Match List I with List II

(A)-(II), (B)-(III), (C)-(IV), (D)- (I)

The correct answer is Option 1- (A)-(II), (B)-(III), (C)-(IV), (D)- (I)

At independence, the entire region except Manipur and Tripura comprised the State of Assam. Demands for political autonomy arose when the non-Assamese felt that the Assam government was imposing the Assamese language on them.

The large-scale migration into the Northeast gave rise to a special kind of problem that pitted the ‘local’ communities against people who were seen as ‘outsiders’ or migrants. These latecomers, either from India or abroad are seen as encroachers on scarce resources like land and potential competitors to employment opportunities and political power. This issue has taken political and sometimes violent forms in many States of the Northeast. The Assam Movement from 1979 to 1985 is the best example of such movements against ‘outsiders’.

Punjab- After the reorganisation, the Akalis came to power in 1967 and then in 1977. On both the occasions it was a coalition government. The Akalis discovered that despite the redrawing of the boundaries, their political position remained precarious. Firstly, their government was dismissed by the Centre mid-way through its term. Secondly, they did not enjoy strong support among the Hindus. Thirdly, the Sikh community, like all other religious communities, was internally differentiated on caste and class lines. The Congress got more support among the Dalits, whether Hindu or Sikh, than the Akalis. It was in this context that during the 1970s a section of Akalis began to demand political autonomy for the region. This was reflected in a resolution passed at their conference at Anandpur Sahib in 1973. The Anandpur Sahib Resolution asserted regional autonomy and wanted to redefine centre-state relationship in the country. The resolution also spoke of the aspirations of the Sikh qaum (community or nation) and declared its goal as attaining the bolbala (dominance or hegemony) of the Sikhs. The Resolution was a plea for strengthening federalism in India.

Mizoram- After Independence, the Mizo Hills area was made an autonomous district within Assam. Some Mizos believed that they were never a part of British India and therefore did not belong to the Indian Union. But the movement for secession gained popular support after the Assam government failed to respond adequately to the great famine of 1959 in Mizo hills. The Mizos’ anger led to the formation of the Mizo National Front (MNF) under the leadership of Laldenga
In 1966 the MNF started an armed campaign for independence. Thus, started a two decade long battle between Mizo insurgents and the Indian army.

Internally, there is a dispute about the status of Kashmir within Indian union. Special provisions under Articles 370 and 371 were granted to Jammu and Kashmir after the independence. This special status had provoked two opposite reactions. There is a section of people outside of J&K that believed that the special status of the State conferred by Article 370 did not allow full integration of the State with India. This section felt that Article 370 be revoked and J&K be treated like any other state of India. Another section, mostly Kashmiris, believe that the autonomy conferred by Article 370 is not enough. They had at least three major grievances. First, the promise that Accession would be referred to the people of the State after the situation created by tribal invasion was normalised, has not been fulfilled. This generated the demand for a plebiscite. Secondly, there was a feeling that the special federal status guaranteed by Article 370, had been eroded in practice. This had led to the demand for restoration of autonomy or ‘Greater State Autonomy’. Thirdly, it was felt that democracy which is practiced in the rest of India has not been similarly institutionalised in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.