About 2 years ago, I was speaking at a private university on the outskirts of Delhi, India. A friend who teaches at the university had invited me to speak on issues of tribes, especially my community—the Misings—in Assam. At the end of the lecture, during the Q&A, one of the attendees asked me why tribes don’t unite and fight together. Is there tribal solidarity? (Paraphrased.) At that moment, my immediate response was: “Tribes, in themselves, are not a homogeneous category, and unity is not natural. And for that matter, why are all tribes expected to be united and fight back together?”
In academic discourses, tribes are often lumped together. During colonial times, diverse groups of tribes were clubbed into two categories: ‘Plain Tribes’ and ‘Hill Tribes’. It was a lazy classification. However, this classification continues even today. Understanding of tribes as individual communities is still very limited. Tribes are studied as a ‘single category’ and understood vis-à-vis the larger ‘mainstream’ society. Similarly, scholars belonging to tribal communities are expected to carry the burden of speaking for entire communities. It is not the same for a caste Axomiya or a scholar studying Assam. I have raised this on multiple occasions: a person bearing a tribal surname would, by default, only be seen as a tribal leader in Assam. But a Sarma, Gogoi, or Kalita, and so on, would by default become an Axomiya leader. An Axomiya leader can speak for the entirety of Assam, while a tribal leader is expected to speak only on behalf of the Mising, Bodo, Karbi, or Tiwa tribe—the community they represent. At best, they can speak about all tribal communities together. However, that is a discussion for later.
The question of larger tribal solidarity, however, deserves a more careful dissection. During the 2026 Assam Assembly elections, we witnessed tribal communities experimenting with different forms. While some formed alliances with the BJP, others contested on opposition party tickets. We also saw fragments within the same communities emerge, with newer community-based parties challenging the ‘old guards,’ asserting that older parties are no longer serving the interests of the community. There are also others like Pranab Doley, who contested from the Bokakhat constituency for the second time as an independent candidate. The parties and organizations of his community have not formally put its weight behind him, nor has the alliance of opposition parties (in 2021, he was supported by the opposition alliance). All these different formations beg the question: why is horizontal intra/inter-tribal solidarity not possible? Or why can’t they unite and fight collectively? The answer possibly lies in the form of the organizations these communities have built.
The plains tribes of Assam have, on previous occasions, made attempts to build inter-tribal solidarity. The formation of the Tribal League in 1933 was one of the first coherent attempts. The very small group of educated intelligentsia among these communities, especially the Bodos, led the effort and demanded political representation. They wanted to safeguard land rights and resisted attempts to include tribal communities under a caste-based structure.
Post-independence, when the plains tribes were not accorded Fifth or Sixth Schedule protection, they began making serious attempts to protect their rights. With the growth of Axomiya nationalism, particularly in terms of official language policy supported by organizations like the Assam Sahitya Sabha, tribal communities also started forming their own literary organizations to protect their distinct languages and cultures. In 1967, the Plains Tribes Council was formed and called for ‘autonomy’. A call for a separate state called Udayachal was also made in the 1970s, but later fizzled out. The formation of the Bodoland Territorial Region, after decades of struggle, added another layer. With Bodos receiving Sixth Schedule status, other plains tribes now have to be content with autonomous councils. At some point, I hope to write a detailed piece comparing the struggles of some key plains tribes.
Wither True Solidarity?
Parties have often served as launch vehicles for the political aspirations of the middle class. Election funding caps of 4 million Indian rupees and above for assembly elections (and more for parliamentary elections) automatically filter out the economically marginalized. Candidates either have to be wealthy or should have party backing. In Assam, if Axomiya nationalism was a class project, the response to it was not any different.
Every tribal (and non-tribal) organization since pre-colonial times has been founded and led by middle-class, educated intelligentsia. Many of these organizations, if we look at their trajectory carefully, under the garb of protecting community interests, were essentially vehicles for the class interests of a few educated men. They seldom transformed into real working-class organizations highlighting the aspirations of farmers, the displaced, or the working poor. For instance, hundreds of tribal migrant workers die in other Indian cities, yet we do not see this becoming an electoral issue. Tribal candidates from my community are still content with having its biggest festival declared a statewide holiday and receiving monetary grants for festivals.
The ‘tribal identity’ subsumes all other identities, such as farmers, migrant laborers, or displaced communities. The ‘ruling class’ is very adept at making its interests appear as the interests of the entire community. Separate electorates and political representation are highlighted as magic wands capable of resolving all other material issues. History has proven that this is not the case. Issues of land displacement, lack of jobs, debt, and forced migration are politically organized under the ‘indigenous vs immigrant’ category. Separate representation, by default, does not resolve the issue of class gaps within communities.
This is not to discount the role of identities or to dismiss them as ‘false consciousness’. However, engagement within the current political economy and governance structures produces limits on the possibilities. In Assam, earlier attempts to build cross-ethnic solidarities have been cut short, either through violent suppression by the state or when leaders and movements were co-opted. Negotiation and ‘winning’ become the basis of electoral engagement. Electoralism shapes the forms and scope of politics and organizational forms it produces. And in a class-divided society, it ultimately strengthens hegemonic interests within communities, and creates coalitions of such interests across identities.
Unless solidarities are built on real foundational issues of social life, and relations are reorganized on the basis of community ownership of resources and modes of production, all forms of representation will continue to serve the interests of the middle class, as has been the case until now.
(This is a slightly edited version of the substack article of the same name by the author. The substack article can be found here )
Be First to Comment