The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41027-022-00379-5

ARTICLE

Migration from North‑East India During 1991–2011:

Unemployment and Ethnopolitical Issues

Avijit Mistri1

Accepted: 21 June 2022 / Published online: 25 July 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Indian Society of Labour Economics 2022

Abstract
Eight sister North-East states of India are unique in diverse flora and fauna and man-
ifest distinctive social and ethnocultural identities. Meanwhile, North-East states
exhibit common problems ranging from ethnic conflict, insurgency, and secessionist
movement, illegal taxing and extortion, and drug trafficking to poor transportation
and communication and immigration issues. The region incurs prolonged ethnopo-
litical turmoil, which left imprints on the migration from this region. The present
study examines the level, trend, and pattern of interstate migration from the North-
East during 1991–2011 and associates it with prolonged ethnopolitical turmoil.
The exodus of workers to the mainland Indian states implies a lack of employment
opportunities. Employment elasticity suggests that income growth in North-East
states lacks inclusiveness and fails to sensitise the employment opportunities, induc-
ing the workers to migrate from North-East into mainland Indian states. Not only
the labour migration but the student migration is also conspicuous, which exhibits
the weakness of the educational system. The decades-long ethnopolitical unrest and
enforcement of AFSPA of 1958 for more than 60 years caused predicaments of eco-
nomic developments, employment opportunities, and challenge to the fundamental
human rights and social well-being, resulting in people being forced to move out in
the 1990s and 2000s.

Keywords Interstate migration · North-East India · Ethnopolitical turmoil ·

Employment elasticity · Student migration · Labour migration

1 Introduction

Migration is an indicator that implies socio-economic changes in an area or region.

In the 2011 Census, more than one-third of Indians, 37.6 per cent or 455.8 mil-
lion, reported as lifetime migrants—four out of every ten Indian are migrants. The

* Avijit Mistri
[email protected]
1
Department of Geography, Manipur University, Imphal 795003, Manipur, India

ISLE 13
Vol.:(0123456789)
398 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

proportion increased from 31 per cent or 314.5 million, with a growth rate of 4.5 per
cent per annum between 2001 and 2011. When the total volume of migrants is quite
large, interstate migrants are minuscule and have been surprisingly low since 1961.
It was recorded 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.3, and 4.1 per cent in 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, and
2001, respectively, and finally reached 4.5 per cent or 54.3 million in 2011 (Das and
Mistri 2015).
As the cheap labour force is one of the important factors of production, inter-
state labour migration balances the demand of labour to the economically well-off
states like Maharashtra, Gujrat, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Delhi, Punjab, and
Haryana, supplying from the economically less-progressive states, namely Bihar,
Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, and
Rajasthan. This trend has remained the same since the 1991 Census (Mistri 2021).
In the 2011 Census, the North-East States and even West Bengal contributed sub-
stantially to the labour force supply (Mistri 2021). Despite a very meagre propor-
tion, interstate migration plays a significant role in India’s economic growth, and it
shows unique characteristics for North-East states. The present study mainly focuses
on migration from North-East states during 1991–2011 and its association with dec-
ades-long ethnopolitical turmoil.

2 North‑East as an Ethnopolitical Disturbed Frontier

North-East India comprises eight sister states—Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Megha-

laya, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, and Sikkim. It was politically recog-
nised in 1972 when North Eastern Council (NEC) was formed by the North Eastern
Council Act of 1971. Being a frontier region, North-East is geostrategically signifi-
cant and a potential corridor for trading with the vibrant economic zone of South
and South-East Asia. The region incurs a distinctive social and cultural identity.
The multi-ethnic demographical composition of the indigenous peoples manifests
a unique culture, language and religious profiles, which are not found in any other
region of India.
Meanwhile, North-East counters common problems ranging from poor transpor-
tation and communication, ethnic conflict and insurgency, illegal taxing and extor-
tion, and drug trafficking to immigration issues. The ethnic-based conflicts often
backed by underground organisations are still alive and mobile. Nowadays, ethnic
movements in North-East have deviated from the traditional socio-cultural roots to
ethnopolitical aspirations. A populist political aspiration, ‘self-determination’ has
been witnessed in North-East politics (Shimray 2004). The demand for a Greater
Nagaland (Nagalim), along with a separate constitution and flag consolidation of
the Naga-inhabited areas of neighbouring Assam, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh,
and border areas of Myanmar, creates widespread discontent among the North-East
states. The ethnic consciousness in the region entices ‘identity expansion’ by merg-
ing, either voluntarily or forcefully, several smaller groups together (Shimray 2004).
More than 40 odd ethnic groups combined emergence as great Nagas. Mizos include
various clans, such as the Hmar, Ralte, Lai, Lusei, etc. Haokip, Kipgen, and other
Thadou speaking groups together form Kuki Groups. The nomenclature, Zomi, is

