The North East of India is a good glass bowl in which to observe such developments. It is home to many splendoured, complex, even exotic, communities. In an extremely heterogenous and ethnically sensitive society, where the redressal of one group’s grievances is seen as an assault on the concerns of another, these demands for small separatenesses will grow—but they will be marginalized by the numerically larger groups, whether it is the Assamese-speaking Hindus or the Bengali-speaking Bengalis, Hindus or Muslims. This is a reality and protecting these groups will become a major task, not merely of governments but of those very communities themselves. The most transparent and appropriate way of given true protection is to provide better governance, that brings about economic equity as well as meets basic needs. This must be backed up by a legal, and constitutional framework that is sensitive to local concerns and accomodates them to the maxmimum degree.

Constitutions can be changed. They have been amended scores of times, as in the case of India. But the boundaries of a nation remain immutable. Millions of people, voting with their feet, may not recognize that. Their movement does not change the fact that a border exists. Indeed, their migration reinforces that reality, for it means that they have to resort to unfair means to cross a boundary and enter a different country. They may have made it legally. But they have chosen not to because they do not want to, and because they find this form of moving easier, even if it is riskier.

The worst way of ‘protecting’ identities is through the barrel of a gun. This alternative leaves no victors, only losers. Yet, this has been tried again and again in different parts of the world, including India’s North East, with brutal results. Take the cases of the Kashmiris and the Nagas, the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the Rwandans and Burundis, and the Bosnians, Croats and Serbs. The list goes on. The burial shrouds are endless, the cemeteries and cremation grounds are full.

The State strikes back, determined to protect its interests.

The majoritarian groups strike back, determined not to lose what they believe is theirs by right. The latter strategy can take the shape of preferential policies for their own groups, economic disincentives for others, and political alliances that give rise to blocks of sympathetic voters and supporters. This is notable in those espousing regional growth through regional parties, saying these are more sympathetic to local concerns. Yet, experience has shown in the past twenty years in India, that a regional government is not necessarily more efficient, sensitive to local demands or less corrupt than ‘national party’ governments. The key lies in whether that party or political coalition can bring about better governance. This has not happened in most states, barring limited areas of southern and western India. The hype always belies reality.