What does this frenetic activity mean? At a national level it means that the Centre is more confident than ever before of being able to manage its northeastern periphery, despite army mobilisation and pockets of disturbances. But that’s not all. These states happen to share extensive borders with China, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Bhutan, which, in turn, are connected to the economic hub that is Southeast Asia. Binding the Northeast to national and international capital flows would yield more than monetary dividends, or so the argument goes. It would have an important political fall-out, since it would provide local people with a stake in the national project. What’s promised is improved surface, air and cyber-connectivity, healthcare, education, training and employment opportunities, a range of agro-based industries, better power, as well as improved technologies which could change the face of these states and the lives of the people.

All this, of course, is fine. A region that has not figured on the national map for the last half century, and which is completely landlocked, certainly needs roads, railway lines, bridges, airports, hospitals, vocational training institutions, rural electrification, telecom and jobs — as of yesterday. But if the local people are not sufficiently involved in such projects right from their planning stage onwards, if due processes are not followed in implementing them, investment policies of this kind would only foment suspicion, resentment, even resistance, which in turn could see a greater mobilisation of security forces in the area, setting into play the familiar cycle of violence and repression.

... contd.