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423 399

adopted by Zous, Simtes, Vaipheis, Paites, Raltes, Suhtes, Gangte, and Tedim-Chin
ethnic groups (Kipgen 2013; Shimray 2004). Demographic power strengthens the
ethnopolitical movements and leads to ethnic hegemony of the majority over the
minority, resulting in ethnic conflict. Kuki-Naga clash and Kuki-Zomi violence in
the 1990s in Manipur and surroundings are notable instances (Brahmachari 2019;
Hoenig and Kokho 2018; Haokip 2015; Shimray, 2004; 2001). Indeed, the ethnopo-
litical issue has been the internal security concern of India as a nation. More than
60 years of implementation Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) of 1958 has
failed to tackle the problem (Yumnam 2018), and reassessment is an urgent need.
Economic development and social well-being are embedded in a peaceful envi-
ronment (Aisen and Veiga 2013; Fosu 2001; Feng 1997; Alesina et al. 1996). Migra-
tion acts as a barometer that infers the socio-political and economic changes in a
region. Conflict, insurgency and political instability are used to leave an imprint on
the processes of migration. More than one million North-East people, around two
per cent of interstate migrants in India, were recorded as interstate migrants in each
of the 2001 and 2011 Census. The highest proportion of Scheduled Tribes (STs)
lives in the North-East States. Indigenous people hardly leave their territory for
livelihood purposes (GOI 2018). Around 0.75 and 0.54 million North-East people
migrated to mainland Indian states in 2001 and 2011. Almost 30 per cent migrated
in search of work. In addition, student migration from North-East in a large vol-
ume is conspicuous. A substantial proportion of 13 per cent also migrated for ‘oth-
ers’ reasons, such as seeking to avoid or escape conflict, political unrest, and natural
calamities.

3 Objectives of the Study

The focal point of the present study is migration from North-East India during
1991–2011, and its association with prolonged ethnopolitical turmoil in the region.
The study discusses the level, trend, pattern, and processes of interstate migration
from the North-East. State-specific net balances of migration are estimated to exam-
ine the moving in- and out-migrants from the region. The exodus of North-East-
ern workers to mainland Indian states implies a lack of employment opportunities.
Employment opportunities are inextricably linked with economic growth, consid-
ered a prerequisite for growing employment (ILO 2018). Hence, employment and
economic growth in the North-East states are investigated with empirical rigour. In
this backdrop, employment elasticity for North-East states during 1991–2011 is esti-
mated to relate the migration due to work/employment with economic growth in the
region.

4 Data Sources

Population Census of 1991, 2001, and 2011 are consulted to discuss the migration
scenario during 1991–2011. Census reference Table-D contains the data of migra-
tion. The periodic employment and unemployment data are compiled from the

ISLE 13
400 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

various rounds,1993-94, 1999-00, 2004-05, 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2011-12 of the

National Sample Survey (NSS), and Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2017-
18 conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) under the Ministry of
Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI). The data on economic growth
are collected from the Handbook of Statistics on Indian States by the Reserve Bank
of India (RBI) and erstwhile the Planning Commission of India, now NITI Aayog.

5 Method

Various measures of migration, descriptive statistics, and cartographic techniques

are incorporated to analyse and represent the data sets. Employment elasticity for
the North-East States estimates the ability of the economy to generate employment
opportunities for its population. Employment elasticity is a convenient way of sum-
marising the sensitivity of employment to income growth (Misra and Suresh 2014;
Kapsos 2005). The ‘arc’ elasticity with the ‘Compound Annual Growth Rate’ (CAGR)
approach (Misra and Suresh 2014) is adopted in the study; the formula is as follows.
Employment Growth (CAGR)
Employment Elasticity =
Per Capit aNet State Domestic Product (NSDP) Growth (CAGR)
(1)

