To critically appreciate the emergence of indigenous politics in the state of Tripura, one must first familiarise oneself with the politico-historical struggle of indigenous tribes of Tripura from a dialogical-historical point of view. The Tripura’s indigenous people’s struggle in the post-Independent India did begin as an emotional response to the abnormal demographic changes taking place that began reconfiguring the social and political landscape, but at this historical moment, it is concerns about citizenship rights, land-alienation or grabbing, governance, and epistemicide that are the fundamental defining characteristics of their concrete socio-psychological angst.?

Throughout the earlier period of struggle, they realised that there were no formal political party in the domain of electoral politics that was willing to heed and represent their concerns. Realising this, some like-minded educated youth collectivised and formed the first indigenous tribal political party in 1967 known as Tripura Upajati Juba Samity (TUJS). Later, when the movement by the TUJS gradually gained momentum amongst the indigenous tribes, other non-TUJS political parties also began supporting their constitutional demand. The Sixth Schedule in Tripura, currently manifested in the form of the ‘Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council’ (TTAADC), is an outcome of such a social and political solidarity, represented by diverse parties cohering around a collective vision through their electoral struggle.?

The establishment of the Sixth Schedule in Tripura did give hope to many indigenous tribes in the initial period. However, even though many political regimes came into power, there was no serious attempt to fully resolve the problematic situation and to humanise the forces of structural domination coming from the dominant caste society against the indigenous tribal peoples. The root cause of indigenous struggle concerning land, language, governance, and the impacts of the radical demographic changes taking place in Tripura remains unresolved and not fully engaged. The TTAADC that the indigenous tribes put their hopes on, was more or less dormant, near invisible and often subsumed within the larger politics of the state administration. This was interpreted by the indigenous tribes, about the TTAADC, as not having enough power to respond to the concerns of indigenous tribes. ?

Around the year 2000 and after, the indigenous tribes were left feeling leaderless in the political domain with dearth of indigenous electoral parties that could represent their concerns and genuinely give voice to their demands. During this period, the few indigenous political parties who were perceived as representing the indigenous concerns were observed as getting too preoccupied with their internal conflicts, and moreover, some were also even involved in corruption and individual struggles for personal gains. It is in this context that the Indigenous Peoples Front of Tripura (IPFT) arose with a renewed demand for a separate ‘Tipraland state’ in the year 2009. However, this idea was accepted by different sections of indigenous tribes only in 2018 when they got an opportunity to politically resolve the issue of indigenous tribes by merging with a grand national political party. But as if repeating history, after they came to power, the IPFT wavered from their core ideological demand. This led to a condition where major indigenous tribes began to read the stated struggle for Tipraland as futile and the promises as articulated by the IPFT as lost.?

While the above politico-historical reality of Tripura was evolving at its own pace, the introduction of Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) by the Government of India brought back the fears of the abnormal demographic complexity in Tripura, by assuming that if the CAA would be implemented in their state, then their existence will be pushed to the brink of near extinction. The indigenous tribes during the movement against CAA gave voice to this angst and portrayed their concerns as stemming from their past experiences and their struggle as related to the basic question of survival in the present. Their popular slogans - ‘puilajati, ulobojati’ (survival of the community comes first) and ‘puilajati, ulo party’ (survival of the community comes first and party is secondary) in pursuit of constitutional protection was in many ways an existential plea to each other to collectivise and unite. Due to concerns related to the basic question of survival and existence, it was around December 2019 that the present TIPRA Motha, under the leadership of Bubagra Pradyot Manikya Debbarman arose. Under his leadership, the people held firm and voiced their concerns by galvanising themselves into a movement against the CAA in Tripura.?

It is in this context that the demand for ‘greater Tipraland’, which is posited as being within the constitutional framework, was posited. Such concerns brought the indigenous tribes together for an existential struggle to remain ‘thansa’ (united) for their survival. TIPRA Motha therefore originated as a response to the concrete conditions of indigenous tribes of Tripura in their search for a leader and a platform that would articulate their anxieties and ensure that the rights to the indigenous tribes of Tripura are safeguarded. TIPRA Motha does claim that they are a civil society initiative, but currently they are a registered political party aiming to strive towards a negotiation with powerful stakeholders for the preservation, protection, and promotion of the rights of the indigenous tribes of Tripura.

Ever since the emergence of TIPRA Motha in Tripura, it is observed that it has drastically changed the indigenous politics in the state by first forming the government in the TTAADC in 2021, being the single largest regional political party in the state. The formation of government within the District Council by a single tribal regional political party in Northeast India is in itself a historical event and has become an example for other tribal communities in the region. Even though not in entirety, the present TIPRA Motha government, operating within set limits, has now at least been able to visibilise various activities, such as the recent bill on customary law of various indigenous tribes enacted by the TTAADC government under their leadership unlike their predecessor. ?

This shows that the TIPRA Motha has taken upon itself the opportunity to enhance the political agency of TTAADC in ensuring the rights of the indigenous tribes of Tripura through a constitutional body. This has led to strengthening the negotiating capacity of indigenous tribes, within a multilayer power-sharing and a constitutional mechanism, for securing the protection of land, culture, identity, customary practice and livelihood of indigenous tribes.?

The TIPRA Motha does have the potential to shape the current indigenous politics in Tripura, provided it remains fully-committed to its core ideology, continue to struggle politically for the rights of the indigenous people of Tripura, and honestly pursue a permanent constitutional solution for its constituents. In case they are given a political opportunity by the larger indigenous tribes, they are bound to shape the future of Tripura politics. But if they show inability to remain and hold steadfast to their core commitment, then like a repeat of the past, they will also become like the present IPFT. In such a case, unfortunate as it may sound for the indigenous tribes of Tripura, I foresee the common people rejecting them in due course.

As regards to the politics of other indigenous political parties, such as the Indigenous Peoples Fronts of Tripura, currently, I do not see agency in them to be able to build a political strategy to secure the rights of the indigenous tribes of Tripura. When people gave them the opportunity to politically resolve their concerns and act on their difficult concrete conditions, the IPFT did not seriously pursue this mandate. The IPFT, in my opinion, needs to reflect and re-strategise on how to position their movement in the context of Tripura in order to stay relevant and be responsive to the basic needs of indigenous tribes of the state.?

As regards the role of Bengali intellectuals in shaping views and solutions that would resolve the complexities experienced in Tripura, which is a question asked by many, I hold the opinion that they should not be blamed for the historical alienation of the indigenous communities. But what is important for the intellectual class, both Bengali and indigenous tribes, at this juncture is to critically examine the root causes of indigenous alienation and to collectively challenge any forms of structural domination that subverts the recognition of indigenous societies as a civilisation amongst other civilisations. It is in this context, I opine, that all diverse communities in Tripura must now progressively reflect on the idea of co-existing as equals with capabilities. This can be a reality only when it is acted through a dignified process of mutual dialogue and respect and by aiming to decolonise any forms of domination that does not allow mutual co-existence.?

It is now imperative that many sensitive Bengali-intellectuals must also start to think from a decolonial perspective by building solidarities with indigenous tribes and by progressively reflecting on the accommodation of diverse civilisations within the constitutional framework of the Indian state. They must also insist that the Governments of Tripura and India also arrive and guarantee a constitutional solution to the vexed problem of the indigenous tribes of Tripura, while also protecting the rights of other non-indigenous communities. I believe this should be pursued through a spirit of collective reconciliation, mutual dialogue, and respectful co-existence.?

(Biswaranjan Tripura is Assistant Professor [Senior]?at Centre for Social Justice and Governance, School of Social Work, Tata Institute of Social Sciences [Mumbai].)