Delhi Public School

Bangalore East

AGENDA: Discussing the dispute between the

Centre and the Northeastern Political diaspora
A motivational story by

HANNAH MORALES
 INDEX
TOPIC
1. Letter from the Executive Board
2. Introduction to the Committee
3. Rules of Procedure
4. Introduction to the Agenda

5. Background History

6. Sepratist Movements In Each State

Case studies (insurgencies) and

7.
Counter-insurgency
QARMA (Questions a resolution must
8.
answer)
9. Further Reading
 LETTER FROM EXECUTIVE BOARD
Greetings Delegates!
It is our honor to introduce you all to the only Indian Committee
of DPS East Model UN 2023, the All-India Political Parties Meet
(AIPPM). And we truly look forward to seeing all of you
passionately discuss the agenda: Discussing the dispute between
the Centre and the Northeastern Political diaspora.
The North-East has always been a shied away subject in Indian
politics, due to the region's volatility, insurgency, and
differences in culture. And we hope to see you all use the most
rebuking tones of oration and elocution. As AIPPM is not the
typical soft, diplomatic General Assembly committee, where all
delegates sympathize and try to live in a little, small, happy
environment. The AIPPM is a committee where personal attacks,
footwear flying, twisted rhetoric, fire-fueled voices and the
most absurd of antics prevail for one to survive. We may have
committees for problem solving, improvement of public policy
etc., yet you’re now in a committee that decides to change the
outlook of politics in our nation according to your portfolio’s
stances or power greediness.

Yes, you may have been intimidated by what the committee may
outline. But we assure you, this committee will not be a pain or
a fearful ride, but an adrenaline rush for any egoistic,
pretentious Bangalore Circuit delegate.

