Talk:Northeast India/Archive 1

Other needed sections
The article needs new sections on - i. Places of Interest ii. Economy iii. Noted personalities iv. Transportation14.139.209.18 (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Upside down image
The image of the Himalayas could be replaced with a better one. The image appears upside down but uploads alright when viewed in original size.--Renzut (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

POV issues
I have flagged this article for POV. The tone of the article at present describes the region as a whole being less developed than some other parts of India. I would prefer if the blanket statements were toned down or qualified. Also, please provide data for economic development statistics if available. Without them, the statements seem discriminatory. I have deleted a sentence that asserted that people from this region physically resemble North Asians and Southeast Asians. Please avoid blanket statements about physical appearances. If you insist on this, please provide genetic data to back it up. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * References inserted and POV tag removed. Chaipau 11:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! If you are able to expand the individual topics (culture, insurgency etc), please do so. This article is disproportionately shorter than the articles for the other regions in India. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since North East India is the only distinct unambiguous region of India along with South India, I beseech everyone to expand this article.

I am willing to expand this article. Can someone tell me how to expand- just upload the entire material at once, or in fragments with continuous review, or first review and then upload?

Maquahuitl 20:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Racial Conflicts must be heard
North-east India is troubled by conflicts and insurgent groups. It can even get worst like the Rwandan Genocide. Western media should go and cover a story about the trouble in North-east India, but they don't. I wonder why. 72.140.235.202 04:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

They should also cover christian terrorist organizations in North East India, but they don't. I wonder why? Probably because it's sponsered by american xian organizations.

http://www.vigilonline.com/reference/relart/christian_terror_in_india.asp

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorism_in_northeast_india.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.145.189 (talk • contribs)

Historically inaccuracies
Ok, sorry to say this, but Chaipau's grasp and knowledge of Indian history is completely flawed, biased and UTTERLY WRONG. Assam (known as Kamarupa in ancient times) was always very much a part of pre-modern India, which obviously accounts for the majority ethnic and demographic makeup of that state. And yes, even Manipur and Nagaland have been historically part of (political AS WELL AS cultural) India. They are even mentioned in several Indian epics, such as the Mahabharata. I'm not going into whether those epics are really history or merely myth, but note that these states were one of the kingdoms visited by Arjuna when he travelled the country during the 13 years of exile. The Mahabharata even clearly documents that he forged a marital alliance with BOTH these kingdoms (try reading the Wiki articles on Ulupi and Chitrangada) by taking the princesses of these kingdoms as wife. Again, Mahabharata may just be an "epic" or "myth" to Western people (and Chaipau), but it clearly demonstrates that these kingdoms were definitely part of the larger political realm that was ancient India.

Wait, there's more. The region that is modern Northeast India, was even part of Asoka's empire, as is clearly documented (even in Wiki articles of the same itself). Just because the Mughals did not care to annex this region formally in THEIR empire, DOES NOT mean that "these regions were never a part of political India until recently", as Chaipau would like us to believe. By that measure, even Kerala (the Mughals never annexed Travancore) is "never a part of modern political India until recently". Nonsense! I am restoring this article to its state before Chaipau vandalized it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk • contribs)


 * I have reverted the page to the original state. We should prevent an edit war and thrash out the issues here on the talk page before we proceed.


 * The first historical reference to Kamarupa comes from Samudragupta's Allahabad pillar, from the Gupta period. That is some 500 years after Asoka's period.  Could you please be more specific to what you are referring to?


 * A document that mentions many countries and kingdoms is not evidence that they are politically united. If a document in UK mentions France, that does not mean UK and France are politically united.  If a document mentions that the UK and France formed an alliance and fought against the Germans in World War II, that does not mean that they are politically part of each other.  Even then the references to Bhagadatta of Pragjyotisha in Mahabharata cannot be attributed to earlier that about 300 BC, a later addition that points to a contact that the later authors of Mahabharata made with the region rather than a political extension.


