The long-drawn movements by various ethnic groups in Northeast India for self-determination centered around two aspirations: Autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework and secession(independence) challenging the very idea of Indian nationalism. This seductive idea of self-determination have become so fashionable that Tripuri leadership – politicians, intellectuals and insurgents – jumped the bandwagon: some asking for more autonomy, others calling for secession, without proper investigation and clear understanding of the prevailing distinct situational and contextual background of Tripuris. This situational and contextual differences vis-à-vis other ethnic groups have undercut demand for self-determination by Tripuris: demand for autonomy is politically immature foolish strategy and demand for secession is illogical and devoid of faintest rationality unless the issue of political ownership of the territorial entity of Tripura is settled. This paper argues that given our situational difference self-determination is an unwinable ideological framework within which to locate our struggle strategy. We will need to resituate and redefine our movement and framework of struggle. Prior to self-determination the legal and political question of ‘ownership of Tripura’ : who(Bengalee or Tripuri) have the right to exercise political control over the land? needs to settled.

Unlike other indigenous people in NE ours is a tragic history and pathetic present: politically displaced by illegal migrants. Outnumbered. Outvoted. Having consolidated their numerical position in Tripura by late sixties and established political, economic and administrative hegemony Bengalee intellectuals embarked on singular project of justifying and legalizing their ownership of Tripura. This project was sought to be achieved through the construction of an ‘idea’: that Bengalees are legal co-inhabitants of Tripura, rightful co-owners of the land. Legitimization of this ‘idea’ was achieved through brutal means of unabashed distortion and doctoring of our history and ingenious administrative manipulations. Once this ‘idea’ was legitimized in the national discourse and acquired acceptance by the national leadership a political system designed to perpetuate refugee domination was put into place leading to further marginalisation and brutal suppression of the indigenous people who today choke under the crushing burden of the illegitimate biased system. The success of Bengalee intellectuals in legalizing their ‘co-ownership of the land’ have made our demand for self-determination at once a perilous affair and blunted strategy. Under the present system our demand for autonomy like the TTAADC is an explicit acceptance of the illegal Bengalee infiltrators as legitimate and rightful inhabitants; and our call for secession is politically illogical irrational by the fact that we do not exercise political control over the territory. As such like Nagas we possess no legitimate and rational claim to independence. And autonomy demand is risky a political foolhardy affair because autonomy is demanded from a illegitimately legitimate government. Autonomy demand should be vis-à-vis the Indian government. Not state government.

This failure, to understand our situational and contextual present and define our movements accordingly, have twin impact on our indigenous movements: First we have failed to construct a common identity which is a prerequisite for a strong movement, leading to further fragmentation of identities and disunity; secondly, we failed to challenge the unabashed tailored ideas and discourses of Bengalee intellectuals regionally, nationally and internationally. This twin-failures is reflective of our defeat in the ‘battle of ideas’: the intellectual battle. Bengalee intellectuals have succeeded in shifting and confining the discourse on Tripura within the autonomy-question vis-à-vis the state government. The ownership question has been taken as settled. Presumably an easy-earned not-so-praiseworthy victory.

Today keen observers of Tripura politics is struck by the overwhelming dominance and one sidedness of the ethno-political discourse in Tripura. In their discourse and narratives on ethnic unrest and tension between Tripuris and Bengalees the cause is located on land alienation: land alienation of tribals( mark, not Tripuris}by the more advanced Bengalee inhabitants. This unrest is diagnosed primarily as agrarian in nature, not political. The issue of our political displacement and subjection and suppression is a non-issue. This compels us politically to rethink our strategy of self-determination and resituate the political debate: the war of ideas. Battle zone need to be redrawn and shifted from question of ‘more autonomy’ to question of ‘who owns Tripura? Which people have the legitimacy to exercise political control over Tripura?’. Only when this ownership issue is settled, rightfully, in our favor we can make a rational claim for secession or more autonomy. Towards this project an intellectual onslaught will need to be launched against the ‘Bengalee idea’ that Bengalees are historically legal inhabitants of Tripura. Tripura politics is structured and centered around this ‘idea’. The task at hand is to deconstruct this idea: demystify and peel off its surface-fictions and lay it bare, denuded to the world. Once this is achieved the political system structured on this foundation will come crumbling down. We always live ideas. Ideas permeate system. Destroy the idea which permeate the system and the system will collapse.

Today, we need to question our role, our ideas, and how we resist a system which is designed for our perpetual political subjection. Who are we in the present? And how did we become who we are in the present? You and I have a duty to resist, oppose a system which have made us who we are in the present: An illegitimate system which denigrates our existence, our history; demean our political and social dignity. Resistance to any form of subjection is a human right endorsed by international law. Do we have the dignity, courage and sagacity to resist?