So, prepare well, antagonize your inner politeness, and have a

flaming tongue of political rage.
All the best,

Vansh Abrol Dhruva Dutt Aarush Ram Anandh

Head-Chairperson Vice-Chairperson Moderator
INTRODUCTION TO COMMITTEE
(AIPPM)
An AIPPM or All India Political Parties Meet is a forum
commonly seen in Indian politics meant to harbour
unrestrained political debate, deliberation and
discussion. It is such a forum that isn't restricted by the
strict mandate or procedure that plagues the legislature,
specifically the Lok Sabha. An AIPPM is typically called
before one of the sessions of the Lok Sabha or before the
introduction of a bill and serves to create some form of
consensus before the actual commencement of
committee or the tabling of a particular bill. In essence
it is a supplementary body to Parliament and has no
legislative powers. An AIPPM in a Model United Nations
Conference functions in a fairly similar way where
instead of dealing with the strict procedure under a Lok
Sabha committee, it allows more lax procedure and
allows delegates to focus more on the extent of powerful
debate. As the AIPPM again has no legislative powers
this makes it untechnical however it is still a very
powerful committee when viewed through the lens of
deliberation. Delegates in this committee are expected to
be well researched and aware of the occurrences
happening in Indian polity. They must also seek to
represent their assigned portfolios with utmost accuracy.
Therefore in addition to the agenda, delegates are also
required to be up to date on current affairs and all
occurrences happening in daily life in relation to their
portfolio To highlight this aspect there will be provisions
present within this committee such as Question Hour
however the procedural basis for this committee will be
the UNA-USA Model United Nations procedure.
INTRODUCTION TO THE AGENDA
The Indian Union forms a large part of South Asia
and is the largest country in the Indian Subcontinent.
However, The Northeast of India is a lesser-known
entity of the largest democracy in the world. This
hidden gem far away from the loud and bashful
politics of Delhi holds an immense value to India’s
position in its regional geopolitical turmoil with the
subcontinental neighbours.
You may think of the Northeast as one large emerald
– lush, glittering, and green. However, peer closer and
you will notice this gem has many facets – 8 to be
precise. This glorious octet of Arunachal Pradesh,
Manipur, Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland,
Tripura, and Sikkim come together to make the
northeast region of India. The northeastern states
were established during the British Raj of the 19th
and early 20th centuries, when they became relatively
isolated from traditional trading partners such as
Bhutan and Myanmar.
From the time of independence 3 quarters of a
century ago, the Northeast has been a particularly
daunting issue in the hands of the central
government.
The political conflict in the north-east essentially
centres around the differences between traditional
leadership and the new emerging modern elite among
the tribes regarding the nature of political freedom
they desire. If the former want independence, the
latter demand autonomy within the Indian state. The
Indian state, on the other hand, by viewing this
problem as one of law and order, has inadvertently
strengthened the hands of the secessionist traditional
leaders.
 An ongoing separatist struggle has continued in the
region since the late 1940s, making it the longest running
separatist struggle in South Asia. There are multiple
parties involved in the struggles including different
ethnic groups and states, some of whom want total
independence from India while others call for a
restructuring of the states.
There have been existing territorial conflicts within the
Northeastern states, including between Manipur and
Nagaland, Nagaland and Assam, Meghalaya and Assam,
and Mizoram and Assam. These are often based on
historical border disputes and differing ethnic, tribal, or
cultural affinities. There have been several insurgent
activities and regional movements in all parts of the
northeast, often unique in character to each state.
Military action by the armed and paramilitary forces and
political action have led to the intensity of these
insurgencies fluctuating and to the resolution of the
insurgency in Mizoram.
China is one of the five countries which share a border
with the Northeast region of India. Chinese claim of
Indian sovereign territory of Arunachal Pradesh as its
South Tibet has unsettled borders, led to a massive trust
deficit between the two South Asian giants and has
caused a lack of identifiable demarcation of The Line of
Actual Control (LAC) and frequent spoilers like Doklam
incidents, pose a serious challenge to the security in
Northeast.
In conclusion, this is a matter that has been shunned
away from the media limelight. Now it must be answered
by The Nation’s top political juggernauts!
 Background History
There are more than 100 tribal groups in the entire
north-east region of India. They have a rich cultural
heritage with a variety of languages and customs.
During the British era, they constituted an overwhelming
majority of the population in most of the areas they
inhabited.
Non-tribals had not penetrated these areas to any
significant extent. The British gave a special
administrative status to these areas. The British
government did not disturb their socio-political
structure and followed a deliberate policy of excluding
outsiders.
At the same time, the British government also supported
the Christian missionaries to move in and establish
schools, hospitals, and churches. The missionaries
introduced remarkable changes in the north-eastern
society and modern progressive ideas prevailed amongst
the tribal youth. It also helped the Britishers in keeping
the nationalist (pro-independence) influence out of the
tribal areas. This policy resulted in their isolation from
the rest of India.
There was a virtual absence of any political, cultural,
social, geographical, religious, or business contact of the
tribals in the North-east with the rest of India. So
India’s freedom struggle had very little impact on the
tribals.
Thus, they never experienced the feeling of being part of
a free country called India. Their main experience of
outsiders was that of British officers and Christian
missionaries only.
After Independence, the Government of India focused on
people-to-people contact and gave special attention to
tribal policy. The Sixth Schedule of our Constitution is
exclusively for this region and it provides for self-rule,
autonomy, and decentralization. Thus, district and
regional councils were created.
Initially, there was only one state of Assam and one
Union Territory, NEFA (North East Frontier Agency)
covering the whole of the north-east. Later, NEFA was
named Arunachal Pradesh and granted the status of a
separate state in 1987.
While NEFA was developing comfortably and in harmony
with the rest of the country, problems developed in other
tribal areas which were part of Assam administratively.
In the mid-fifties, Phizo raised the banner of revolt in
Nagaland and, later on, it spread to Mizoram, Manipur,
Tripura and Meghalaya.
In 1960, Assamese was made the sole official language of
the state. It led to an immediate and strong reaction in
the tribal districts. Various political parties of the hill’s
tribal population began to feel alienated from Assamese
and Bengali residents of the plains. The tribals were
afraid of losing their identity and being assimilated by
the policy of “Assamization” in government jobs and
other professions, like doctors, traders, etc.
Separatist Movements in Each State
i)Mizoram:
Mizo uprising (1966)
The Mizo National Front uprising was a revolt against the
government of India aimed at establishing a sovereign
nation-state for the Mizo people, which started on 28
February 1966.
MNF insurgency (1966–1986)
Mizoram’s tensions were largely due to the simmering
Assamese domination and the neglect of the Mizo people. In
1986, the Mizo Accord ended the main secessionist movement
led by the Mizo National Front, bringing peace to the region.
[citation needed] Insurgency status is classified as partially
active, due to secessionist/autonomy demands by the
Chakmas and Brus. The Chakma and Reang tribes complain
of religious and ethnic persecution, and complain that the
dominant Mizo ethnic group, almost entirely Christian,
wants to convert them to Christianity.