 * Chaipau 13:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The region was known as Kamarupa, and Pragjyotish before that. On the one hand, you clearly acknowledge references to the kingdom from Samudragupta's pillar and on the other hand you mention that it was not "part of political India". The analogy of UK and France is completely flawed, sorry, and the later claims about editing of Mahabharata are even more hilariously unsubstantiated and wrong. You yourself mention that India through most of its history has always been a group of several, distinct, separate kingdoms or princely states (even at their height, neither the Mauryans nor the Mughals could ever "unite" or annex the whole of the subcontinent). Does that mean "political India" itself has no existence in history in the first place? In that case, making a special case for the north east, as this article does, is wrong. But no, something similar was the case for Germany before its unification during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Several distinct, small, separate princely states, but a larger common "political" state, nonetheless.


 * Whether political India has a historical existence or not is a different matter. But the wikipedia article seeks to present the history of north-east as it is understood, given present evidence.  It should desist from the nationalistic debates.  Read some of the references that are given in this article.   The north-east is today part of political India now.  What is the problem?


 * "Whether political India has a historical existence" IS NOT a different matter. Consider this: your argument(s) for justifying that "the northeast region was never a part of political India before the British annexed it" is based on the (flawed) line of reasoning that the region (for most of its history) has been ruled as separate and/or distinct kingdoms. My point is that the same argument applies completely to most of India itself, and so by your reasoning, "ancient political India" is not an entity that has ever existed. Given that, what point is there to make a special case for it in this article on northeast India and mention that this region has "never been part of political India historically"? It doesn't make sense. If you want, please go ahead and by all means author an article along the lines of "a united historical/political India is a myth" or something (it would be a foolish and historically inaccurate thing to do, but hey it's your choice).


 * First, the statement is "rarely a part of political India", not never. And for most part of history, the region that was not a part of political India.  This is not an opinion but a historical fact.  The pillar of Samudrgupta mentions kamarupa as a neighbor, not as a part of the Gupta empire.  The next political entity, the Mughal empire, never could hold a part of Assam for more than 40 years in the 17th century.  I have been giving you a lot of slack to buttress your arguments with some historical evidence, but it seems you do no have any.  Please stop pushing your POV on this article.  Chaipau 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Define "political India" historically, that is the entire point! As I have repeatedly said, there are SO MANY regions of what we call "India" today that were never part of either the Mauryan, Gupta or Mughal empires. Including parts of modern day Kerala (Travancore) and Tamil Nadu (especially parts south of Madurai). But is FOOLISH to argue (like you are arguing) that that means those regions were "not part of political India". This is NOT about the 40 odd years that some ruler sitting in a distant north Indian city managed to "annex" this region to his "empire". The entire CONCEPT of "political India", historically, has been about the lose conglomeration of a the several, distinct, kingdoms and/or "princely states" as the British preferred to call them that have reigned over various parts of this land! It is YOU who have absolutely no sense of history or perspective. It is YOUR POV that has been pushed into this article. Please stop doing that.


 * Moreover, you are being factually incorrect (and maliciously so) when you say that Samudragupta's pillar mentions Kamarupa as a "neighbour". Kamarupa is mentioned as a "frontier state" whose local ruler has been mentioned to be vanquished by Samudragupta, and it is written in no uncertain terms that the local rulers of these frontier states pay taxes and tributes to the Gupta Emperor, and "obey his orders" and "perform obeisance". Anybody with half a grasp of the Gupta age (and its military strategies -- refer to "Ancient India" Time Life Books, or any other source for that matter) knows that unlike the Mauryan rulers, the Gupta Emperors did not ever aim to *directly* conquer and rule or administer lands and kingdoms that were won in military conflicts. Chandragupta I, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II all followed a policy of simply re-instating the vanquished adversary back to his state as long as he agreed to be a loyal vassal or tributary state to the Gupta empire itself.


 * But really, like I've said, this is NOT about the Mauryan, Gupta or Mughal empires "vanquishing" local rulers of the northeast region or installing them as their vassals. This is about the concept or definition of "historical political India". Simply put, your equation of "historical political India" with "Mauryan/Gupta/Mughal empire before the British era" lacks maturity and a sound perspective on the nature of India's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk • contribs)


 * Can you concretely justify why you claim that the Pragjyotish and Kamarupa kingdoms were not "Indian" or were in no way "part of the larger political realm of India"? Better still, how do you define "historical political India"? Why, in your opinion, is a local kingdom (Kamarupa) that was culturally, demographically and theologically connected with India, NOT allowed to be represented as being "politically" a part of the land known as India?


