Abstract
From the perception of being an anthropologist’s paradise in the colonial era to an intermesh of geo-strategic and geo-economic space in the global era, what are the issues that influence the development agenda of the Northeast Region (NER)? A policy named “Look East” attempted to accommodate NER through the North Eastern Vision Document 2020 in 2008. This Document became the animated vision of LEP in NER. Looking beyond the border and releasing the region from the post-partition territorial trap has been dreamt of through connecting with neighbouring countries and beyond through trade, commerce and communication. The question remains whether an overwhelming ethnic space termed “NER” can be accommodated in the policy solely by economic imperatives.
This chapter is a revised and updated version of my paper entitled “From ‘Look East’ to ‘Act East’ Policy: Continuing with an Obfuscated Vision for Northeast India,” Occasional Paper 54, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata: Kolkata, March 2016.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this chapter I have used the term Northeast India (NEI) to include Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. Sikkim is not referred here under NEI except when mentioned separately.
- 2.
Spatial analysis of NEI is more than a hermeneutic exercise, as an understanding of space helps us to analyse the region beyond its cartographic limitations. The economic and social imperatives associated with space, which is highlighted by different stakeholders at different points in history for respective gains, throw relevant light related with NEI. For a spatial analysis of NEI through different phases of history and the contemporary era, see Chakraborty and Ray (2015a).
- 3.
Within the border versus borderless debate under globalization there is another trend termed “polycentricity,” particularly with respect to Europe and the European Union (EU), where expansion of borders and reinforcement of existing borders of power centres continue simultaneously. Briefly, “polycentricity refers to the form of non-territorial politics, which emanate from a multiplicity of sites and which cannot be reduced to a single centre” (Rumford 2006). In other words, as the “division of borders between East and West got amalgamated in Europe and the peripheries of EU got extended, the power centers of the EU like Brussels, Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Frankfurt continued to remain intact.” So the related point here is that “borders in Europe have lost their actual relevance but the power center/decision points inside the EU remain unbroken” (Tripathi 2015). This process of dismantling/minimizing the border has in itself given rise to a new kind of border.
- 4.
There are varied interpretations of the historicity of the “idea” of Look East (Chakraborty and Ray 2014). It is agreed that as a policy Look East was initiated just after the inception of liberalization and globalization during the early 1990s (Mezard 2006; Muni 2011). In concrete terms NEI became a part of LEP when the North East Region Vision 2020 was launched in 2008. Recently with the change of regime in New Delhi, the policy has been reframed AEP.
- 5.
Actually the change in the name of the policy from LEP to AEP is associated with the then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It is reported that during her visit to India in 2011, in a speech at Chennai, she urged India to “not just Look East but to Engage East and Act East.” “Act East” was supposed to build on “Look East,” which she described as “the foreign policy stance India adopted in the 1990s when it opened up its economy to the world.” For details see Roche (2015).
- 6.
Within the region, Assam’s contribution to the regional economy shows a declining trend. In 1980–81, Assam contributed 77 per cent to the regional income which declined to 60 per cent in 2012–13.
- 7.
The Third tier is Normal Trade, where trade is allowed under Letter of Credit under the EXIM Policy or Foreign Trade Policy. Traditional free exchange, where locally produced items up to USD1000 are allowed to be exchanged between the indigenous people residing up to 40 km on either side of the border with simple documentation without any Guaranteed Remittances (GR) formalities. Barter Trade, where 22 agreed items (which now include 62 items, see Table 4.11) up to USD20,000 can be traded with GR formalities and payment of customs duties. The items include locally produced agricultural items and minor forest produces. (see Table 4.11 for list of items.)
- 8.
There are four LCSs at the NEI–Myanmar border; amongst them two are functional (see Table 4.10).
- 9.
Estimates regarding informal trade between NEI and Myanmar vary between different scholars. The NCAER (1995) studied three districts each from Assam and Tripura (other than nine districts of West Bengal) and estimated informal trade at the state level. The value of informal trade in Assam was Rs 35.50 crore, while in Tripura it was Rs 8.10 crore. RIS (1996) conducted a study titled ‘India’s Border Trade with Select Neighbouring Countries’ and quantified the value of exports at Rs 42.01 crore and imports at Rs 13.16 crore. Bakht (1996) estimated that informal exports to India were at least six times higher than legal exports, thereby showing a huge quantum of informal trade. He stated that illegal exports from Bangladesh to the NER limited to a few high-value items such as gold. Halder (2008) estimated the ratio of legal to illegal import from India at 1:1.5. Similarly, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT) estimated the annual volume of trade in 1995 to be Rs 2200 crore, with the Moreh-Tamu sector contributing Rs 1600 crore, Champhai Rs 500 crore and Lungwa Rs 100 crore. Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship (IIE), Guwahati, estimated the volume of informal trade based on custom seizure data in 2000–01 to be Rs 224.90 crore, with 86.88 per cent of the same routed through Manipur and the rest through Mizoram. If we take the value of trade as calculated by IIE, the estimates for informal trade is ten times more than the formal trade in the Manipur sector. Based on this model, Bezbaruah (2003–04) calculated the volume of informal trade at Rs 227.73 crore, thereby making the volume of informal trade 12 times higher than formal trade.
