needs major reconciliation
________________________________________
11. Key Determining Factors Ahead
1. Central Government political will.
2. Meitei–Kuki reconciliation prospects.
3. Naga territorial claims response.
4. Security stabilisation.
5. Electoral arithmetic in Parliament.
6. International/diaspora pressure.
________________________________________
12. Concluding Political Assessment
• The “Separate Administration” demand has evolved from a reactive security response into a structured constitutional political movement.
• Ground realities already reflect partial administrative separation.
• However, constitutional realisation faces major hurdles:
o Territorial overlap
o Federal precedent concerns
o National security calculations
Thus, the movement’s trajectory will likely be long-term, negotiation-driven, and phased, rather than immediate territorial reorganisation.
Comparative Analysis
1. Kuki-Zo Separate Administration vs Bodo, Gorkha & Ladakh Movements
These movements differ in history, scale, constitutional pathways, and outcomes. Understanding their trajectories helps situate the Kuki-Zo demand within India’s federal conflict-management framework.
________________________________________
A. Bodo Movement → Territorial Autonomy Model
Region: Assam (Bodoland areas)
Key Organisations:
• All Bodo Students’ Union (ABSU)
• National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB)
Phases
Phase Demand Outcome
1980s Separate State Violent insurgency + mass mobilisation
1993 Autonomous Council Bodoland Autonomous Council (weak powers)
2003 Sixth Schedule Council Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC)
2020 Expanded autonomy Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) Accord
Key Political Lessons
What worked
• Tripartite talks (Centre–State–Bodo groups)
• Armed + civil convergence
• Territorial demarcation negotiated
Constraints faced
• Non-Bodo minorities resisted inclusion
• Limited fiscal autonomy
Relevance to Kuki-Zo
• Shows autonomy within a state is more achievable than UT/statehood.
• Demonstrates phased settlement model.
________________________________________
B. Gorkhaland Movement → Sub-State Territorial Administration
Region: Darjeeling hills, West Bengal
Key Organisations:
• Gorkha National Liberation Front (GNLF)
• Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM)
Institutional Outcomes
Year Institution Created
1988 Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council
2011 Gorkhaland Territorial Administration (GTA)
Political Dynamics
Characteristics
• Strong identity mobilisation.
• Periodic violent agitations.
• Electoral leverage in hill constituencies.
Why statehood failed
• West Bengal government resistance.
• Lack of national political consensus.
• Strategic importance of Siliguri Corridor nearby.
Relevance to Kuki-Zo
• Illustrates limits of hill statehood demands.
• Shows how territorial councils become compromise solutions.
________________________________________
C. Ladakh Movement → Union Territory Success
Region: Formerly part of Jammu & Kashmir
Key Organisations:
• Ladakh Buddhist Association
• Ladakh Union Territory Front
Outcome
In 2019, through the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019:
• Ladakh became a Union Territory without legislature.
Why UT Demand Succeeded
Key enabling factors
1. National security centrality (China, Pakistan borders).
2. Sparse population → administratively manageable.
3. Long-standing Buddhist minority grievance vs Kashmir dominance.
4. Reorganisation opportunity after Article 370 abrogation.
Relevance to Kuki-Zo
• UT is constitutionally possible.
• But Ladakh benefited from a unique geopolitical moment.
________________________________________
Comparative Snapshot
Factor Bodo Gorkha Ladakh Kuki-Zo (Current)
Movement type Armed + mass Mass agitation Political + strategic Armed + civil
Demand State → Autonomy Statehood UT Separate Administration
Outcome Sixth Schedule Region Territorial Admin UT Pending
Territorial conflict Moderate Low Minimal High (Naga overlap)
Security factor Medium Low Very high High
________________________________________
2 Constitutional Provisions Enabling Separation / Reorganisation
India’s Constitution provides multiple pathways for administrative restructuring.
________________________________________
Article 3 — State Reorganisation Power
Core provision:
Parliament can:
• Create new states.
• Alter boundaries.
• Change names.
