Editor,
Arunachal Pradesh was not designated as a ‘fully tribal state’ during India’s independence in 1947 – or even later, when it became a full state in 1987 – because of a combination of historical, administrative, strategic, and practical factors. At independence, Arunachal wasn’t even a distinct entity; it was part of the loosely governed North-East Frontier Tracts (NEFT) under Assam. Its evolution into a state with 59 out of 60 constituencies reserved for scheduled tribes (ST) reflects a balance between preserving tribal identity and integrating it into the Indian union, rather than an outright designation as a ‘fully tribal state’. Here’s why this happened:
- Historical context: Pre-independence status
Colonial administration: Before 1947, Arunachal was not a separate administrative unit. It fell under the NEFT, an extension of the Assam province under the British rule. The British treated it as a ‘frontier’ rather than as a governed territory, with minimal interference in tribal affairs under the Inner Line Regulation of 1873. This kept outsiders out but didn’t define it as a tribal state.
Tribal autonomy: The region’s 26+ tribes (eg, Adi, Nyishi, Monpa) lived in relative isolation, governed by customary laws. The British saw no need to formalise it as a ‘tribal state’ since it was already a de facto tribal domain, loosely tied to Assam.
No statehood at independence: At independence, India inherited this arrangement. The NEFT wasn’t considered for separate statehood in 1947 because the focus was on consolidating larger provinces and princely states. It remained part of Assam, delaying any question of its tribal status.
- Post-independence integration
North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA): In 1951, the NEFT was reorganised into the NEFA, still administered through Assam but under the central government’s control via the ministry of external affairs (due to its border with China). This reflected a strategic rather than tribal focus.
Gradual administration: The Indian government, under Jawaharlal Nehru and Verrier Elwin’s ‘tribal policy’, adopted a cautious approach-preserving tribal culture while slowly introducing governance. Designating it a ‘fully tribal state’ wasn’t a priority; the goal was integration into India without disrupting tribal life.
Constitution of 1950: The 6th Schedule, which grants autonomy to tribal areas (eg, in Meghalaya or Mizoram), wasn’t initially applied to the NEFA. Instead, it was governed under special provisions, reflecting its frontier status rather than a fully tribal framework.
- Strategic considerations
Border with China: Arunachal’s 1,129 km border with China (Tibet) made it a national security priority. After the 1962 Sino-India War, India realised its strategic value, leading to increased military and administrative presence – often non-tribal. A ‘fully tribal state’ might have implied less central control, which India couldn’t afford, given the geopolitical stakes.
Connectivity with India: To secure the Northeast, India encouraged integration, including non-tribal officials and settlers (eg, in Itanagar). A fully tribal designation could have isolated it further, complicating defence and development.
- Evolution to statehood (1987)
Union territory (1972): The NEFA became a union territory named Arunachal Pradesh in 1972, with a 30-member assembly – all ST-reserved- reflecting its tribal majority (over 68% ST per 2011 census, likely higher then). However, even here, it wasn’t ‘fully tribal’ in the sense of excluding non-tribals entirely.
Full tatehood (1987): When Arunachal became a state on 20 February, 1987, its Assembly expanded to 60 seats. The decision to make 59 ST-reserved and 1 general (Itanagar) was a compromise.
Tribal dominance: 59 ST seats honoured its tribal majority and ensured indigenous representation, aligning with Article 332 of the Constitution.
Not fully tribal: Unlike Nagaland or Mizoram, where 6th Schedule autonomy or near-total ST reservation reflects a stronger ‘tribal state’ identity, Arunachal’s design balanced tribal rights with central oversight and diversity.
- Practical and socioeconomic factors
Diverse population: Even in 1947, the NEFT had some non-tribal presence – Assamese settlers, traders, and colonial staff. Post-independence migration (eg, Chakma-Hajong refugees in the 1960s) and urban growth (eg, Itanagar) further diversified it. A fully tribal’ label wouldn’t reflect this reality.
Development needs: India aimed to modernise the region with schools, roads, and hydropower, requiring non-tribal expertise. A fully tribal state might have resisted such integration, slowing progress.
Tribal heterogeneity: With 26 major tribes and 100+ sub-tribes, Arunachal lacks the homogeneity of, say, Mizoram (Mizo dominance). This diversity made a unified ‘tribal state’ model less feasible.
Why not ‘fully tribal’?
No precedent: At independence, India didn’t create ‘tribal states’ as a category. States were formed based on linguistic, geographic, or administrative logic (eg, Assam, Punjab). The NEFA’s tribal character was acknowledged, but not formalised as a standalone tribal entity.
National unity: Post-1947, India prioritised integrating diverse regions into a cohesive nation. A ‘fully tribal state’ might have been seen as separatist, especially in a sensitive border area.
Gradual evolution: Arunachal’s status evolved from the NEFT to the NEFA, union territory, and finally a state with strong – but not absolute – tribal reservation. This gradualism avoided a rigid ‘fully tribal’ tag.
Comparison to other states
Nagaland and Mizoram: These states, formed in 1963 and 1987, respectively, have stronger tribal autonomy (eg, Article 371A for Nagaland, 6th Schedule for Mizoram districts). Arunachal got Article 371H (special provisions), but its central administration and mixed population precluded a fully tribal model.
Assam influence: As part of Assam until 1972, Arunachal inherited a legacy of mixed governance, unlike states carved out explicitly for tribal identity.
Conclusion
Arunachal wasn’t made a ‘fully tribal state’ at independence because it wasn’t a distinct entity in 1947, and its later development balanced tribal dominance (59 ST seats) with strategic and practical realities (eg, Itanagar’s general seat, non-tribal settlers). India’s approach was to integrate it as a tribal-majority state within the union, not an exclusively tribal enclave, reflecting its border role, diverse demographics, and national unity goals. By 1987, it became a state with near-total ST reservation, but not ‘fully tribal’ in the absolute sense due to these historical and contextual factors.
Milli Bharat