- 10.
The simulated exercise has been undertaken with data support from Dr. Amit Sadhukhan, post-doctoral fellow, Institute of Development Studies Kolkata, Kolkata.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
Amiya Kumar Bagchi states that capitalist colonialism works by introducing and exploiting markets. But the structure of colonial power is essentially political and not just a passive reflection of imperatives dictated by an impersonal market. Hence, market failures—deliberately engineered or systematically generated—are as much a component of the working system as market successes. For an insight see Bagchi (2010).
- 14.
In states like Arunachal Pradesh in NEI, travelling from one end of the state to the other is possible only by passing through Assam. Internal integration of the region thereby seems to be very important for forging together connectivity as well as the segregated markets. On the other hand, there are sufficient benefits too if trade and transport is allowed through the neighbouring countries, for example through Bangladesh. Huge benefits that will accrue to both India and Bangladesh if they focus on trade facilitation based on opportunity cost pricing—it is argued that Assam holds the key to the success of this mechanism. For further details on benefits from trade and transportation for NEI with transit through Bangladesh see Murshid (2011), Das (2012).
- 15.
A study was undertaken in the Champai (Mizoram)–Myanmar border related to the perception of communities inhabiting the borderlands about LEP and the differences, if any, between the communities and the policy-makers. The results show that more than 54 per cent of the respondents had never heard about LEP; amongst those who had heard about the policy, some related it to trade and infrastructure, while others associated it with security measures. The respondents were of the view that the policy was not meant for involving local traders and it is the Vai (outsider) who will reap the benefit. They also perceived that there is a difference between what they understand as trade and what it is associated with by policy-makers. The survey also shows that the communities in the borderlands do not perceive the communities on the other side of the border in Myanmar as foreigners and they preferred a more porous border for greater interaction between the people whom they mentioned as “belonging to the same ethnic stock.” But this perception was not shared by the organizations in Aizawl. For details, see Chakraborty and Ray (2015b).
- 16.
By the term “nearby outside” world I mean access to the immediate neighbourhood shared by the same ethnic groups divided by political boundaries which happen to be international borders. There are many tribes—for example Konyak, Nocte, Tangsa and Wangchoo in Arunachal Pradesh; Kuki, Paite and Tangkhul in Manipur; Garo, Khasi and Jayantia in Meghalaya; Mizo, Paite and Chin in Mizoram; and Chakesang, Sangtam, Khyaniungam and Konyak in Nagaland, to name a few—who are separated by international borders. Similarly, access to goods and services including food grains may improve in many of these otherwise “remote” areas/pockets in the borderland if connectivity is enhanced. Here border haats can play an important role. But border haats too have to shed off their character of being a statist/administrative construct to be more beneficial to the communities in the borderland. Experiences of existing border haats in the region points towards such a realization.
References
Ahmed, R., & Biswas, P. (2004). Political economy of underdevelopment of Northeast India. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.
Bagchi, A. K. (2010). Colonialism and Indian economy: Collected essays. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bakht, Z. (1996). Cross border illegal trade in Bangladesh: Composition, trends and policy issues. Dhaka: Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies.
Barua, A. (Ed.). (2005). India’s North-East: Development issues in a historical perspective. New Delhi: Manohar-Centre De Sciences Humaines.
Baruah, S. (2005). Durable disorder: Understanding the politics of North East India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Bezbaruah, M. P. Indo-Myanmar border trade: The stakes for North East India. http://w.w.w.asthabharati.org/Dia_July07/m.p.per cent20bezper cent20.htm. Accessed 24 Jan 2013.
Brenner, N. (1999). Beyond state-centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in globalization studies. Theory and Society, 28(1), 39–78.
Chakraborty, G. (2016). Look East policy and Northeast India: Space, region and existing reality. In G. Das & C. J. Thomas (Eds.), Look East to act East policy: Implications for India’s Northeast. New Delhi: Routledge.
Chakraborty, G., & Ray, A. (2014). Look East Policy and Northeast India. New Delhi: Aakar Books.
Chakraborty, G., & Ray, A. K. (2015a). Spatiality and Northeast India. Man and Society, XII, Summer, 66–80.
Chakraborty, G., & Ray, A. K. (2015b). The Look East Policy from peoples’ perspective: A study on Mizoram. Kolkata: IDSK. (Mimeograph).
Chatterjee, S. (2007). Complex space in India’s Look East Policy: Order, co-operation and community. South Asia Survey, 14(1), 65–81.