Process
1. President refers Bill to State Legislature.
2. State gives views (not binding).
3. Parliament passes Bill by simple majority.
Implication
• Manipur’s consent is not mandatory.
• Politically sensitive but legally feasible.
________________________________________
Article 2 — Admission / Establishment of New States
Used mainly for integrating territories (e.g., Sikkim earlier), but theoretically flexible.
________________________________________
Article 239 — Union Territories Administration
Allows creation of UTs governed by the President via an Administrator/LG.
Examples:
• Ladakh
• Chandigarh
________________________________________
Article 239A / 239AA — UT Legislatures
Provide legislative assemblies in UTs like:
• Delhi
• Puducherry
A Kuki-Zo UT could theoretically have or not have a legislature.
________________________________________
Sixth Schedule (Articles 244 & 275)
Applies to tribal areas in:
• Assam
• Meghalaya
• Tripura
• Mizoram
Provides:
• Autonomous District Councils
• Legislative powers on land, customs, local governance
Relevance
• Could be extended/amended to include Manipur hill areas.
________________________________________
Article 244A — Autonomous State Within a State
Allows creation of an “Autonomous State” with legislature/council.
Originally conceptualised for Assam tribal areas.
Politically underused but constitutionally viable.
________________________________________
Article 371C — Special Provision for Manipur
Provides:
• Hill Areas Committee (HAC)
• Governor oversight on hill administration
Kuki-Zo groups argue this has been inadequately implemented.
Strengthening 371C is a “minimum autonomy” pathway.
________________________________________
3 Electoral Implications
Separate administration demands reshape electoral politics at three levels:
________________________________________
A. Manipur State Politics
1. Valley–Hill Political Polarisation
Electoral consolidation trends:
Region Likely Political Behaviour
Valley (Meitei) Strong anti-division stance
Hills (Kuki-Zo) Pro-separation consolidation
This reduces cross-ethnic party appeal.
________________________________________
2. Party System Fragmentation
National parties face dilemmas:
• Support separation → Lose valley base.
• Oppose separation → Lose hill base.
Regional parties could emerge in hill areas if separation talks deepen.
________________________________________
3. Legislative Functionality Impact
If hill MLAs disengage:
• Assembly arithmetic shifts.
• Governance legitimacy debates arise.
________________________________________
B. Northeast Regional Politics
Domino Concerns
Granting separation could trigger:
• Karbi demands in Assam.
• Dimasa autonomy push.
• Gorkhaland revival.
Delhi weighs this precedent risk heavily.
________________________________________
Inter-Tribal Boundary Politics
Naga groups (under National Socialist Council of Nagalim frameworks) claim overlapping territories.
Any Kuki-Zo unit could:
• Complicate Naga peace talks.
• Trigger new territorial negotiations.
________________________________________
C. National Electoral Calculus
Parliamentary Seat Arithmetic
Manipur has:
• 2 Lok Sabha seats.
• Small numerically but symbolically sensitive.
However, Northeast as a bloc matters in coalition politics.
________________________________________
Tribal Political Positioning
Supporting tribal autonomy can:
• Strengthen national tribal vote narratives.
• Align with Act East / borderland development agendas.
But risks alienating valley populations.
________________________________________
Strategic Electoral Scenarios
Scenario Electoral Effect
UT Formation Hill parties gain; valley backlash
Autonomous Council Partial accommodation
Status Quo Continued ethnic bloc voting
Reintegration Requires reconciliation politics
________________________________________
Concluding Synthesis
Comparative insight
• Bodo model → Most replicable (territorial autonomy).
• Gorkha model → Likely fallback compromise.
• Ladakh model → Politically hardest but symbolically influential.
Constitutional reality
• India’s Constitution is flexible enough.
• Political will — not legality — is the main barrier.
Electoral impact
• Ethnic bloc politics will intensify.
• National parties must balance valley integrity vs hill autonomy.
• Any concession will reshape Northeast autonomy movements.
I’ll structure this in three analytical sections—negotiation roadmap, fiscal viability, and territorial feasibility—drawing from how the Union Government has historically handled autonomy/statehood demands in the Northeast and elsewhere. This is a political–institutional analysis, not advocacy.
