Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction With the onset of globalization, the peripheral Northeast, like the rest of India, has been confronted with multiple folds of change and development. Such change also culminated in the fluidity of movements of tribes of Northeast India, who were once considered to be isolated from the rest of the country. At the same time, Northeast India is known to be a ‘troubled region’ with violence and ethnic clashes occurring on daily basis coupled with socio-political and economic instability of the region. Due to these factors of socio-economic insecurity and the fast pace of globalization complimented by free flow of movements, it ultimatedly led to a unique kind of culture, where geo-political boundaries are dissolved and instead a community of imaginary world evolves. Similarly, many people from the Northeast, especially the younger generations began to migrate to major Indian cities in mainland India in order to seek for greener pastures. As a result to this socio-economic transformation which arrived over a short span of time has become a challenging force. As a consequence to this, tribes of Northeast India are confronted with a new phenomenon of identity crisis like never before. When the rich tribal cultural heritage clashed with faster currents of new and greater civilizations, there is greater probability that tribes such as the Hmars, will be consumed by the greater cultural currents. Simultaneously, this new current also gives rise to negotiations and search for their indigenous tribal identity. Therefore, the socio-political instability and the changing social dynamics of the tribal world of Northeast India constituted by the onset of globalization gave rise for the need to understand the process of such change and how the tribal worlds confront, negotiate and construct their identity in this fast pace of global system. An inclusive policy of the government such as Look East Policy 1, 1992 with Northeast India as its corridor and the launcing of Facebook page called Delhi Police for North East Folks 2 clearly indicates the exclusivity of Northeast from mainstream geo-political identity formation of an Indian nation. Northeast India which is predominantly inhibited by tribes with Mongoloid racial features constitutes about 8% of India's geographical land mass which is roughly 3/4th the size of 1 http://www.academia.edu/15544201/Indias_Look_East_Policy_Prospects_and_Challenges_for_Northeast_India 2 https://www.facebook.com/dpfne/ the state of Maharashtra. Subsequently, we see and hear news about racial discriminations against people from the Northeast. As such, it is highly important to investigate whether it could be because of the geo-political history and racial distinctiveness that there tends to be continuous subjugations of tribal minorities of Northeast India. On the other hand, there are tribes from the Northeast such as Hmars who seek to find an identity for themselves within this tumultuous situation. A search for identity, not as a distinct entity with the process of nation formation but those who seek to re-create the culture and heritage that they have lost in the course of their socio economic struggles. Therefore, this research revolves around questions relating to the process whereby indigenous Hmar tribal migrants from Northeast India residing in Pune city of Maharashtra state reconstruct their indigenous tribal identity in mainland India; how the everyday social world of identity narratives are accentuated with various cultural symbols that subsequently paved way for reconstruction of identity. As such, the study is designed to be based on an ethnographic study of tribal migrants from the Northeast in general and Hmar migrants in particular. Thus, this study basically looks at how identity is reconstructed by Hmar tribal migrants within the backdrop of socio-political periphery of Northeast India. Similarly, the study seeks to examine the adaptation modes of the Hmar migrants with their host community as well as the receptiveness of the hosts towards the tribal migrants. It also examines various cultural symbols and representations as well as the strength of social networks amongst the tribal migrants by looking at social and religious organizations in bringing about cultural endurance and survival. 