ii)Manipur:
Manipur became part of the Indian Union on 15 October 1949.
Manipur’s incorporation into the Indian state soon led to the
formation of a number of insurgent organizations, seeking the
creation of an independent state within the borders of
Manipur, and dismissing the merger with India as
involuntary.
Even though Manipur became a separate state of the Indian
Union on 21 January 1972, the insurgency continued. On 8
September 1980, Manipur was declared an area of
disturbance, when the Indian government imposed the Armed
Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 on the region; the act
currently remains in force.The parallel rise of Naga
nationalism in neighbouring Nagaland led to the emergence
of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN)
activities in Manipur. Clashes between the Isak-Muivah and
Khaplang factions of the .
NSCN further aggravated tensions, as Kuki tribes began
creating their own guerrilla groups in order to protect
their interests from alleged Naga violations. Skirmishes
between the two ethnic groups took place during the
1990s. Other ethnic groups such as the Paite, Vaiphei,
Pangals and Hmars followed suit, establishing militant
groups
UNLF (1964–present)
The first separatist faction known as the United
National Liberation Front (UNLF) was founded on 24
November 1964.

Marxist & Maoist groups (1977–present)

Between 1977 and 1980, the People's Liberation Army of
Manipur (PLA), the People's Revolutionary Party of
Kangleipak (PREPAK) and the Kangleipak Communist
Party (KCP), were formed, immediately joining the war.

iii)Nagaland:
Nagaland was created in 1963 as the 16th state of the
Indian Union, before which it was a district of Assam.
Active Naga-Kuki insurgent groups mainly demand full
independence. The Naga National Council led by Phizo
was the first group to dissent in 1947 and in 1956 they
went underground.
NSCN insurgency (1980–present)

