|
 Many
a myth and misconception dominate any discourse on socio-political
developments in Tripura over the past three decades. Scarred almost
regularly by ethnic violence and blood-spilling by tribal militants,
Tripura is invariably projected as a killing
field in the national media. The demographic imbalance entailed
by the disastrous partition of India in 1947, marginalisation of
indigenous tribals by settlers and the “ethnic explosion” over the
past three decades, are inevitably cited to oversimplify the interplay
of complex socio-political developments and the state’s history.
Nestled in the northeastern extremity of India, tiny Tripura escaped
notice of the government of India till the eventful year of 1971, even
though too much history had been happening in too short a time, with
events overlapping each other in quick succession till then. The
military crackdown in erstwhile East Pakistan in March 1971 and the
influx of 1.5 million refugees into the tiny state, which had a total
population of the same size, pitchforked Tripura into national and
international media.
It is an axiom that tribals do not remain tribals for eternity; they
also become full-fledged assertive nationalities in time, through a
process of natural evolution. The physical features and appearances have
little to do with a people’s status as tribals and nationalities. All
major communities of the world, including Bengalis, Punjabis, Tamils and
countless others, had been tribals before they achieved the status of a
nationality group. Exactly when and how a tribal society graduates to a
full-fledged nationality is still a matter of debate. But we have it on
the authority of Anthony D. Smith, eminent sociologist, that there are
certain preconditions to be fulfilled before a tribal society can be
said to have graduated to that of a nationality.
In his celebrated work, Ethnic Origin of Nations, Smith has
enumerated the preconditions quite perceptively: a stable group of
people sharing similar social existence, folklore, culture, legends and
myths in the course of settled existence on a particular geographical
area must speak a common language. But in addition, they should develop
social stratification, class formation, consciousness of property and
its accumulation and a distinctive identity along with the growth of
capital, to earn the sobriquet of nationality. To my mind, this, most of
the tribal clans of Tripura, barring the extremely backward Reang
shifting cultivators, identified as the sole “primitive group” in
the state, have fulfilled the preconditions. The climax of the
evolutionary process, exacerbated by sectarian political interests,
brought them into a conflict with the non-tribal neighbours and the
militancy in the state is only a bizarre manifestation of
self-assertion.
However,
the old order, which ensured absolutely peaceful and idyllic
co-existence of tribals and non-tribals of Tripura for centuries, could
have died more peacefully. Many scholars and intellectuals may differ
with me on the issue of co-existence but we have it on the authority of
Francis Fukuyama that the “question of national sovereignty is
uncompromisable”. The tribals and non-tribals of Tripura will
definitely co-exist, but only on the basis of equal and shared interests
and ideals. It is also significant that the non-tribals — Bengalis in
the present context of Tripura — had contributed to the development of
the state and its indigenous tribal people. The historians and
anthropologists continue to split hairs over the exact time when Bodo
sub-group of Tibeto-Burman tribals made their way to Tripura in remote
antiquity — 13th century, according to one school of historians or
earlier as claimed by others. The fact, however, remains that  Tripura’s
proximity to the vast water resources and plains of East Bengal
inhabited by a people possessing a relatively developed Sanskritised
culture did exert a strong influence on the indigenous tribals.
Monarchy, an unmistakably advanced political institution, is not
generally associated with a primitive tribal society living on shifting
cultivation and leading a nomadic existence. That the institution of
monarchy had been formed among Tripura’s tribals as early as in the
fifteenth century is proof enough of the close contact and interaction
between the tribals and non-tribals. According to Rajmala,
princely Tripura’s court chronicle and source of history, King Ratna
Manikya (1464) had invited hundreds of Bengali farmers, Brahmins and
professionals to settle in Tripura with the permission of the then Nawab
of Bengal Rukunuddin Barbak Shah.
The process continued and, in fact, gained momentum during the rule of
subsequent kings, as large tracts of land in East Bengal (present
Bangladesh) passed into the sovereign domain of Triura’s Manikya
dynasty rulers since the conquests of Dhanya Manikya (1490-1520). The
domain of the Maharajas expanded and contracted depending on the
individual military might of the rulers but the close contact with the
plainlands of Bengal remained. In fact, tax given by non-tribal farmers
of the plainlands turned out to be the major source of princely
Tripura’s revenue.
There were other correlated developments, which also influenced life and
thoughts of the tribals. The royal administration used to be run by many
Bengali officials and Bengali became the court language once Muslim
nawabi rule in Bengal yielded place to British rule. In fact, late King
Radhakishore Manikya (1897-1909), issued a series of circulars,
directing officials at the lower level to keep up and increase the use
of Bengali in official works.  The
kings aimed at augmenting revenue by encouraging settlement of Bengali
farmers in Tripura because the tribals, who depended on shifting
cultivation for survival, could hardly contribute to the royal coffer.
What, however, acted as positive impediment to tribal development was
the failure of successive kings to initiate efforts to spread the light
of education or develop the tribal language Kokborok. This had its
inevitable fallout in the form of a popular literacy movement called Jana
Shiksha Andolan (mass literacy movement) and the subsequent “armed
struggle” launched by the undivided Communist Party during the last
days of monarchical rule and the opening chapter of Tripura’s history
after partition.
The delicate demographic balance in the state till 1951 was permanently
tilted in the wake of influx of refugees from riot-torn East Pakistan.
This avalanche and steady marginalisation of the tribals in the uneven
economic competition inevitably led to ethnic polarisation with the
formation of the first ethno-centric party, the TUJS. Subsequent scars
on Tripura’s politics and history, such as two successive ethnic riots
in 1979 and 1980 and the problems of insurgency followed, as tribals
started coming into their own. But in the entire process, the non-tribals
played a part right from developing plainland cultivation in Tripura to
devising a script for Kokborok language — and further to growth of
political and socio-economic consciousness. After initial reservations
fomented by sectarian organisations, the non-tribals also actively took
part in the agitation for Autonomous District Council (ADC) for tribals
encompassing 68.10 per cent of the state’s geographical area.
 Even
in the matter of political culture and preservation of distinctive
tribal tradition and heritage, it was the non-tribals who gave the lead.
Yet, this process of alienation between the two communities may have
resulted from the inexorable interplay of dialectical forces. Unless the
tribals, accustomed to a peaceful, idyllic existence in the lap of hill,
had come forward to claim their legitimate rights and positions, the
process of nationality formation would have remained incomplete. The
mindless violence, seemingly bordering on vengeance for a retrospective
hostility, is a passing phase of Tripura’s history which will usher in
a new era of co-existence on equal and honourable terms.(TT)
|