Chaudhuri, S. K. (1995). Cross border trade between India and Bangladesh. Working paper 58, NCAER, New Delhi.
D’Souza, A., & Christina, K. (2005). Social change in North East India: A comparative study of three tribes. As quoted by Pereira, M. Globalization and changing land relations in North East India. Presented at Impact of Globalization on North East, Himalayan Research Institute, March 10–11.
Das, S. K. (2012). India’s look East Policy: Imagining a new geography of India’s Northeast. India Quarterly, 66(4), 343–358.
Datta, P. S. (1992). India’s North East: A study in transition. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications.
Dutta, B. B., & Karna, M. N. (Eds.). (1987). Land relations in North East India. New Delhi: Peoples Publishing House.
Fernandes, W., & Bharali, G. (2005). The Socio-Economic Situation of Some Tribes of Bishnupur and Palizi. As quoted by Pereira, M. Globalization and Changing Land Relations in North East India. Presented at Impact of Globalization on North East, Himalayan Research Institute, March 10–11.
Geomans, H. E. (2013). Bounded communities: Territoriality, territorial attachment, and conflict. In M. Kahler & B. F. Walter (Eds.), Territoriality and conflict in an era of globalization. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Halder, D. (2008). Cross-border trade between India and Bangladesh: A comparison between West Bengal and North Eastern region. In G. Das & C. J. Thomas (Eds.), Indo-Bangladesh border trade: Benefiting from neighbourhood. New Delhi: Akansha Publishing House.
Harvey, D. (2002). Globalization and the “Spatial Fix”. http://opus.Kobv.de/ubp/voltexte/2008/2436/pdf/gr2_01_Esso2.pdf. Accessed 9 Dec 2015.
http://fincomindia.nic.in/ShowContentOne.aspx?id=28&Section=1. Accessed 4 Dec 2015.
http://megplanning.gov.in/report/Task_Force_Report.pdf. Accessed 24 Dec 2012.
Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship. (2001). Border trade with Bangladesh and Myanmar: Pre-investment feasibility report. Guwahati: Indian Institute of Entrepreneurship.
Indian Institute of Foreign Trade. (1995). Industrial development and export potential of the North Eastern region. New Delhi: Indian Institute of Foreign Trade.
Karna, M. N. (1990). The Agrarian scene. Seminar no. 366, February.
Marx, K. (1973). Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy. New York: Penguin.
Mezard, I. S. (2006). Eastward bound: India’s new positioning in Asia. New Delhi: Manohar.
Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region. (2008). North Eastern region vision 2020 (Vol. 2). New Delhi: Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region.
Muni, S. D. (2011). India’s look East Policy: The strategic dimension. ISAS working paper 121, Institute of South Asian Studies, University of Singapore.
Murshid, K. A. S. (2011). Transit and trans-shipment: Strategic consideration for Bangladesh and India. Economic & Political Weekly, XLVI(17), 43–51.
Newman, D. (2006). The lines that continues to separate us: Borders in our ‘borderless’ world. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 143–161.
Newman, D., & Passi, A. (2002). Fences and neighbours in the post modern world: Boundary narratives in political geography. Progress in Human Geography, 22(2), 186–207.
Ohmae, K. (1993). The rise of the region state. Foreign Affairs, 72(2), 78–87.
Ohmae, K. (1995). The end of the nation state, the rise of regional economies. London: Free Press.
Planning Commission. (2002). State plans: Trends, concerns and strategies, Vol. III, tenth five year plan 2002–07. New Delhi: Planning Commission.
Planning Commission. (2006). Task force on connectivity of trade and investment in North-East regions. New Delhi: Planning Commission.
Research and Information System. (1996). India’s border trade with select neighbouring countries. New Delhi: Research and Information System.
Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS). (2011). Expansion of North East India’s trade and investment with Bangladeshand Myanmar: An assessment of the opportunities and constraints. New Delhi: Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS).
Roche, E. (2015). http://www.livemint.com/Politics/ptJCf6HDhdru7GNfSD3DTM/Narendra-Modis-tour-of-Singapore-Malaysia-to-build-on-Indi.html. Accessed 26 Nov 2015.
Rumford, C. (2006). Theorizing borders. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(2), 155–169.
The World Bank South Asia Economic Update. (2010). Moving up, looking East. Washington: The IBRD/The WB.
Topolova, P. Trade liberalization, poverty and inequality: Evidence from India district. http://w.w.w.nber.org/papers/w11614. Accessed 8 July 2012.
Tripathi, D. (2015). Interrogating linkages between borders, regions, and border studies. Journal of Borderland Studies, 30(2), 189–201.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chakraborty, G. (2018). Look East Policy and Northeast India: Is It a Conjectured Vision. In: Sarma, A., Choudhury, S. (eds) Mainstreaming the Northeast in India’s Look and Act East Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5320-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5320-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5319-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5320-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)