The National Socialist Council of Nagaland was formed

in 1980 to establish Greater Nagaland, encompassing
parts of Manipur, Nagaland, and the north Cachar hills
(Assam). The NSCN split in 1988 to form two groups,
NSCN(IM) and NSCN(K). As of 2015, both groups have
observed a ceasefire truce with the Indian government.
The National Socialist Council of Nagaland—Khaplang is
the second faction with the same aim of a Greater
Nagaland and was formed in 1988.
iv)Tripura (1978–2019):
The insurgent groups in Tripura emerged at the end of the
1970s, as ethnic tensions between perceived Bangladeshi
infiltration and the tribal native population who were
outnumbered by the former, hailing from other parts of India
and nearby Bangladesh, which resulted in their being reduced
to minority status even threatening them economically,
socially, culturally; this resulted in a clarion call for
safeguarding tribal rights and cultures. Such being the extent
of desperation, this naturally resulted in hatred and suspicion
and their status is classified as active.
The first militant outfit to form was Tripura National
Volunteers (TNV), which was active until 1988.
The National Liberation Front of Tripura was formed in March
1989. During the period 1992 to 2001, a total of 764 civilians
and 184 members of the security forces were killed in NLFT
attacks. In 2019, it signed the Tripura Peace Accord to end
the insurgency.
The All-Tripura Tiger Force was formed by local aboriginal
tribes in 1990, who were gradually outnumbered both directly
and indirectly, even at the cost of being threatened for their
survival economically and culturally, not to speak of their
being reduced to minority population-wise; their sole aim is
the expulsion of all Bangladeshi infiltration nearby
Bangladesh.
v)Assam:
Assam has been a refuge for militants for several years, due to
its porous borders with Bangladesh and Bhutan and due to its
very close proximity to Burma. The main causes of the friction
include anti-foreigner agitation in the 1980s, and the simmering
indigenous-migrant tensions. The government of Bangladesh has
arrested and extradited senior leaders of the ULFA.
Bodoland
BLTF (1996–2003): The Bodo Liberation Tigers Force fought for
the autonomy of Bodoland under Prem Singh Brahma. It
surrendered with the establishment of the Bodoland Territorial
Council.
NDFB (1986–2020): The National Democratic Front of Bodoland
(NDFB) was formed in 1986 as the Bodo Security Force and aims
to set up an independent nation of Bodoland.
ULFA (1990–present)
The United Liberation Front of Assam was formed in April 1979
to establish a sovereign state of Assam for the indigenous people
of Assam through an armed struggle. In recent times the
organization has lost its middle-rung leaders after most of them
were arrested.
KLO (1995–present)
The objective of the Kamtapur Liberation Organisation (KLO) is
to carve out a separate Kamtapur Nation. The proposed state is
to comprise six districts in West Bengal and four contiguous
districts of Assam which are Cooch Behar, Darjeeling, Jalpaiguri,
North and South Dinajpur and Malda of West Bengal and four
contiguous districts of Assam – Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, Dhubri
and Goalpara. The KLO, in the beginning, was an unconcealed
organization, which was formed to address problems of the Koch
Rajbongshi people, such as large-scale unemployment, land
alienation, perceived neglect of the Kamtapuri language,
identity, and grievances of economic deprivation.
vi)Meghalaya:
The state of Meghalaya was separated from the state of
Assam in 1971, in order to satisfy the Khasi, Synteng and
Garo for a separate state. The decision was initially praised as
an example of successful national integration into the wider
Indian state.
This, however, failed to prevent the rise of national
consciousness among the local tribal populations, later
leading to a direct confrontation between Indian nationalism
and the newly created Garo and Khasi nationalism. A parallel
rise of nationalism in the other members of the Seven Sister
States further complicated the situation, resulting in
occasional clashes between rebel groups. The state wealth
distribution system further fueled the rising separatist
movements, as funding is practiced through per-capita
transfers, which largely benefits the leading ethnic group.
The first militant outfit to emerge in the region was the
Hynniewtrep Achik Liberation Council (HALC). It was formed
in 1992, aiming to protect the interests of Meghalaya's
indigenous population from the rise of non-tribal ("Dkhar")
immigration.
A conflict of interest soon led to a split of the HALC. The
Garo members formed the Achik Matgrik Liberation Army
(AMLA) while the joint Jaintia-Khasi alliance of Hynniewtrep
National Liberation Council (HNLC) was formed in 1993. The
HNLC claims to represent the Khasi – Jaintia people, and its
aim is to free Meghalaya from the alleged domination of the
Garos and the outsiders (the "Dkhars").
The AMLA passed into obscurity, while the Achik National
Volunteers Council (ANVC) took its place. The Garo-Khasi
drift persisted as the HNLC had set up the goal of turning
Meghalaya into an exclusively Khasi region; the ANVC, on the
other hand, sought the creation of an independent state in
the Garo Hills.
Several non-Meghalayan separatist groups have also operated
in the region, including the United Liberation Front of Assam
and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland among
others.
 Case Studies

Insurgencies
Northeast India (NEI) has been witnessing insurgency
since the 1950s and there is no end in sight. Even though
some states in the NEI have remained peaceful after
ending insurgencies, overall, the situation in the region
is not conducive to peaceful living and corresponding
prosperity.
1. Nagaland
The Nagas are a collection of tribes native to the
parts of North-East India and North-west Myanmar. In
1942, as World War 2 had bloated to the epitome of its
aggression, the Japanese had reached till Kohima after
capturing the whole of Burma. The Naga Club (formed in
1918 due to World War 1) fended off the Japanese and
forced them to retreat from Kohima. After World War 2,
the Deputy Commissioner of Naga Hills established the
Naga Hills District Tribal Council, replacing the Naga
Club. Later on, the Tribal Council was reformed as the
Naga National Council (NNC) as the British withdrew
from governance over India. As the NNC was formed, the
first and immediate objective for the entity was local
autonomy over the Naga Hills to protect the interests of
the Nagas.
The objectives were rejected by the President of the
INC at that time, Jawaharlal Nehru. Then in early 1947,
the Governor of Assam, and leaders of the tribal
communities drafted the nine-point agreement and
almost agreed upon it. The nine-point agreement became
unfavoured as the agreement required to be re-drafted
every ten years by the Indian authorities. Thus, the
agreement was left disputed. As a result, the NNC
declared independence on August 15, 1947, under the
leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo.
 In 1954, Phizo established the Naga Home Guard, an
underground army in order to administratively liberate
away from India. This was followed by rifles deployed by
Assam under the Assam Distributions Areas Act. Even
after the bloody incident, the Nagas remain adamant
about their separatist cause.