________________________________________
1️⃣ Possible Negotiation Roadmap the Union Government (Delhi) Might Use
Delhi typically follows a sequenced conflict-management → political-settlement model. Based on precedents (Bodo, Naga, Mizo, Ladakh), a Kuki-Zo negotiation pathway would likely unfold in phases:
________________________________________
Phase 1 — Conflict Stabilisation
Objective: Create conditions for political dialogue.
Likely steps
• Maintain buffer zones between ethnic areas.
• Central forces retain primacy over law & order.
• Extend / recalibrate SoO agreements with Kuki armed groups.
• Humanitarian rehabilitation (IDPs, housing, compensation).
Political logic:
Delhi rarely negotiates territorial restructuring amid active violence.
________________________________________
Phase 2 — Stakeholder Recognition & Dialogue Architecture
Delhi would formalise interlocution channels:
A. Civil bodies
• Tribal apex organisations.
• Church federations.
• Student unions.
B. Political actors
• Kuki-Zo MLAs.
• Hill Autonomous Councils.
C. Armed groups
Under SoO umbrellas like:
• Kuki National Organisation
• United People’s Front
Format: Tripartite talks (Centre–State–Kuki-Zo representatives).
________________________________________
Phase 3 — Demand Structuring
Delhi typically asks movements to codify demands into negotiable frameworks:
Expected documentation
• Territorial map proposals.
• Administrative model preference:
o UT
o Autonomous State
o Sixth Schedule Region
• Governance blueprint.
• Minority safeguards.
This prevents negotiating abstract slogans.
________________________________________
Phase 4 — Parallel Track Engagement
Delhi will simultaneously consult:
• Meitei civil organisations.
• Naga groups (territorial overlap issue).
• Manipur State Government.
This reduces post-settlement backlash.
________________________________________
Phase 5 — Interim Administrative Arrangements
Before final settlement, Delhi may introduce transitional autonomy:
Examples from past models:
Mechanism Purpose
Regional Administrative Authority De facto autonomy
Development Board Fiscal devolution
Security Council Joint policing
This tests administrative viability.
________________________________________
Phase 6 — Political Settlement Accord
If negotiations converge, Delhi drafts an accord similar to:
• Bodoland Territorial Region Peace Accord (2020)
• Mizoram Peace Accord (1986)
Components
• Territorial jurisdiction.
• Legislative powers.
• Financial package.
• Rehabilitation of cadres.
• Constitutional amendments if required.
________________________________________
Phase 7 — Constitutional & Parliamentary Process
Depending on model:
Model Legal Route
UT Article 3 + Reorganisation Act
Autonomous State Article 244A legislation
Sixth Schedule Constitutional Amendment
Enhanced 371C Parliamentary amendment
________________________________________
Phase 8 — Implementation & Monitoring
Delhi usually creates:
• Accord Implementation Commission.
• Financial oversight boards.
• Security transition mechanisms.
________________________________________
2️⃣ Fiscal Viability Analysis of a Hypothetical Kuki-Zo Union Territory
Fiscal sustainability is one of Delhi’s biggest decision factors.
Below is a macro-analytical estimate based on hill district economics.
________________________________________
A. Likely Territorial Composition (assumed core)
• Churachandpur
• Kangpokpi
• Chandel
• Tengnoupal
• Pherzawl
(+ parts of hill subdivisions if reorganised)
Population estimate: ~8–10 lakh (approx analytical range).
________________________________________
B. Revenue Sources
1. Own Tax Revenue (Low Base)
Source Viability
GST share Limited consumption economy
Excise Minimal industrial base
Vehicle tax Small
Property tax Weak urbanisation
Assessment: Very low internal revenue.
________________________________________
2. Non-Tax Revenue
• Forest produce.
• Minor minerals.
• Land leases.
• Border trade (potential, not realised).
________________________________________
3. Central Transfers (Primary lifeline)
UTs rely heavily on:
• Finance Commission grants.
• Ministry of Home Affairs UT budget.
• DoNER funding.
