The colonial policy of exclusion used to govern the Hill tribes of India’s Northeast, or colonial Assam, was, it was claimed, a form of indirect rule. But, as we argue, it was primarily designed to instill more direct control over the tribes who lived there. The policy not only divided the Mizo Hills between its tribal and the non-tribal population, but it also showed that the region was never going to be part of any constitutional reform process during the colonial period. The article tries to analyse how the policy of exclusion became a matter of intense debate; contested by groups who challenged the arbitrary rule of the British who were exploiting it to prop up Mizo chieftains for their own ends. This policy was also contested by groups eager to be part of the constitutional reform. To counter it, the Mizo Union (MU) party was formed. Catering to the aspirations of the common people, MU worked for the establishment of district autonomy after India gained Independence.
AdamsPhilip F. (2014). Some notes on a policy for the Hill Tribes of Assam. In SyiemliehDavid R. (Ed.), On the edge of empire: Four British plans for North East India, 1941–1947 (pp. 228–252). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
2.
AhmadZ. A. (1937). Excluded areas under the new constitution (Pamphlet for Congress Political and Economic Studies No. 4). Allahabad.
3.
AitchisonC. U. (1983). A collection of treaties, engagements and sanads relating to India and neighbouring, countries (revised and continued up to 1929): Vol. XII. Jammu and Kashmir, Sikkim, Assam and Burma. Delhi: Mittal (Reprint).
4.
AlemchibaM. (1970). A historical account of Nagaland. Kohima: Naga Institute of Culture.
5.
AoT. (1993). British occupation of Naga country. Mokokchung: Naga Literature Society.
6.
BarpujariS. K. (1992). Paramountcy in the hills, 1874–1914. In BarpujariH. K. (Ed.), The comprehensive history of Assam (Vol. IV, pp. 220–257). Guwahati: Assam Publication Board.
7.
BaruahS. (2005). Durable disorder: Understanding the politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
8.
BoseM. (1979). Historical and constitutional documents of North-Eastern India (1824–1973). Delhi: Concept.
9.
ChakrabortyP. (1995). The Inner-Line Regulation of the Northeast India. Titagarh: Linkman Publications.
10.
Chaltuahkhuma (2001). Political history of Mizoram. Aizawl: Mizoram Publication Board.
11.
ChaubeS. K. (1999). Hill politics in Northeast India. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
12.
ChawngkungaC. (1998). Important documents of Mizoram. Aizawl: Department of Art and Culture.
13.
ChhuanvawraK. L. (2008). Mizo Union Kha (1946–1974). ‘Mizo Union Kan ram Tan’. Aizawl: Lois Bet.
14.
ChowduryJ. N. (1989). Two visionaries, Nehru and Elwin, in the context of India’s Tribal Policy since Independence, with reference to India’s North-East frontier. In SinghK. S. (Ed.), Jawaharlal Nehru, tribes and tribal, policy (A centennial tribute proceeding of a seminar) (pp. 33–53). Calcutta: Anthropological Survey of India.
15.
ClowSir Andrew G. (2014). The future Government of the Assam Tribal Peoples. In SyiemliehDavid R. (Ed.), On the edge of empire: Four British plans for North East India, 1941–1947 (pp. 139–227). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
16.
GaitE. (1906). A history of Assam. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink (Reprint).
17.
GassahL. S. (2013). Traditional institutions of Meghalaya: A study of Doloi and his administration. Delhi: Regency.
18.
GrigsonW. V. (1946). The aboriginal in the Future India. Man, 46.
19.
GuhaA. (2016). Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom struggle and electoral politics in Assam. Anwesha Edition. Guwahati: Anwesha.
20.
HansariaB. L. (2010). Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (3rd ed.). New Delhi: Universal Law.
21.
HoldichT. H. (1912). The North-Eastern Frontier of India. Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, 60(3091), 379–392.
22.
HussainI. (2000). Resistance, pacification and exclusion: The hill people and the national upsurge. In BhuyanArun (Ed.), Nationalist upsurge in Assam (pp. 271–294). Guwahati: Government Publication.
23.
HussainM. l. (1992). Tribal question in Assam. Economic & Political Weekly, 27(20/21), 1047–1050.