2. Manipur
The rise in insurgency in Manipur dates back to 1964
with the formation of the United National Liberation
Front (UNLF). The rise of separatist insurgency in
Manipur is mainly attributed to perceived discontent
over the alleged “forced” merger of Manipur with the
Union of India and the subsequent delay in granting it
full-fledged statehood. The Kingdom of Manipur was
merged with India in October 1949. It later became an
official state in 1971. Later we saw the formation of other
militant groups like the People’s Revolutionary Party of
Kangleipak (PRPK), Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP),
etc. In the subsequent years, there were a series of
domestic violent clashes between the militants and the
government forces.
In 1980, the centre declared the state as a “disputed”
area and placed it under the provisions of the Armed
Special Powers Act (AFSPA). In the 1990s, there were
further clashes between the Kukis and the Nagas that led
to the formation of the Kuki insurgent groups. Later on,
we saw further insurgent groups like the Zeliangrong
United Front (ZUF) and People’s United Liberation
Front (PULF) were formed. Hence, the formation of
multiple insurgents in the region has caused it to be
rather volatile and looped in a traditional civil war
stand-off.
3. Mizoram
The antecedent causes of the Mizo conflict included
dissatisfaction with the Lal (chieftainship) system, the
British colonial policy residue of treating Mizo-
inhabited areas as ‘excluded areas’, resulting in
separatist tendencies, lack of civic amenities, economic
backwardness, and the continuous insensitivity and
regional hegemony of Assam. Mizo society had started
reacting against the oppressive rule of the Lals, even
before independence and this took on an organized
political form under the aegis of the Mizo Union (MU),
which was formed on 9 April 1946. The main objectives
of the MU were autonomy in matters of land, customary
laws, culture, and identity, and recognition of the Mizo
dialects. The immediate reason for conflict in Mizoram
was the dreadful famine of 1959 as a result of bamboo
flowering and the consequent boom rodent population.
In the wake of the famine, a Mizo Cultural Society
renamed itself to “Mautam Front” and took the lead in
raising the demands of the Mizos. This resulted in
political mobilization and mass support. In 1960, this
Mautam Front again renamed itself to Mizo National
Famine Front (MNFF) and thereafter dropped the name
“Famine” from its name to become the Mizo National
Front (MNF) in 1961 under the leadership of Pu Laldenga
with the stated objective to achieve sovereign
independence of Greater Mizoram. Thus, within two
years, the lack of state action to address the condition of
the hill state led MNF to launch an insurgency and seek
independence from India. The MNA started taking
various posts in not only India but also in Burma. In the
initial fights, the Indian Army recovered the posts and
forced the guerrillas to shift their headquarters across
the border to East Pakistan. By 1966, the MNA
merged into the population and started launching
guerrilla strikes against the army. The rise of MNF
resulted in large-scale disturbances in Mizoram. In 1967,
the Government outlawed MNF.
Counter-Insurgency (COIN) in the North-
East
In 2011, the government of India identified 79 armed
insurgent groups active in six of the seven 'Sister States'
of North East. Among these groups, half are splinter
groups, while others range from small ethnic militias to
well-equipped rebel armies. Many of these groups have
engaged in both formal and informal talks with the
Government, with varying aspirations, demands, and
activities. Manipur is home to more than half of these
groups, while Nagaland, Assam, and Tripura also have
long-established armed groups. Mizoram and Arunachal
Pradesh have had smaller insurgencies since the Mizo
peace accords of 1987. Several important observations
and issues regarding militarization and counter-
insurgency in the North East are worth noting. Firstly,
only a few of the 79 armed groups have been officially
labelled as "terrorist organizations." Typically, these
organizations have a political agenda centred around
seeking greater autonomy or independence. Many of the
smaller groups are tolerated due to their opposition to
the independence-seeking groups.
The history of counter-insurgency in the North East
region is as old as the insurgencies themselves. The
Assam Rifles, India's oldest paramilitary force, was
established to conduct counter-insurgency operations in
the North East and other areas under the control of the
Army. The region has been heavily militarized since
World War II, with an increase in permanent troop
presence following the Indo-China war in the 1960s.
 Counter-insurgency operations reached their peak in the
1970s and again in the 1990s when more troops and
paramilitary forces were deployed to contain the
insurgencies, maintaining a permanent presence. Large
battalions have also been established to patrol the borders
with China, Burma, and BangladeshThe Indian government
has employed the Indian Army proportionately in its
counter-insurgency strategies, avoiding indiscriminate use
of force. This approach recognizes that groups such as
ULFA, the NSCN (IM), the UNLF, and the PLA enjoy a
certain level of social support, and disproportionate use of
force can be counterproductive. Assam has witnessed a
gradual change in its overall counter-insurgency strategy
due to measured military responses by the army after the
1990s. In recent years, there has been a shift in the attitudes
of locals; however, the Indian army still faces routine
accusations of human rights violations. There is social
resistance to counter-insurgency operations and the
militarization of society. Consequently, an all-out military
approach against the armed groups has never been utilized
in the North East.
Dialogue and negotiations have always been considered
viable alternatives for the Indian government's response to
the armed conflicts in the Northeast. In the Naga conflict,
dialogue began as early as 1947 with the Akbar Hydari
agreement, followed by civil society interactions in the
1950s, the Naga Peace Mission of 1964, the Shillong Accord
of 1975, and the ongoing peace negotiations with the NSCN
(IM) and the NSCN (K).In the case of the ULFA, jailed
ULFA leaders have been released, and "unconditional talks"
have taken place within the framework of negotiations. In
2011, ULFA submitted its charter of demands to the Centre,
which included seeking constitutional amendments to
protect the rights and identity of the indigenous people of
Assam.
 Other demands by ULFA included discussions on the grounds
for their struggle, a status report on missing ULFA leaders and
members, and various socio-economic issues. In the same year,
a tripartite agreement for the Suspension of Operations (SoO)
was signed among the Centre, the Assam government, and
ULFA. According to the agreement, both ULFA and the security
forces agreed not to carry out operations against each other.
Under the pact, the rebel group's approximately 600 members
were to be placed in special camps known as "navnirman
kendras." However, ULFA has refused to surrender their arms
and ammunition.