 * What "larger political realm" do you mean? A political entity is a political entity.  The Ahom kingdom had as much relations with the Nara kingdom of Burma, maybe even a more closer one than it did with the Mughal Empire.  Does it make Assam a part of the "larger political realm" of Burma? Chaipau 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A half-sane and meaningful definition of "political India" historically, that's what I mean. Yes, a political entity is a political entity. But in the case of India, whose kingdoms and peoples were never integrated or "fully united" (until recently), we DO NEED to fall back to a definition that goes beyond simply "the physical borders of the Mauryan/Gupta/Mughal empires". And why do you only consider the Ahom kingdom? Why are you not answering the original question (about the preceding periods of Assam's history, particularly the Kamarupa period)? That kingdom was culturally, demographically, theologically, politically connected, in every manner with the rest of the (Indian) kingdoms of that era. It is naive to rubbish it all and just mention that this region was "rarely" a part of political India historically. It is downright historically inaccurate.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk • contribs)


 * "A political entity is a political entity" is not a definition of a political entity. I see that you are falling back on some cultural definition.  But in this article, political India has a precise meaning.  The political formations that existed before British India.  They were the Mauryan Empire, the Gupta empire and the Mughal Empire.  North-east India was never a part of the first three formations, and part of the third only briefly and partially.


 * Historically, this is not disputed. Chaipau 17:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "A political entity is a political entity" was _your_ statement that I *quoted* up there. I assume you meant it to mean "some formal definition of a political entity". And no, I am NOT falling back to any "cultural" definition at all. But at least we're making progress, thankfully!


 * Judging from your latest comments, you assume "historical political India" to mean the Mauryan, Gupta and Mughal empires. And that *very nicely* captures the gist of my case. Your definition is, simply put, narrow, and lacks a mature perspective or understanding of India's history. As I have repeatedly said, there were several regions of India (I have mentioned them enough times already) that were, like the northeast, never part of either of those three "political entities" that you named above. Do you really make a case that those regions were not part of political India historically, too?


 * And in any case, I have no objections to you using those explicit names (Mauryan Empire, the Gupta empire and the Mughal Empire) in this article. "North-East India was never / rarely / whatever ... never a part of ... (three entities named above) ... blah blah" is absolutely fine with me, feel free to make it so. But "never/rarely part of historical political India" is simply wrong and misleading.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, we are making progress and I shall make those changes.


 * Just as I suspected you are extending the demography, culture etc into the ambit of politics. You cannot claim cultural relations are indications of political connections.  The north-east is demographically and culturally closer to other political regions too, and your extension of "political india" collapses.  The loose political conglomeration with political India was rare, both in terms of political development and in terms of alliances.  And that can be claimed only for a part of western Assam (Kamarupa), leaving out most of the other seven states.  Chaipau 19:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not making this a "nationalistic debate" at all. I am simply concerned at the way you are consistently misrepresenting facts in this article giving an impression (in no uncertain terms) that "this region was never politically integrated with India historically and was only annexed by the British". The very statement "The north-east is *today* part of political India *now*" is EXACTLY the problem, don't you see? The fact is, it has ALWAYS been part of "political India", at least in every sane or sensible definition of the term "political India" (and hence the matter that I brought up which you incorrectly said was "different"). Sorry, but this is wrong, and only your uninformed opinion.
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk • contribs)


 * Then do forward your point with some reasonable argument. And references.  Else your contention is merely POV.  Chaipau 16:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All the reasonable arguments have already been made, but you are repeatedly failing to understand. Please STOP pushing your POV into this article.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk • contribs)


 * Please do not resort to an edit war, as it is will not lead to any conflict resolution. Chaipau 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is precisely my point. Please do not resort to an edit war, and do not try to force your (wrong) opinions on others through such an inaccurate article. I will continue maintain it in a correct, unbiased state.


 * Further, the Mahabharata began as an 8,800 verse long poem called Jaya (by Vyasa), to about a 90,000 verse long epic . The original story was embellished as the story grew.  The reference to Bhagadatta refers to his army of kirata and cina.  Well, China did not gets its name till the Qin Dynasty, from the 3rd century BC.  So you may want to redact your "hilarious" comment above.  Chaipau 14:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if we are to believe the said authorship claims for the Mahabharata, and that "the original story was gradually embellished", can you give concrete proof or justification that the aforementioned tracts were ones that were added later (which would have to be dated AFTER the Allahabad pillar if your claims hold) by those who "came into contact with that region". No, all your claims continue to be as "hilariously" unjustified and utterly wrong as they always were.


