The Narrative vs. the Historical Reality: Bengalis in Tripura
Alak Bhattacharya
January 2, 2026
Presently, Tripura’s identity is not tribal or non-tribal; it is a blended, plural, and interconnected
cultural civilisation. Despite this, in recent decades, a narrative has been created in Tripura
suggesting that “Bengalees are Bangladeshis who entered Tripura and caused population
imbalance. This marked narrative is often mobilised during competitive politics, identity
contestation or electoral mobilisation. But linguistic demography and political processes show
a different picture.
Geographically and historically, Tripura consisted of both plain and hilly regions. A significant
portion of the plain land, known as Chakla Roshnabad, was historically associated with the
Tripura Kingdom, but was not incorporated into the present territorial boundary of Tripura.
This exclusion occurred due to administrative negligence during the period of Maharani
Kanchan Prabha Devi. The letter from Kanchan Prabha Devi to Brajendra Kishore Manikya,
which supports these facts, was published in the book "Views, Reviews & My Poems,"
authored by Jishnu Dev Varma(2024).
Victimised Bengalees who have shifted their home here to another under the same domain are
now blamed as foreigners and are facing an identity crisis.
Narrative Politics: A Theoretical Understanding
When narratives replace facts, it creates communal boundaries, manipulation of events,
identity-based polarisation, and potential for riots or violence. Migration that historically
occurred before 1947 or before 1971 is now referred to as “Bangladeshi infiltration.”
Even the Chakla Roshanabad—the plainland of Tripura that was not included during the
integration of the Royal territory at the time of accession of Tripura to India— is used in this
narrative. Thus, the narrative of “Bangladeshis in Tripura” is one such illustration.
Narrative politics refers to how political actors construct, circulate, and institutionalise stories
that polarise society. Narratives simplify complex realities, making them emotionally and
politically compelling. They are not simply lies; they are interpretative frames through which
people understand power and society.
Michel Foucault (Power and Discourse) argued that narratives are parts of discourse through
which power produces knowledge. Narratives create categories (citizen, foreigner, refugee).
Benedict Anderson (Imagined Communities) shows that nations are built through shared
narratives of common history, shared suffering, and collective destiny. Stuart Hall
(Representation and Cultural Politics) points out that narratives construct meanings that also
shape identity and conflict. Post-structuralism emphasised that politics becomes the struggle
over which narrative becomes dominant. Hence, narrative politics can turn a group into victims,
create an enemy, justify violence or discrimination, and produce fear and insecurity.
Colonial Historiography: Territorial Shrinking and Census Politics
The category “outsider” vs. “insider” was a colonial creation. Movement from Noakhali,
Tripura, was still internal. Bangladesh did not exist before 1971. Therefore, calling earlier
migrants “Bangladeshis” is historically incorrect. People from Noakhali, which was under
Tripura’s administrative and cultural influence, moved into the plains of Tripura for
agriculture, safety, and livelihoods. These migrations occurred before partition, during a time
when all were British Indian subjects. So, this was internal migration within a connected socio
cultural region, not immigration from a foreign country.
Consequences of the Narrative
Historiographically, this narrative has created communal polarization, Tripuri vs Bengali
identity tension, insurgency-era violence, misunderstanding of refugee histories, expurgation
of pre-colonial Tripura’s real boundaries, Insurgency was prevalent during the 1980s–1990s in
Tripura. The politics of history becomes a politics of identity.
Why the “Bangladeshi” Narrative Persists:
i. Political Utility
A simple narrative (“Bangladeshis took over”) is easier to use than complex historical facts.
ii. Memory Politics
Communities reinterpret the past to assert identity or victimhood.
iii. Cartographic Nationalism
Modern nation-states project present-day borders backward in time.
iv. Media Simplification
Newspapers and social media often repeat political slogans uncritically.
v. Fear of demographic change
Reality: Pre-Colonial Memory: Greater Tripura as a Unified Geography
Royal documents, Rajmala, and British administrative reports show that Tripura once extended
into Noakhali, Comilla, Sylhet, and Chittagong Hill Tracts. These areas were not foreign lands
but parts of Tripura’s political and cultural space. Due to internal conflicts within the royal
family, British policies, and gradual territorial losses, Tripura’s size reduced over time. Thus,
the movement of people inside the greater Tripura region was internal, not international
Historical Antiquity
Kailash Chandra Singh, author of Rajmala, stated that Tripura is one of the most ancient
states in India. Especially, Tripuri identity is our only piece of pride. Nearly 438 years ago,
the history of Tripura began to be written by the kings in the Rajmala based on inscriptions in
the Bengali script.
