Editor,
The concept of indigeneity is often wielded as a tool to distinguish between communities, granting certain groups exclusive rights while marginalising others. However, if we define indigeneity strictly by tracing the origin of a people, then the very foundation of such classifications becomes questionable.
A case in point is Arunachal Pradesh, where the indigenous status of various ethnic communities is often emphasised. Yet, historical and anthropological evidence suggests that their origins can be traced beyond the present territorial boundaries, primarily to Mongolia, Tibet, and Southeast Asia.
The historical perspective
Most of the ethnic groups residing in Arunachal, including the Tani, Monpa, Mishmi, Khamti, Singpho, Nocte, Wancho, and others, migrated over centuries from regions beyond present-day India. Studies in anthropology and genetics confirm that these tribes share ancestry with Mongoloid groups from Tibet, China, Thailand and Myanmar. Our spoken languages, classified under the Sino-Tibetan family, further reinforce our historical ties to regions outside the modern Indian state.
If we take this historical migration as a basis, then technically, none of us is ‘indigenous’ in the absolute sense. We all arrived from elsewhere, settled, adapted, and became the earliest known inhabitants of the region. However, denying our indigenous status on this basis would be absurd because indigeneity is not about an eternal, unbroken link to a land but about cultural continuity, historical presence, and self-identification.
The hypocrisy in selective indigeneity
If the Arunachal government or any authority seeks to define ‘indigenous’ status by tracing origins, it must apply the same standard universally. If Christians or any other community are deemed ‘non-indigenous’ because of external influences, then by the same logic, the state’s dominant ethnic groups cannot claim to be indigenous either, because everyone’s ancestors migrated from elsewhere.
However, if indigeneity is understood as the deep-rooted presence of a community in a region over generations, contributing to its culture, language, and society, then exclusionary definitions become illogical. Arunachal has been home to diverse communities, including those who embraced Christianity, Buddhism, or Hinduism, for decades and even centuries. Denying them equal status in the name of ‘indigenous’ identity is nothing but an attempt to enforce an exclusionary and politically motivated agenda.
The debate over who is indigenous cannot be settled through arbitrary historical cut-off points. Every community has a migration history. The real measure of belonging should not be a distant origin but the shared history, culture, and contributions of a people to a land. Policies based on selective indigeneity serve only to divide and discriminate. If Arunachal truly values its indigenous heritage, it must recognise all its people – regardless of their ancestry or faith – as rightful stakeholders in its future.
For peace, harmony and a healthy coexistence, the authorities must intervene, stop and eradicate all laws and activities that create division, mistrust and hatred in the society which has been acknowledged as the most peaceful in our country.
Norbu Lama,
Retired finance and accounts officer