 * Oh, and by the way, that comment about cina, China and the Qin Dynasty is totally irrelevant, unnecessary and a sad attempt at a bait-and-switch argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And also, the statement "this region has strong genetic similarity with peoples of East Asia" is utterly IDIOTIC and pointless. India has always been a melting pot of civilizations. Greece, medieval and modern Europe, Arabs, Central Asia, East Asia, etc you'll find it all incorporated into the genetic makeup of almost all Indians. Does that mean we edit the articles on North India and mention that the people there have "strong genetic similarity" with ancient Greece and/or Arabs and/or "the peoples of Central Asia"? Obviously not. Moreover, the statement is misleading. It gives the impression that the genetic makeup of Northeast India is "more similar" to that of "peoples of East Asia" than to rest of India itself, which is utterly IDIOTIC. There are only "elements" of incorporation of East Asian influence on the genetic makeup of the region, at least as far as the largest and most populous state in the region (Assam) is concerned. Giving just a reference to an obscure articles by one nutcase is not enough to make such a misleading and loaded statement as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk • contribs)


 * Population genetics is a important and growing field of study. The result is indisputable.  You may not like the results, but it is out there.  Chaipau 13:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am obviously not writing off (or against) population genetics itself. Neither do I "dislike" the results. As I said, almost all Indians would inevitably trace their biological history to various other civilizations. But mentioning that sentence (especially in that misleading and loaded wording) is pointless, otherwise we could go about editing the article on North India and mention that the peoples of North India's genetic makeup incorporates from Central Asians / Arabs / Greece etc also.


 * The north-east has a diverse ethnic population and it is an important aspect of the north-east. It should remain there.  And if the north Indian population have affinities with other peoples, it should indeed be mentioned.  Chaipau 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, how is that ethnic diversity not symptomatic of India as a whole itself? All regions of India are as amazingly diverse as the northeast is, there's nothing revolutionary about it in the first place -- that's the whole point. It makes absolutely zero sense to mention it, least of all in the horribly misleading way that you're trying to put it across as.


 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk • contribs)


 * And there's even more. The entire argument that just because some region consisted of separate "princely states" just before independence (or in the immediate past history of India i.e. Mughal and British colonial period) and hence not really "politically integrated with the rest of India" is completely foolish. At the time of independence, India had more than 300 separate princely states, from Kapurthala to Junagadh. But they were still very much part of "political India", obviously. In short, I'm disappointed with the entire tone of this article as repeatedly controlled by Chaipau, whose knowledge of the matter is only mediocre and ordinary at best, and the rampant misrepresentation of historical facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk • contribs)


 * And yet more. This is regarding the use of the word "terrorism" in some places (although I've left the word "insurgency" in some other places also). This is not just the view of the government of India. Successive US administrations, European Union, AS WELL AS THE UNITED NATIONS, have now (for several years) listed the ULFA, NFDB and NSCN (I-M) as foreign terrorist organizations. Calling there acts of terrorism (such as ethnically cleansing Assam of migrant labourers from other states particularly Bihar, blowing up oil installations, and other acts of murder and genocide) as "struggle" is insensitive and downright factually incorrect. The use of the word "terrorism" (in some places) is completely justified, especially in light of the fact that these organizations (ULFA, NFDB, NSCN I-M) are already listed as such by the international community, as mentioned earlier. What is more, even the referenced websites cited for info on these organizations in this article itself themselves mention these organizations as "terrorist organizations". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk • contribs)