• NEC projects.
Likely dependency: 80–90% central funding (similar to Ladakh, Mizoram in early years).
________________________________________
C. Expenditure Profile
1. Security Costs (High)
Due to:
• Ethnic buffer zones.
• Insurgency history.
• International border proximity (Myanmar).
Security could consume 25–35% of the budget initially.
________________________________________
2. Administrative Infrastructure Creation
A new UT requires:
• Secretariat.
• Directorate offices.
• Police HQ.
• Judiciary benches.
High capital expenditure in the first decade.
________________________________________
3. Social Sector Spending
Hill regions require heavy subsidies for:
• Health.
• Education.
• Rural roads.
• Telecommunications.
________________________________________
D. Economic Assets & Growth Potential
Strengths
• Timber & forest economy.
• Horticulture (orange, pineapple, ginger).
• Bamboo industry.
• Border trade corridors (Moreh sector proximity).
• Tourism (eco, war cemeteries, cultural tourism).
Constraints
• Poor connectivity.
• Landslide-prone terrain.
• Limited rail access.
• Private investment hesitancy.
________________________________________
Fiscal Sustainability Outlook
Period Viability Assessment
0–5 years Highly grant-dependent
5–15 years Moderate stabilisation possible
15+ years Sustainable only with trade corridors
Conclusion:
A Kuki-Zo UT is fiscally viable only under heavy central subsidy, at least initially.
________________________________________
3️⃣ District-Wise Territorial Feasibility Mapping
This examines political demography, contiguity, and conflict overlap.
________________________________________
1. Churachandpur District
Status: Movement epicentre.
Demography:
• Kuki-Zo majority (Paite, Thadou, Hmar, Zou, etc.).
Feasibility: Very High
Would almost certainly form administrative core.
________________________________________
2. Kangpokpi District
Demography:
• Mixed but Kuki-Zo plurality in many areas.
• Strategic highway control (NH-2).
Feasibility: High but contested in pockets.
________________________________________
3. Tengnoupal District
Features:
• Border district (Myanmar).
• Includes Moreh trade town.
Feasibility: High strategic value; politically supportive.
________________________________________
4. Chandel District
Complex demography:
• Kuki-Zo + Naga populations.
Feasibility: Medium
Would require sub-district demarcation to avoid Naga conflict.
________________________________________
5. Pherzawl District
Demography: Predominantly Hmar/Zomi groups.
Feasibility: High
Geographically linked to Churachandpur.
________________________________________
6. Kamjong District
Demography: Naga majority.
Feasibility: Very Low
Unlikely inclusion; strong Naga opposition.
________________________________________
7. Ukhrul / Senapati / Tamenglong / Noney
Predominantly Naga districts.
Feasibility: Not viable for inclusion.
________________________________________
Territorial Contiguity Assessment
Contiguous feasible belt:
Churachandpur → Pherzawl → Kangpokpi → Tengnoupal → (parts of Chandel)
Forms a southwest–central hill corridor.
________________________________________
Boundary Risks
1. Naga territorial claims (NSCN frameworks).
2. Mixed villages in Chandel & Kangpokpi.
3. Highway control politics.
4. Border trade revenue sharing.
________________________________________
Integrated Feasibility Table
District Inclusion Probability Key Issue
Churachandpur Very High Movement core
Pherzawl Very High Ethnic alignment
Kangpokpi High Mixed pockets
Tengnoupal High Strategic border
Chandel Medium Naga overlap
Kamjong Very Low Naga majority
Ukhrul Nil Naga homeland
________________________________________
Strategic Observations
• Any UT without Kangpokpi loses valley connectivity leverage.
• Inclusion of Moreh (trade gate) boosts fiscal viability.
• Chandel demarcation will be the toughest negotiation.
________________________________________
Concluding Synthesis
Negotiation reality
• Delhi will move slowly, beginning with autonomy—not UT.
Fiscal reality
• UT viable only through long-term central subsidy and border trade activation.
Territorial reality
• A compact southwest hill UT is geographically feasible but politically contested in mixed districts.
