Search

The paper probes the trajectories of colonial policy towards the Indo-Burma frontier and to what extent they affected the local population. It focuses on the Zo people, or Chin, Kuki and Lushai people, with whom the British had a long history of relations in the Indo-Burma frontier. The paper basically focuses on three British proposals for "amalgamation" of Zo inhabited areas in the Indo-Burma frontier. It argues that colonial policy towards the Chin-Lushai hills largely hinges on its larger policy in Burma, Bengal and Assam respectively. Because colonial policy was driven by an underlying objective to fulfill "administrative convenience" and local interest found no place for consideration; thus, the net result achieved was fragmentation rather than amalgamation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The creation of Assam as a new province in 1874 and the transfer of Sylhet from Bengal to Assam provided a new twist in the shaping of the northeastern region of India. Sylhet remained part of Assam from 1874 to 1947, which had significant consequences in this frontier locality. This paper re-examines archival sources on political mobilization, rereads relevant autobiographical texts, and reviews oral evidence to discover the ‘experienced’ history of the region as distinct from the ‘imagined’ one. The sub-text of partition (Sylhet) is more intriguing than the main text (Bengal), because events in Sylhet offer us a micro-level study. Generations of historians—writing mostly in Bengali and relying on colonial archives—have tended to overlook the mindset of the people of Sylhet. This paper, on the basis of an examination of combined sources, argues that the new province was implicated in overlapping histories, across Bengal-Assam borders. The voice of the indigenous—mostly Hindus but partly Muslim—elites were dominant from 1874 onwards. However, the underdogs—particularly ‘pro-Pakistani’ dalits (lower-caste Hindus) and madrasa-educated ‘pro-Indian’ maulvis—emerged as crucial players in the referendum of 1947. Hardly any serious study, however, has focused on the Sylhet referendum—a defining moment in the region. This study of the Sylhet referendum will reveal a new dimension to the multiple responses to these issues and provide a glimpse of the ‘communal psyche’ of the people in this frontier district, rather than a binary opposition between ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ forces. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]