Dear Unsigned, you have told Chaipau that "whose knowledge of the matter is only mediocre and ordinary at best". Do you have any points to proove your statement? Your using such language towards Chaipau means that you are more into winning the argument without mattering whether you are correct or wrong. Only the Guwahati and the very western parts of Assam was an historical part of Mahabharata, and the Tripura, and Manipur. But being a part of Mahabharata does not mean that the the social and cultural factors are not of East Asia and South East Asia. The entire North East India including Sikkim are East Asian and South East Asian culture. And if Buddhism spread upto Japan does not mean the now even Japan and China belongs to India. And if that is so than Sanskrit that is made up of European languages as well than the parts of India that have the Sanskrit language should also called to be a political part of Europe and some European nation should by now capture the lands of political modern India where people use Sanskrit and Sanskrit based languages. In NON North East India the people who came from Europe (our fair skinned friends with big eyes and narrow noses), Africa (our dark skinned friends with big eyes and usually broad noses), and the Middle East (our brown friends with big eyes with noses between broad and narrow) all of these population mixed together and thus a mixed culture came up that actually behaved like a single culture over time. But the East Asian people inside present modern India whatever may be the reason did not mixed up with the European, African, and Middle Eastern Indians. This is the reason why today not only the East Asian people of modern India still have the same socio-culture as of the East Asian people outside the borders of modern India unlike the ancient European people in India who have long ago mixed with the African and the Middle Eastern people of ancient India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 08:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There are PHYSICAL evidence to support all this. One just need to go around the North Eastern part of India and see the cultural and social factors which as Chaipau and I said is the same as other East Asian culture outside the international borers of India. Regarding the armed insurgent groups or rebel governments yes they have done terrorist activities but so that the forces of the Indian government does terrorist activities. However because of the China factor claiming the North East India the Indian government (which is largely controlled by NON East Asian Indians) is being careful these days in dealing with the East Asian India people in the North East India regarding coercive force.

More POV issues
There are a few issues that need to be addressed by a person with expert knowledge of the North-East:

1) The NE may have strong genetic similarity with the people of East and South-East Asia, but I am not so sure about cultural similarity. The most widely languages spoken in the NE, Assamese and Meitei, are in-fact Indo-Aryan languages, and the script they are written in is closely related to the Bengali script. Neither SE nor East Asia have any regions speaking Indo-Aryan languages to my knowledge.


 * Though Assamese is an Indo-Aryan language, Meitei is not---it is Sino-Burman. Though the Meitei language has used the Bengali script, this is a rather recent phenomenon, the result of a religious zeal of an absurd Manipuri king.  Currently Manipur is going through a process by which the entire Bengali script will be replaced by the Meitei's own Meitei script.


 * Assamese has a unique and special position in the North East. It is surrounded Tibeto-Burmese and Austro-Asiatic languages, languages from which it has borrowed from in the past and continues to borrow in the present.  Most of the Assamese speaking peoples were themselves speakers of these languages.


 * Chaipau (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so Meitei is not an Indo-Aryan language, sorry about that. But your point on the Assamese language needs more clarification. You seem to imply that since, North Indian languages borrowed heavily from Persian and Arabic, that North Indians be considered West Asian ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

2) Another argument against the alleged cultural similarity is religion. Again, Hinduism and Christianity seem to predominate in the NE, none of the SE Asian countries have large Hindu or Christian populations to my knowledge. Buddhism and Islam predominate in SE Asia, these religions have many more followers in Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, more "mainstream" (whatever that may mean) Indian states. Unlike East Asia, Confucianism and Communism do not play much of a role in NE society.


 * This is a spurious argument. The Nagas, for instance, came under the influence of the Church in the late 19th and early 20th century.  This cannot erase the fact that they followed different religious practices before the advent of Christianity.  Further, the Nagas today, despite their religions, continue their tribal associations, which strongly influence their political and social institutions.


 * Historically, the Tai-Ahoms who came into Assam in the 13th century were not Buddhists, and they followed their unique religious practices. But the Tai-Aitons and the Tai-Phake, who came in the the 18th/19th centuries, were Buddhists.  Even though the religions followed by these communities at a snapshot time in history are different, the true cultural and ethnic affinities of these communities become apparent only when history is taken into account.


 * Chaipau (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, to my knowledge none of the East-Asian societies have a tribal nature (Korean, Japanese, Chinese). Yes, I understand that culture is heavily influenced by history but in this case it is your argument that is spurious. Even though Pakistan and Afghanistan have cultural similarities to North India, their predominantly Islamic nature puts them in a different category of societies than India.  See Muslim World. Similarly the fact the North-East is not predominantly Buddhist or Muslim, makes it different. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

3) A claim is made that Assam is insignificant in New Delhi (due to the number of seats it has in Parliament), but then so are Punjab, Haryana, Goa, Uttarakhand etc. In fact if that was the criteria for significance, UP and Bihar would be the most siginificant states, but they in fact receive the lowest federal spending per capita.


