North-East India has witnessed several insurgent movements rooted in ethnicity, identity, autonomy, migration, underdevelopment and control over local resources. However, all states have not followed the same path. Some states like Mizoram, Tripura and parts of Assam moved towards stability through peace accords, political accommodation and development interventions. Others, especially Manipur and parts of Nagaland, continue to face instability due to unresolved ethnic tensions, fragmented armed groups and weak trust between communities and the State.
The transition from extremism to stability depends on whether security measures are combined with credible political dialogue and inclusive development. The Ministry of Home Affairs notes that factors such as terrain, socio-economic backwardness, ethnicity, tribal rivalry, migration, local resources and alienation have shaped the fragile security situation in the North-East.
Why some states succeeded
- Political settlement created legitimacy: Mizoram is the best example. The Mizo Accord of 1986 ended two decades of insurgency by providing constitutional, political and administrative accommodation. Today, Mizoram remains one of the most peaceful states in the region.
- Autonomy reduced alienation: In Assam, the Bodo Accord 2020, Karbi Peace Accord 2021, Dimasa agreement and ULFA peace agreement helped bring many cadres into the mainstream. Development packages, councils and local governance mechanisms reduced the appeal of violence.
- Development followed peace: In Bodoland, projects in power, water supply, education, health, sports and tourism were completed with central support. The Union Home Minister stated that after the Bodo Accord, several development projects were completed with full central funding.
- Connectivity improved state presence: Better roads, railways, bridges, airports and digital networks reduced physical isolation. The Centre has invested heavily in Northeast connectivity, including railways, highways and rural roads.
- Rehabilitation of cadres worked: Surrender-cum-rehabilitation policies helped former militants join normal life through financial assistance, skill training and livelihood support.
- Community participation improved trust: In Tripura, counter-insurgency, tribal development, local governance through the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council and better policing helped weaken militant groups.
Why some states still struggle
- Unresolved ethnic fault lines: Manipur’s 2023–24 ethnic violence shows that development alone cannot ensure peace if identity conflicts remain unresolved. MHA data also noted that the rise in insurgency-related violence in 2023 and 2024 was mainly due to ethnic strife in Manipur.
- Fragmented insurgent groups: In Nagaland and Manipur, multiple groups with different demands make negotiations difficult.
- Border and sanctuary issues: Porous borders with Myanmar allow movement of insurgents, arms and narcotics.
- Uneven development: Remote hill areas often feel excluded from state capitals and plains-based development.
- Trust deficit: Excessive militarisation, AFSPA-related concerns and delayed justice can create alienation.
Conclusion
Thus, North-East states that combined peace accords, autonomy, development, connectivity, rehabilitation and community trust moved faster from extremism to stability. However, states where ethnic grievances, border sanctuaries, governance gaps and uneven development continue remain vulnerable. Therefore, the way forward lies in security with dialogue, development with justice, and peace-building with dignity.