24.
HuttonJ. H. (1933). Census of India, 1931 (Vol. I, Pt. I). Delhi: Manager of Publication, GoI.
25.
KhongreiwoR. (2009). Understanding the histories of peoples on the margins: A critique o. ‘Northeast India’s durable disorder’. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 34(4), 437–454.
26.
Lalbuaia (2002). Zoram Hmel Tidanglamtu [Who changed the face of Zoram] (Mr. A.R.H. MacDonald I.C.S leh Mizo Union Party 1946–74). Aizawl: Author.
27.
LalfakzualaJ. K. (2013). Land settlement, land privileges and the people’s response in Mizoram. In Malsawmdawngliana & Rohmingmawii (Eds), Mizo narratives: Accounts from Mizoram. Guwahati: Scientific Book Centre.
28.
LalnithangaP. (2008). Mizoram politics Inlumleh Chhoh Dan [Dynamics of the Development of Mizoram Politics]. Aizawl: Lengchhawn.
29.
LyngdohR. S. (1996). Government and politics in Meghalaya. New Delhi: Sanchar.
30.
MackenzieA. (1995). The North-East frontier of India. New Delhi: Mittal (Reprint).
31.
McCallA. G. (2008). The Lushai Hills district cover. Aizawl: Tribal Research Institute (Reprint).
32.
MillsJames P. (2014). A note on the future of the Hill Tribes of Assam and the adjoining hills in a self-governing India. In SyiemliehDavid R. (Ed.), On the edge of empire: Four British plans for North East India, 1941–1947 (pp. 81–138). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
33.
NagS. (2002). Contesting marginality: Ethnicity, insurgency and subnationalism in north-east India. Delhi: Manohar.
34.
NagS. (2016). The uprising: Colonial state, Christian missionaries, and anti-slavery movement in North-East India 1908–1954. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
35.
ParryN. E. (1932). The Lakhers. London: McMillan & Co. (Published by the direction of Government of Assam, Shillong).
36.
ParryN. E. (1976). The Lakhers. Calcutta: Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd (on behalf of Tribal Research Institute, Aizawl, Mizoram) (Reprinted).
37.
RaoB. Shiva (Ed.). (2006). The framing of India’s Constitution: Selected documents (Vol. III). Delhi: Universal Law (Reprint).
38.
RaoV. V., PakemB., & HazarikaN. (1984). A century of government and politics in North-East India: Vol. II (Meghalaya) (1874–1983). New Delhi: S. Chand.
39.
ReidR. (1942). History of the frontier areas bordering on Assam from 1883–1941. Shillong: Assam Government Press.
40.
ReidRobert N. (2014). A note on the future of the Present Excluded, Partially Excluded and Tribal Areas of Assam. In SyiemliehDavid R. (Ed.), On the Edge of Empire: Four British Plans for North east India, 1941–1947 (pp. 42–80). New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
41.
Sangkima. (1982). Mizo society and social change. Guwahati: Spectrum.
42.
SyiemliehD. R. (1989). British administration in Meghalaya. New Delhi: Heritage.
43.
SyiemliehD. R. (Ed.). (2014). On the edge of empire: Four British plans for North East India, 1941–1947. New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
WeinerMyron (1960). Some hypotheses on the politics of modernisation. In ParkR. L. & TinkerIrene (Eds), Leadership and political institution in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
46.
ZachonoZ. T. (1994). The Maras toward autonomy. In PrasadR. N. (Ed.), Autonomy movement in Mizoram (pp. 133–156). New Delhi: Vikas.
47.
ZoremaJ. (2007). Indirect rule in Mizoram 1890–1954 (The Bureaucracy and the Chiefs). Delhi: Mittal.
48.
ZoremaJ. (2014). Establishment of British Rule in Mizoram: Initiatives and changes in administration. In Malsawmdawngliana & Rohmingmawii (Eds), Mizo Narratives: Accounts from Mizora. Guwahati: Scientific Book Centre (Reprint).
49.
ZouD. V., & KumarM. S. (2011). Mapping a colonial borderland: Objectifying the geo-body of India’s Northeast. Journal of Asian Studies, 70(1), 141–170.