 * There is a perception in the North East that the lack of influence in Delhi is due to the small numbers. This may not be true, but the perception definitely exists.  I do agree that the sentence in question should be rephrased.


 * Chaipau (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, but if this has to go in the article we need citations. What do you have to say about this . I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

4) A section needs to be added to detail the discrimination faced by people from the NE in the other regions of India, especially North India. I have seen many newspaper reports in this context, so finding sources should not be too hard.


 * You are probably talking about the anti-Northeasterner incidents in Delhi. Rightly, this is an issue that belongs in an article on Delhi, not the North East.


 * Chaipau (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the discrimination and alienation pervades across India (except the South I think). I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

5) It is absolutely true that the NE is a distinct region that shares affinities with East and SE Asia, but so does Punjab share affinities with Pakistani Punjab, and Tamil Nadu with Sri Lanka. Thus in the context of India, affinities with SE Asia cannot by themselves distinguish the NE, a lack of investment by the Union Government and insurgencies can. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as Punjab is distinguished by cultural affinities with Pakistani Punjab, the North East is distinguished by cultural affinities with South East Asia. This is a very important fact, something that bears on India's "Look East Policy".


 * I think I have addressed the issues here, and shall remove the POV tag.


 * Chaipau (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Chaipau, I am still not quite convinced I am afraid. You still need more citations for the alleged similarities. I personally feel that the NE has strong links to Burma, Tibet and possibly China's Yunnan province, but not the rest of SE and East Asia. Btw, for most Indians, Indian Punjab is NOT distinguished by cultural affinities with Pakistani Punjab, I dont think most Indians even know what Pakistani Punjab is, mention of Punjab to Indians brings to mind Sikhism, bhangra, their food and the Khalistani movement. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1) We have to see more about the written language script issue, but Meitei is not related to Indo-Aryan languages. Yes Assamese is related closely to Bengali language. Other spoken language other than Assamese are pure East Asian and South East Asian language which language experts call this group of languages as Sinitic languages. There are two types of languages in the North East India and other East Asian Indians - tone based languages and non tone based languages. Tone based languages are spoken by using tones means the same word with different tones can mean two completely different meanings. Tone based languages are spoken majorly in China and some East Asian communities in India like the Khamyangs of Arunachal Pradesh. The non tone based languages are like say the European languages means the same word in spoken in different tones yet have the same meaning. Non tone based East Asian languages are spoken majorly in Japan, certain East Asian communities in India and some South East Asian countries. 2) The non Indian South East Asian commuities have also Hinduism as a major religion. Confucianism as a religion is not active in North East India or rather among the East Asian Indians but Sinitic socio-culture the primary socio-cultural factor of North East India and among other non North East East Asian Indians. 3) We need to see more about the political representation. 4) Yes we are not denying that. But we deny if one says that North East Indians do not have sociocultural affinity with East Asian and South East Asia. Infact this is the reason that a non East Asian Indian cannot call a East Asian Indian as a lesser Indians socioculturally or politically because the non East Asian Indians too share socioculture overlapping modern India's political boundary. The situation is that the East Asian people of India are a minority regarding their influence in the legal system in India and at the same time not also a small minority (East Asian Indians are a big minority) that India can call East Asian Indians as some small population whose demands cannot be met because other non East Asian Indians may have to be influenced by the East Asian Indian's cause and demands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayanmipun (talk • contribs) 09:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Before the advent of the British
no empire based in mainland India had controlled any part of what now makes up the country’s Northeast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.89.222 (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So is the case with many parts of India; not only Northeast. So, what point are you trying to emphasis? -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead: Linguistic difference
Chaipau, The lead of an article should be a brief introduction about the article. The points which are very much relevant to the article can be presented in the lead. The lead statements should not be confusing, or misleading the readers. Room for reader self-interpretation is not advisable.

