Tetso College conducts a two-day national seminar discussing governance, customary law, and conflict in Northeast India
DIMAPUR — The Department of Political Science at Tetso College organised a two-day national seminar sponsored by the Indian Council of Social Science Research on “Changing Landscape of Governance in Northeast India: Trends and Perspectives” on October 22 and 23 at Tetso College in Chümoukedima in hybrid mode.
According to an update, the seminar brought together academicians, scholars, researchers, and students to deliberate on governance, traditional institutions, identity politics, conflict, peace processes, democratic participation, and development across Northeast India.
The keynote address was delivered by Jagannath Ambagudia, Campus Director and Professor at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Guwahati Off-Campus.
In his address, Ambagudia mapped the shifting landscape of tribal politics and the historical formation of political identity vis-a-vis the Indian state.
His keynote centred on the tension and interplay between traditional customary bodies and modern democratic frameworks, bringing critical focus to autonomy, electoral alliances, political representation, and the role of civil society. Addressing critical themes, from the Inner Line Permit and autonomous district councils to migration, indigeneity, and citizenship, he underscored how uneasy the balance remains between the customary and the contemporary.
Dr. P Lalpekhlui, convener of the seminar, highlighted that a total of 45 papers were presented from across 11 Indian states by faculty, research scholars, independent researchers, and postgraduate and undergraduate students.
The first technical session featured parallel discussions on key governance issues in Northeast India, including traditional institutions, identity politics, insurgency, peace processes, and state legitimacy. Chaired by Ambagudia, the sessions examined topics such as riverine commons in Assam, tribal anti-colonial figures, Ao Naga customary authority, traditional land tenure, vernacular democracy, and civil society in Nagaland.
Another session focused on the socio-economic and political consequences of conflict, with papers addressing educational and livelihood challenges faced by displaced communities in Manipur, parallel taxation by Naga insurgent groups, and media coverage of the Manipur ethnic conflict and Naga-Kuki conflict.
Discussions also explored constitutional safeguards, legal pluralism, women’s rights, the Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority, women’s political participation, and the role of student organisations in promoting political awareness and accountability.
The broader seminar programme covered additional themes, including borderland governance, forest rights, Bodo identity, resource conflicts, cultural change, indigenous political institutions, academic autonomy, digital news consumption, and public service delivery amid the digital divide.
Discussions on the second day included the Act East Policy and connectivity, migration, Sixth Schedule governance, the Frontier Nagaland Territorial Authority, Zo identity, and the experiences of students affected by the Manipur conflict. Other papers addressed the Clean Election Movement, e-governance and the digital divide in the Manipur hills, reservation and political representation in Meghalaya and Nagaland, citizenship and indigenous identity in Assam, and community-conserved areas.
The seminar concluded with a valedictory address by Jangkhongam Doungel, Head of the Department of Political Science at Mizoram University, who traced the evolution of governance in Northeast India from indigenous systems of chieftainship to British colonial administration. He discussed the Treaty of Yandabo and highlighted the significance of the Inner Line Regulation of 1873 and constitutional safeguards, including Articles 371A, 371B, 371C, 371F, 371G, and 371H, along with the Sixth Schedule, in protecting Northeast India’s distinct identities.
Doungel also pointed out the need for adequate development funding, effective utilisation of resources, and stronger institutional support to address the region’s developmental priorities. Highlighting the region's limited place in national development priorities, he stressed adequate funding and effective monitoring.
Referring to the Free Movement Regime and the region’s relationship with mainland India, he remarked, “Mainland is mainland, Northeast is Northeast,” underscoring the need for governance that respects the region’s history, indigenous institutions, and cultural diversity while advancing inclusive development and peace.