References
📚 Core Conflict & Manipur Ethnopolitics
Baruah, S. (2005). Durable disorder: Understanding the politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press.
Baruah, S. (2020). In the name of the nation: India and its Northeast. Stanford University Press.
Haokip, T. (2015). The Kuki uprising of 1917–1919: Politics of memory and identity. Economic and Political Weekly, 50(35), 59–66.
Haokip, T. (2020). Ethnic relations and conflicts in Northeast India. Asian Ethnicity, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2019.1605015
McDuie-Ra, D. (2016). Borderland city in New India: Frontier to gateway. Amsterdam University Press.
Samaddar, R. (Ed.). (2017). The postcolonial age of migration: Indigenous nationalism and the Northeast. Routledge.
________________________________________
📚 Works on Kuki-Zo Politics & Hill Administration
Haokip, T. (2013). Politics of identity and land relations in Northeast India. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 48(5), 598–611.
Kipgen, N. (2013). Ethnicity, insurgency, and counterinsurgency: The Kuki–Naga conflict in Manipur. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36(9), 714–735. https://doi.org/10.1080/1057610X.2013.813249
Shimray, U. A. (2001). Socio-political unrest in the region called North-East India. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(40), 3674–3677.
________________________________________
📚 Autonomy & Federalism in Northeast India
Baruah, S. (2003). Citizens and denizens: Ethnicity, homelands, and rights in Northeast India. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(1), 51–56.
Bhattacharyya, S. (2018). Sixth Schedule and tribal autonomy in Northeast India. Indian Journal of Public Administration, 64(4), 575–588.
Hausing, K. K. (2014). Autonomous district councils and tribal governance. Social Change, 44(3), 365–381.
________________________________________
📚 Bodo Movement & Territorial Council
George, S. (1994). The Bodo movement in Assam: Unrest to accord. Asian Survey, 34(10), 878–892.
Misra, U. (2014). India’s North-East: Identity movements, state formation, and federalism. Oxford University Press.
Government of India. (2020). Memorandum of Settlement on Bodoland Territorial Region. Ministry of Home Affairs.
________________________________________
📚 Gorkhaland Movement
Chakravarti, B. (2013). The demand for Gorkhaland: Autonomy and identity politics. India Review, 12(3), 189–210.
Middleton, T. (2015). The demography of discontent: Gorkhaland agitation. Oxford University Press.
________________________________________
📚 Ladakh & Union Territory Reorganisation
Government of India. (2019). Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. Ministry of Law and Justice.
Aggarwal, R. (2004). Beyond lines of control: Ladakhi nationalism and the politics of autonomy. Duke University Press.
________________________________________
📚 Constitutional & Legal Provisions
Basu, D. D. (2018). Introduction to the Constitution of India (23rd ed.). LexisNexis.
Jain, M. P. (2019). Indian constitutional law (8th ed.). LexisNexis.
Austin, G. (1999). Working a democratic constitution: The Indian experience. Oxford University Press.
Government of India. (1950). The Constitution of India. Ministry of Law and Justice. https://legislative.gov.in
________________________________________
📚 Peace Accords & Negotiation Frameworks
Government of India. (1986). Mizoram Peace Accord. Ministry of Home Affairs.
Government of India. (1993). Bodo Accord. Ministry of Home Affairs.
Government of India. (2003). Memorandum of Settlement with Bodo Liberation Tigers. Ministry of Home Affairs.
________________________________________
📚 Policy & Security Analysis Reports
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). (Various years). Reports on Northeast insurgencies. https://www.idsa.in
Observer Research Foundation. (2023–2025). Northeast conflict briefs. https://www.orfonline.org
International Crisis Group. (2023). Conflict dynamics in India’s Northeast. Brussels: ICG.
________________________________________
Notes for Academic Use
• Use government accords for primary political settlement evidence.
• Use Baruah, Misra, Haokip, and Kipgen for ethnopolitical analysis.
• Use Basu/Jain for constitutional pathways.
• Combine policy reports for recent conflict context (post-2023).
No comments:
Post a Comment