Changing Provincial Boundaries: Tripura—considered as a part of Bengal
Historian Ramesh Chandra Majumder discoursed that almost every province of Bharatvarsha
has seen changes in its name and boundaries over time. For administrative convenience, during
the British period, different parts of several regions were included in different provinces on
several occasions. Present-day East Pakistan and West Bengal, the Koch Behar and Goalpara
regions of Assam, parts of Purnea, Singhbhum, and Santhal Parganas of Bihar, and Tripura—
all have to be considered as parts of Bengal. (Reference: Bangla Desher Itihas, 1st Part, Ancient
Age – Ramesh Chanda; Majumder, General Printers and Publishers Private Limited. )
Noted that Bengal was essentially part of Undivided Bharat, that is India.
Partition and Aftermath
During the Partition of 1947, a huge population exchange occurred all over India, including
East Bengal and Tripura. People who have had to relocate due to violence, insecurity, and
political uncertainty have moved to other parts of Tripura. These were victims of Partition, not
illegal immigrants. Their movement is comparable to:
Punjabis entering Delhi
Sindhis entering Gujarat
Hindus entering West Bengal
Accession of Tripura excluding Chakla Roshanabad: A historical betrayal
The region of Chakla Roshanabad, historically and culturally tied to Tripura, was not included
at the time of accession to India. A genuine question arises: Who is responsible for that? The
people of Chakla Roshnabad, i.e. integral part of Tripura, who used to pay tax to the King of
Tripura for a prosperous and developing Tripura, were betrayed by Maharani Kanchan Prabha
Devi herself.
The real facts came out from a letter written by Maharani Kanchan Prabha Devi (Tripura, 26
June 1947), the last ruling Maharani of the princely state of Tripura, just before the integration
of princely states into India. This letter—typed on the official stationery of Tripura Castle,
Shillong. In that letter, Maharani Kanchan Prabha Devi wrote: “I think no useful purpose will
be served by trying to have the whole of the Chakla Roshnabad Zomindary in the state
boundary. Many complications will arise, and there might be other troubles also.”
The letter mentions: Chakla Roshnabad (a major zamindary region of Tripura located in
present-day Bangladesh). The complications of bringing the entire Chakla Roshnabad under
the Tripura state boundary. This is crucial evidence for understanding: How Tripura historically
lost or could not retain certain territories. Why Chakla Roshnabad ultimately remained outside
modern Tripura. The letter shows Maharani’s Administrative Vision.
She expresses this by saying that a special officer is not necessary for pursuing these zamindary
matters. That hiring another officer would cause “great hardship” as she would need to pay
from her personal funds.
This is especially significant for researchers studying Tripura’s historical boundary changes.
Negligence of Royal Administration regarding the inclusion of Chakla Roshnabad”) reflects in
this later clearly.
The letter helps historians evaluate such claims based on:
Primary evidence
Actual administrative constraints of the time
Political realities of 1947.
Post-1971 Historiography: Birth of the “Bangladeshi” Label
The 1971 Liberation War changed perception. After Bangladesh was created, a new political
vocabulary emerged. Any Bengali-speaking migrant—no matter when they had arrived—
began to be labelled as Bangladeshi. Some groups framed demographic change as “foreign
infiltration.”
Historiography and the ‘Bangladeshi’ Narrative in Tripura
Historiography is not just history—it is the study of how history is written, interpreted, and
constructed. It asks: Who writes history? From which perspective? With what political or
ideological motives? How do narratives change over time? The “Bangladeshi” debate in
Tripura is not only about population movement; it is deeply tied to how history is told.
Historiography is the study of how history is written, interpreted, and constructed. It asks who
writes history and from which perspective. References of Historian Ramesh Chandra
Majumder, Kailash Chandra Singh, and Jishnu Dev Varma, undoubtedly have given a positive
dimension in this historiography
Concluding remarks:
Refugee movement after 1947 was legal and humanitarian. Hence, “Bangladeshi narrative” is
a political construct, not a historical fact. Tripura’s demographic change cannot be explained
by illegal migration.
Not all narratives are harmful. Positive narratives can promote social harmony, strengthen
national unity, build solidarity, advance human rights, and mobilize for development. Thus,
the challenge is not to eliminate narratives but to create inclusive, historically grounded
narratives.
Tripura is one of India’s most culturally pluralistic states, where more than 19 indigenous
communities (Tiprasa) and non-tribal communities—primarily Bengalis—have coexisted for
centuries. The cultural relationship between tribal and non-tribal communities of Tripura is not
defined by separation but by continuous interaction, shared history, and mutual adaptation.
Though political conditions sometimes produce narratives of difference, everyday life reveals
a deep cultural commonness expressed through festivals, food, language, rituals, music, and
shared values.
Tripura’s identity is therefore not tribal or non-tribal—it is an intermingled, plural, and
interconnected cultural civilization.
Lecture delivered by Prof.Alak Bhattacharya, Head of the Department of Political Science, Tripura University, as a
resource person in a national seminar on ‘Revisiting and Reconstructing the History of North-East India: With Special
Reference to Tripura’ on 20th December,2025 at Maharaja Bir Bikram College, Agartala. Tripura.
(Tripurainfo)
more articles...