Is the BJP Riding a Tiger in Tripura?

Demands for new states or separate states within the Indian Union are not a new phenomenon. Agitations have varied in their forms such as shutdowns, militancy and political lobbying. On March 18, the National Federation for New States (NFNS) convened a consultative seminar on “New States for New India” at Hansraj College Auditorium in Delhi. This event was a collaborative effort organised by the supporters of Vidarbha and Bodoland. What raised eyebrows was that Mewar Kumar Jamatia, Minister for Forests and Tribal Welfare in the Government of Tripura also attended it. The Indigenous Peoples Front for Tripura (IPFT), to which Jamatia belongs, is an ally of the BJP in Tripura. Though the IPFT was formed to put forward the demand of Twipraland, a separate state consisting of the Tribal Autonomous District Council (TADC) areas of Tripura, the BJP entered the alliance on the condition that the demand would be dropped.

Pramod Boro, President of All Bodo Students Union (ABSU) and Suhas Chakma, Director of Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) were among the speakers. Suhas Chakma while addressing the gathering said that the government tends to view statehood demands only through the lens of security, whenever an agitation begins the first question is which foreign country is aiding the agitators? He also mentioned that new states are created only when certain political conditions exist – though he did not elaborate on the conditions. Therefore, activists and political parties should not feel disillusioned that after 30 years of agitation, their demand is still not met. The people should see it as not being their turn yet. On this basis he requested the Tiprasa people not to blame their leaders if the IPFT despite being a part of the government is unable to gain Twipraland. He then elaborated that a broad coalition must be created along with those parties that agitated and won their separate states such as the Telangana Rashtriya Samiti (TRS). This broad coalition can act as a lobby in Parliament to promote each other’s statehood movements.

The IPFT has been accused of having and maintaining links with the proscribed National Liberation Front for Tripura (NLFT). At present the IPFT has 8 members in the state assembly two of whom are Ministers in the government. Though the BJP could have formed the government without the IPFT, they chose to keep them in the loop. This was probably in the hope of cultivating the tribal vote as a safe constituency. The IPFT after the polls reiterated that they have not given up on the statehood demand. The challenge for the BJP now is to manage the IPFT without alienating the ‘tribals’. Not conceding to the IPFT’s demands could result in the latter’s withdrawal from the government. However, this will barely dent the BJP which has 36 seats in the 60-member assembly.

However, if IPFT can convert the statehood demand into a widespread movement like the GJM under Bimal Gurung temporarily did for Gorkhaland during the 104-day shutdown. Theoretically the IPFT could bring about such a movement where the electorate demands that all tribal representatives resign irrespective of which party they belong to. However, most statehood movements in the Northeast are prone to factionalism and personality cults. The clash of egos often leaves the general public in the lurch. Tripura is no exception to this, the IPFT would first have to bring on board the other tribal parties, which is a challenge in itself.