1.1 - Background of the Problem According to the Census of India, 2001, 307.2 million out of 1028.6 million persons were migrants. Among these 30% migrants, 42.1 millions were inter-state migrants. The total number of all duration of migrants from the northeastern region to other parts of India has increased from 0.4 million in 1981 to 0.6 million in 1991. In 2001, this is an increase of 1.1 million migrants against its population of 39 million (Rajan 2011). In spite of large number of out-migrants from northeast regions, there is limited literature available on this issue. Historically and geographically, the northeast region is different from the rest of India in many aspects. With its poor infrastructure, industrial development, geographical location, the development process has been slow in spite of the fact that the region is rich in natural resources (Sharma 2006). Some writers such as R. P. Sinha (2006) are of the opinion that the northeast region’s lack of development is due to economic neglect from mainland India. It is mostly due to the underdevelopment and lack of opportunity at home which motivates and push people from that region to migrate to other parts of India. Prior to the new millena, people prefered to migrate urban cities with better connectivity and transport links (Chyrmang 2010). However, at the turn of the new millena, with the improvement in transport and communication as well as reduction in airfare and increase in transportation frequencies, people migrate further to other urban cities of India. Politically disturbed states like Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura and Assam have recorded more out-migrants than in-migrants (see table 1.1). Table 1.1 - Share of Migration in Overall Growth Rate of Population (Duration 0-9 year), 1991-2001 States POP POP IM OM NIM: MGR: PGR: (1991) (2001) (2001) (2001) (2001) 1991- 1991- 01 01 Sikkim 406457 540851 30174 6238 23936 5.89 33.06 Arunachal 864558 1097968 74720 12507 62213 7.20 27.00 Pradesh Nagaland 1209546 1990036 35346 51857 -16511 -1.37 64.53 Manipur 1837149 2166788 4711 30867 -26156 1.42 17.94 Mizoram 689756 888573 31035 31739 -704 -0.10 28.82 Tripura 2757205 3199203 51508 23538 27970 1.01 16.03 Meghalaya 177477 8 2318822 34864 20434 14430 0.81 30.65 Assam 22414322 26655528 126856 281510 -154654 -0.69 18.92 Total NER 31953771 38857769 389214 458690 -69476 -0.22 21.61 All India 846387888 1028610328 17567746 16826879 740867 0.09 21.53 Source: S. Irudaya Rajan based on Government of India (1991, 2001). Notes: POP: Population; IM: In-migration; OM: Out-migration; NIM: Net in-migration; MGR: Migration Rate; PGR: Population Growth Rate 1.1.1 - Reasons and Trend of Migration from Northeast Region: During the year 1981 to 2001, the proportion of out-migration has increased from 1.7 % to 2.9 % (GoI 1991; 2001). This increase indicates various pull factors where migrants are motivated by employment opportunities, better living conditions, higher wages, and better educational opportunities. Financial conditions at home, political instability of their state, ethnic conflicts, lack of opportunities also pushes the migrants out of their regions (Singh 2007; Rajan 2011). Based on the Table 1.2 below marriage occupies the highest reason for migration accounting to 47% in 1991 and 58% in 2001 (Census 2001). However, when comparing statewise reasons for out-migration, marriage is not the foremost reason for migration which is the case with Manipur which is the native home for majority of the respondents. Instead employment and education are two of the main reasons for migration as seen in Table 1.3. Looking at the reasons and trend of migration, migration flow does not seem to come to an end. With the improvement in India’s economy and at the same time the relentless political and social instability of northeast will eventually continue to drive the people out of their native place in search of greener pasture. Table 1.2 - Reasons for Migration by Place of Last Residence, 1991-2001 Reasons for 1991 Census 2001 Census migration Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Employment 14.90 27.21 3.84 14.76 32.95 3.03 Business 4.67 8.49 1.25 2.37 5.47 0.37 Education 4.05 6.00 2.29 2.71 4.83 1.35 Marriage 26.19 2.84 47.17 35.86 1.68 57.89 Family 32.04 31.46 32.57 1.16 1.70 0.81 move Natural 1.25 1.81 0.74 23.64 25.21 22.62 calamities Others 16.89 22.19 12.14 19.51 28.16 13.94 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 migrants Source: S. Irudaya Rajan based on Government of India (2001). Table 1.3 - Reasons for Total Out-migration from the Northeastern Region (in Percentage) States Moved Moved Work/ after with employment Business Education Marriage birth household Others Sikkim 16.05 1.79 5.95 22.94 1.68 27.97 23.6 3 Arunachal 13.84 1.26 8.98 21.01 1.93 27.72 25.27 Pradesh Nagaland 8.10 0.56 1.91 60.42 0.80 13.55 14.67 Manipur 18.62 2.46 14.87 13.73 1.11 28.45 20.76 Mizoram 5.55 0.44 4.01 3.77 0.41 23.96 61.85 Tripura 15.82 6.34 3.52 22.68 1.19 30.77 19.68 Megh alaya 17.15 2.46 3.57 23.42 1.80 32.89 18.70 Assam 16.20 2.54 1.53 36.54 1.20 23.99 18.01 Source: S.

Load more