Infrastructure and Regional Disparity A Case Of North Eastern Region of India

The importance of physical infrastructure in economic development, trade, employment and in reducing disparity within the country/region has been acknowledged by many scholars. With the help of Composite Development Index of infrastructure, the present study explored that the volume of infrastructure is more important than the level of inter and intra-state disparity. India’s North Eastern Region, identified as most backward region in the country, requires more physical infrastructure, especially the road and communication. Further noticed the relative variations of different indicators were same for almost all states. Those indicators having high coefficient of variation (CV) values are high for almost all the states and vice versa

Identity, Deprivation and Demand for Bifurcation of the State of Meghalaya

The paper seeks to examine why the youths of the state of Meghalaya are forced into militancy and violence and are raising their demand for bifurcation of the state. To fulfil this objective first a brief description has been given on the formation of the state of Meghalaya. It is mentioned that unlike many other states in India that were created on linguistic basis, Meghalaya was carved out from Assam on the basis of ethnic identity. Though the state was created it continued to witness intolerance among various ethnic groups and between tribal and non-tribal population. The present demand for division of the state by Garos is another form of intolerance among ethnic groups within the state on linguistic basis. Garos feel that they are neglected and deprived by the Khasis, the major ethnic group in the state. The fact remains that it is not deprivation which is the root cause of dissension but intolerance among themselves and the so-called struggle for their identity and language. The authors argue that the more the ethnic groups stress on their differences the sharper will be the contours for conflict. There is a need to learn to live together and to solve their problems together. Since sharing of economic opportunities is the bone of contention between the two major ethnic groups, policy makers should stress on equitable distribution of development initiatives in the State. Bifurcation of such a small state is not the panacea for the present crisis

Deprivation and Demand for Bifurcation of the State of Meghalaya

The paper seeks to examine why the youths of the state of Meghalaya are forced into militancy and violence and are raising their demand for bifurcation of the state. To fulfil this objective first a brief description has been given on the formation of the state of Meghalaya. It is mentioned that unlike many other states in India that were created on linguistic basis, Meghalaya was carved out from Assam on the basis of ethnic identity. Though the state was created it continued to witness intolerance among various ethnic groups and between tribal and non-tribal population. The present demand for division of the state by Garos is another form of intolerance among ethnic groups within the state on linguistic basis. Garos feel that they are neglected and deprived by the Khasis, the major ethnic group in the state. The fact remains that it is not deprivation which is the root cause of dissension but intolerance among themselves and the so-called struggle for their identity and language. The authors argue that the more the ethnic groups stress on their differences the sharper will be the contours for conflict. There is a need to learn to live together and to solve their problems together. Since sharing of economic opportunities is the bone of contention between the two major ethnic groups, policy makers should stress on equitable distribution of development initiatives in the State. Bifurcation of such a small state is not the panacea for the present crisis

Reconsidering Ethnic-Based-Autonomy Movements in Meghalaya: An Analysis

To the unfamiliar, communities living in Meghalaya appear to be homogenous ones. In reality, however, they are socially, politically and culturally not only heterogeneous but are also defined by distinct tribal and clan markers. Three major tribes, namely, the Khasi, the Garo, and the Jaintia dominate the State. Each of them had their own kingdoms until they were brought under the British colonial administration in the 19th century. Consequently, after independence, these tribes and their territories were merged with undivided Assam, and then carved out as a full-fledged state of Meghalaya in 1972. Soon after attaining statehood, tensions cropped up between the indigenous communities and migrants mainly over the issue of economic opportunity. However, these days, it has slowly shifted towards the internal feuds among the indigenous tribes and separate demand for States within the State. With this background, the paper attempts to analyse the causes and consequences of autonomy demands asserted by different communities/tribes within the state

Reconsidering Ethnic-Based-Autonomy Movements in Meghalaya: An Analysis

To the unfamiliar, communities living in Meghalaya appear to be homogenous ones. In reality, however, they are socially, politically and culturally not only heterogeneous but are also defined by distinct tribal and clan markers. Three major tribes– the Khasi, the Garo, and the Jaintia, dominate the state. Each of them had their own kingdoms until they were brought under the British colonial administration in the 19th century. Consequently, after independence, these tribes and their territories were merged with undivided Assam, and then carved out as a full-fledged state of Meghalaya in 1972. Soon after attaining statehood, tensions cropped up between the indigenous communities and migrants mainly over the issue of economic opportunity. However, these days, it has slowly shifted towards the internal feuds among the indigenous tribes and separate demand for states within the state. With this background, the paper attempts to analyse the causes and consequences of autonomy demands asserted by different communities/tribes within the state

Reconsidering Ethnic-Based-Autonomy Movements in Meghalaya: An Analysis

To the unfamiliar, communities living in Meghalaya appear to be homogenous ones. In reality, however, they are socially, politically and culturally not only heterogeneous but are also defined by distinct tribal and clan markers. Three major tribes– the Khasi, the Garo, and the Jaintia, dominate the state. Each of them had their own kingdoms until they were brought under the British colonial administration in the 19th century. Consequently, after independence, these tribes and their territories were merged with undivided Assam, and then carved out as a full-fledged state of Meghalaya in 1972. Soon after attaining statehood, tensions cropped up between the indigenous communities and migrants mainly over the issue of economic opportunity. However, these days, it has slowly shifted towards the internal feuds among the indigenous tribes and separate demand for states within the state. With this background, the paper attempts to analyse the causes and consequences of autonomy demands asserted by different communities/tribes within the state

Identity, Deprivation and Demand for Bifurcation of the State of Meghalaya

The paper seeks to examine why the youths of the state of Meghalaya are forced into militancy and violence and are raising their demand for bifurcation of the state. To fulfil this objective first a brief description has been given on the formation of the state of Meghalaya. It is mentioned that unlike many other states in India that were created on linguistic basis, Meghalaya was carved out from Assam on the basis of ethnic identity. Though the state was created it continued to witness intolerance among various ethnic groups and between tribal and non-tribal population. The present demand for division of the state by Garos is another form of intolerance among ethnic groups within the state on linguistic basis. Garos feel that they are neglected and deprived by the Khasis, the major ethnic group in the state. The fact remains that it is not deprivation which is the root cause of dissension but intolerance among themselves and the so-called struggle for their identity and language. The authors argue that the more the ethnic groups stress on their differences the sharper will be the contours for conflict. There is a need to learn to live together and to solve their problems together. Since sharing of economic opportunities is the bone of contention between the two major ethnic groups, policy makers should stress on equitable distribution of development initiatives in the State. Bifurcation of such a small state is not the panacea for the present crisis