The statement "NE is linguistically and culturally different from rest of India" causes confusion, and leave the reader with the impression that rest of India is linguistically and culturally very similar. The fact is not so. So, these kind of statements should be avoided from the lead. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Further: The strong presence of Tibeto-Burman languages does not indicate that it is linguistically different from 'rest of India'. What constitutes this 'rest of India'? The North Indian languages are of Indo-Aryan origin, and the South Indian languages are of Dravidian origin. Both are from different linguistic family. So, if your theory is to be followed, the South Indian article should claim that they are linguistically different from 'rest of India' and the North Indian article can claim that they are also linguistically different from 'rest of India' !!! In short, India as a country is not similar. Every part is different from each other. Hence, it is not required to emphasis in the article that North East India is very different from 'rest of India'. Hope I conveyed the point clearly. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are 5 regions in India. North, South, East, West and Northeast.  Among them, South and Northeast are linguistically different from the rest of the country.  Whereas North, West and East have predominantly Indo-Aryan languages, the South is dominated by Dravidian and the Northeast by Tibeto-Burman languages.  So yes, Northeast India is linguistically different from the other regions.  The lead is an indicator of what is to come.  The Tibeto-Burman languages are a defining feature of the Northeastern region and this will hopefully find featured in the body of the article at some point.


 * To remove the confusion, I shall specifically input "Tibeto-Burman" in the lead.


 * At issue is not just "linguistic" but also culture. Many Northeastern states have strong tribal cultural components, and they had skipped the Hinduization influence that tribals in other parts of India have experienced.  Examples are Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, and the hill regions of Manipur.  This is also a distinguishing feature of the region and should be highlighted and further discussed in the body.  I shall make appropriate changes.


 * Chaipau (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, as I was not editing wiki since many days. The change seems to be more inviting. However, you could reduce the tone of language used in the lead to a more simple format. Some uncommon words could be replaced with common words in regular usage. Eg; contiguous => adjacent, permeate=> exists, preponderance => domination, etc...
 * Also, it would be very helpful if you could please explain here (in the talk page) what exactly is meant by "Strong ethnic cultures that had escaped Sanskritization effects permeate the region". The statement is vague. I feel that it is not a thing unique to NE. Many tribal communities in Western Ghats and Andaman are free from Sanskritization. Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 10:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The ethnic culture did not just escape Sanskritization, but it has remained a strong influence even for the Sanskritized people in the plains. This is a rather important characteristic of the Northeast.  The Hills people were hardly Sanskritized.  The plains people were, but only weakly.  This is explained in, among others, S K Chatterjee's "Kirata Janakriti".  But since you think this is unclear, I shall clarify it.  Chaipau (talk) 13:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fringe theories and original research
User:‎Indicologist keeps inserting their fringe interpretation of a recent academic study. ‎Indicologist added the claim: "Indian history does not mention any Indo-Aryan migration into India and therefore the position is debatable, especially when Indian epics and genetic studies point to common speciating origin of all Indian peoples" and they addded the following unreliable source: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study/1/163645.html (article by journalist Dinesh C Sharma); similar claims are made here http://world.time.com/2011/12/15/the-aryan-race-time-to-forget-about-it/ (article by news editor Ishaan Tharoor).

The actual findings of the study are reported here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130808123833.htm and they do not back up neither the claims of India Today nor the claims inserted by ‎Indicologist. The abstract of the research paper can be found here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08365.html. The central claim of the abstract is: "We analyse 25 diverse groups in India to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the 'Ancestral North Indians' (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, whereas the other, the 'Ancestral South Indians' (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other."

Drawing conclusions not evident in the original source (the research paper) is clearly original research. Furthermore, note that a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Northeast India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415001111/http://necouncil.nic.in/ to http://necouncil.nic.in/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/world/asia/09iht-letter09.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarifications about international borders
As per citation - "...The region's strategic location is underlined by the fact that it shares a 4,500 km-long international border with its four South Asian neighbours..."

It says the region shares a 4,500 km border. Not that the region has 4,500 km border.

Stating it otherwise is indirect and a little more confusing. Renzut (talk) 17 June 2017


 * Thanks Renzut. The article says "The region shares more than 4,500 kilometres (2,800 mi) of international border (about 90 per cent of its entire border area) with China (Tibet Region) in the north, Myanmar in the east, Bangladesh in the southwest, and Bhutan to the northwest."
 * I deleted the word "area" and you put it back in. It is talking about border length, measured in km, whereas area is measured in square km. What does this mention of "border area" mean? Nurg (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There should not be any objection to removing incorrect parts. However, instead of removing or deleting, it will be better to edit and correct them. Renzut —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)