India, with its vast and diverse landscape, is a country that has long struggled to reconcile the demands of its different regions with the vision of a unified nation. Over the decades, movements for autonomy, secession, and self-determination have emerged not merely as challenges to the state but as direct responses to India’s inability—or unwillingness—to respect the unique identities, cultures, and political aspirations of its people. These struggles are entrenched realities, highlighting the systemic failure of the Indian state to forge an inclusive and just polity. Multiple sources report over 135 active and defunct separatist and insurgent movements across India. The state’s strategy of integration has largely revolved around the assimilation of these distinct identities into a homogenized vision of “Indian-ness,” a process that disregards the historical and cultural complexities of its regions.
In the North-East, for instance, the state of Assam has been a cradle for numerous separatist movements. The United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), which initially sought an independent Assam, has split into factions, with ULFA-Independent still active, while the pro-talk faction engages in peace talks. Alongside them, movements like the Kamtapur Liberation Organization (KLO) and the Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam (MULTA) have demanded the creation of separate states or Muslim-majority areas within Assam. These movements are fueled by a deep sense of ethnic and cultural identity, with many Assamese people feeling marginalized within the larger Indian framework. The Bodoland movements, including the Bodo Liberation Tigers Force (BLTF) and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), sought autonomy for the Bodo people, culminating in an agreement in 2020 after years of insurgency. Decades of neglect, economic exploitation, and cultural imposition have made the people of these regions feel like outsiders in their land.
Similarly, Manipur has witnessed a series of movements advocating for independence or greater autonomy. Groups like the United National Liberation Front (UNLF), the People’s Liberation Army of Manipur (PLA), and the Kangleipak Communist Party (KCP) continue to fight for the independence of the state or its sovereignty. These movements emerged in response to the subjugation by both the Indian state and its military presence, with the local population often caught in the crossfire of military operations aimed at curbing insurgency. The same sense of ethnic and cultural identity plays a critical role in the continued struggle for autonomy in regions like Nagaland, where the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) has divided into several factions. While some factions, like NSCN (IM), have engaged in peace talks, the push for a unified and sovereign Nagaland remains a powerful undercurrent. The demands of the Naga people for a separate state or unification with other Naga-inhabited regions across the border have been met with military repression, which only serves to fuel further resentment.
The struggles in Jammu and Kashmir stand out as one of the most persistent and emotionally charged examples of separatism in India. The Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), the Hizbul Mujahideen, and other indigenous groups have long fought for the independence of Kashmir or its separation from India. These movements emerged as a direct result of the political and military brutality experienced by the Kashmiri people, particularly after the Indian army’s actions in the late 1980s and early 1990s. What began as a political struggle for autonomy quickly escalated into an armed insurgency, with many of the region’s people perceiving the Indian government’s approach to Kashmir as heavy-handed and repressive. The Indian government has attempted to resolve the issue through both military means and peace accords, but the core of the Kashmir issue remains unresolved, with the local population continuing to demand justice and self-determination. The region’s history of violence and political instability has left deep scars, and the ongoing struggle for Kashmiri autonomy and independence persists as a sensitive and volatile issue.
Punjab, too, has experienced its share of separatist movements, most notably the demand for the creation of a Sikh state, Khalistan. The Khalistan Liberation Force (KLF) played a prominent role in the 1980s, and while the movement has largely faded from India’s political landscape, it continues to have a presence among the diaspora. The roots of this movement lay in injustices and systemic persecution faced by the Sikh community, particularly following the Indian army’s intervention in the Golden Temple during Operation Blue Star in 1984. The subsequent anti-Sikh riots and the trauma of that period left a lasting impact on the Sikh psyche, and the demand for Khalistan has not disappeared but rather became more pronounced over the decades. The advocacy for Khalistan remains a topic of discussion in large sections of the Sikh community, abroad and in India too, where it is tied to larger questions of identity, political autonomy, and justice for past wrongs.
Beyond the more prominent movements, India also grapples with a range of smaller separatist groups, especially in tribal areas. The Maoist insurgency in the “Red Corridor,” which stretches across central and eastern India, represents another significant challenge. The Communist Party of India (Maoist) has waged a protracted guerrilla war against the Indian state, seeking to overthrow the government and establish a Maoist state. This movement has its roots in the widespread neglect and marginalization of tribal populations, who feel increasingly alienated by the state’s failure to address their concerns, including land rights, displacement, and poverty. The Maoists have gained significant support in areas where the state’s presence is limited, and where the local population views the government as indifferent or exploitative.
These movements, whether large or small, active or defunct, reveal the structural and systemic failures within India’s governance and its inability to embrace the diversity that defines its borders. The Indian state’s heavy-handed approach to dissent has often deepened divisions rather than healing them. The use of military force and punitive measures as the primary tools of engagement has exacerbated the grievances of marginalized communities, turning demands for rights and recognition into full-blown separatist struggles. The history of India’s nation-building is one riddled with coercion, broken promises, and a refusal to address the root causes of discontent among its many ethnic and regional groups.
The persistence of separatist movements in India is not merely a reflection of external provocations or geopolitical dynamics; it is, fundamentally, a product of the state’s policies. Long-standing issues such as cultural erasure, economic exploitation, political marginalization, and a lack of autonomy have left entire regions feeling alienated from the central government. The insistence on a singular narrative of Indian nationalism has often come at the expense of regional identities, creating fault lines that continue to grow. From the North-East to Punjab, from Kashmir to central India, these struggles expose the fragility of the Indian state’s claims of unity and inclusiveness.
India’s inability to foster a more inclusive and equitable model of governance has left it vulnerable to internal fissures. The country’s approach to its diverse population—one that oscillates between neglect and coercion—has undermined the very foundations of its unity. The separatist movements that dot India’s history are symptoms of a deeper malaise—a reflection of a state that has failed to earn the trust and loyalty of all its citizens.
Leave a Reply