QARMA
1. To what extent is regional legislation required? If
required, how may the government implement it?
2. 1.Is there a need for administrative changes in the
local governance of NEI states?
3. 2.To what extent can the tribal outfits and insurgent
groups be consolidated?
4. 3.What measures may be provided to assure citizens
living in volatile regions of NEI of any form of
security?
5. 4.What measures should be taken to prevent inter-
state insurgency spillovers?
6. 5.To what extent could possible foreign influence be
restricted from insurgent groups?
7. 6.How may the government punish insurgents?
8. 7.Are there any separate intelligence agencies or
regiments required for the NEI regions?
Further Readings
1.https://mdoner.gov.in/contentimages/files/ARC_7thRep
ort_Ch12.pdf
2.https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/the-
neglected-states-of-the-nation/220206
3.https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/et-
commentary/indias-north-east-a-story-of-
neglect/articleshow/30229570.cms?from=mdr
4.https://thewire.in/world/india-cannot-forge-bonds-
with-southeast-asia-ignoring-issues-of-its-northeast-
region
5.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/news/congr
ess-ignored-northeast-for-60-years-alleges-sarbananda-
sonowal/videoshow/100279845.cms?from=mdr
6.https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/How-Tripura-
overcame-insurgency/article13606760.ece
7./http://mzuir.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/123456789/98/1/L
althakima%20(Pol.Sc)%20-%202008.pdf
8.https://thewire.in/politics/bridging-spaces-widening-
schisms-look-east-policy-northeast

Bibliography
1.https://www.gktoday.in/government-of-indias-
response-to-north-eastern-insurgencies/
2.https://www.insightsonindia.com/security-
issues/extremism/insurgency-in-north-east-india-nei/
3.https://www.cnbctv18.com/india/explained-naga-
insurgency-and-the-anti-insurgency-op-that-went-
horribly-wrong-11719972.htm
4.https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/how-big-
is-insurgency-threat-in-manipur-7786366/
5.https://www.gktoday.in/insurgency-in-mizoram/
6.https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/tribal-insurgency-in-
assam-upsc-notes/
7.https://www.insightsonindia.com/security-
issues/armed-forces-special-powers-act-afspa/
8.https://thewire.in/politics/bridging-spaces-widening-
schisms-look-east-policy-northeast
 Delhi Public School Bangalore East
Dommasandra Post, Survey No. 43/1B & 45,
Kodati Sulikunte Road, Sulikunte, Bengaluru,
Karnataka 562125

+91 96631 15148

facebook.com/dpsbangaloreeast/

instagram.com/demun_2023/