6 Operational Definitions

Census of India collects information on migration based on two aspects—migration

by ‘place of birth’ (POB) and ‘place of last residence’ (POLR). A person would be
considered a migrant by POLR if she/he had last resided at a place other than her/
his place of enumeration. Migration by POLR during 1991–2011 is considered in
the present study. Census of India has produced the data (table D-3) on migration
by POLR into certain ‘fixed-term’ or ‘period migration’ based on the duration of
stay in village/town since migration, such as duration less than 1 year, 1–4 years,
5–9 years, 10–19 years, 20 years and above, and duration not stated. Migrants
who had migrated within 0–9 years are called ‘intercensal migrants’ (Mistri 2021;
Lusome and Bhagat 2006). In the present study, ‘intercensal migration’ (0–9 years)
is computed by adding up less than 1 year, 1–4 years, and 5–9 years duration of stay-
ing. In addition, migration of all durations is defined as ‘lifetime migration’ as the
migration time is unknown (Lusome and Bhagat 2006). Further, employment elas-
ticity measures the change in employment with a one percentage point change in the
economic growth (Misra and Suresh 2014; Kapsos 2005).
The study is divided into three sections. Section A deals with migration pro-
cesses, which include volumes of migration, streams and places of destinations, and
net balances of intercensal migration. Section B focuses on push factors of migra-
tion, such as various reasons directly captured in the population Censuses, unem-
ployment rate, and employment elasticity. Finally, a critical discussion and conclu-
sion are drawn in Section C.

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423 401

7 Section A: Processes of Migration

A migration process comprises a wide range of migration aspects, such as level,

trend and rate of migration, its balance over the periods, who migrates and from
where, where they are going, changing macro-patterns, and so.

7.1 Interstate Migration Stock

According to the migration by POLR, a total of 1.03 million migrants, that is 2.24
per cent of North-East’s 45.8 million population and 1.89 per cent of the country’s
54.3 million interstate migrants, reported as interstate (lifetime) out-migrants in the
2011 Census (Table 1). The previous 1991 and 2001 Census had recorded 0.65 mil-
lion or 2.04 per cent of North-East’s population and 1.11 million or 2.86 per cent
interstate out-migrants, respectively. Lifetime migrants increased in 2001, but again
declined in 2011. Likewise, the share of intercensal (0–9 years) migrants increased
to 1.18 per cent in 2001 from 0.92 per cent in 1991 but slightly dropped to 1.03 per
cent in 2011 (Table 1). The observed growth of interstate migration is 56.2 per cent
during 1991–2001 and drastically declines to 3.2 per cent during 2001–2011.
Among the North-East states, Assam always contributed the highest, 58.8, 61.4,
and 64.5 per cent (intercensal migrants) in 1991, 2001, and 2011, respectively,
that is, on average, 60 per cent of the interstate out-migrants (Table 1). In contrast,
none of the North-East States shares more than 7.0 per cent. In Sikkim, Arunachal
Pradesh, Tripura, and Meghalaya, the growth rates of intercensal migrants have
turned positive in the 2000s from negative ones in the 1990s. Nagaland and Miz-
oram witnessed an unprecedented expansion of out-migrants, 306.5 and 168.2 per
cent, respectively, in the 1990s, while, in the 2000s, out-migration from these has
declined drastically. This appears to reflect a strong connection between ethnic con-
flict and migration.

7.2 Migration to Mainland India

In the 2011 Census, 0.54 million or 52.7 per cent out of 1.03 million total lifetime
migrants moved to the mainland Indian states (Table 2). In 2001, it was recorded
0.75 million or 67.9 per cent out of 1.11 million lifetime migrants. Likewise, inter-
censal North-East migrants in mainland India declined to 56.9 per cent (0.27 mil-
lion) in 2011 from 62.5 per cent (0.29 million) in 2001. The growth of North-East
migrants in the mainland has fallen at 6.0 per cent during 2001–2011. While most
migrants in Sikkim and Assam prefer to migrate to the mainland, migrants in the
rest of the six states witnessed the retention within the North-East. Except for Sik-
kim and Mizoram, all the North-East States have experienced a declining share of
migration in mainland India in 2011 (Table 2).

ISLE 13
 402

13
Table 1  Interstate (within and outside of NER) Out-migration from the North-East States, 1991–2011

ISLE
Out-mig. 1991 Census 2001 Census 2011 Census Gr. Rate (%) Intercensal
from NE Mig
States
Lifetime % Intercensal % Lifetime % Intercensal % Lifetime % Intercensal % 1991–2001 2001–2011
Migrants Migrants Migrants Migrants Migrants Migrants

Sikkim 36,778 5.7 11,560 3.9 14,819 1.3 6,238 1.4 21,459 2.1 10,726 2.3 − 46.0 71.9
Arunachal P 36,910 5.7 17,706 6.0 22,803 2.1 12,507 2.7 37,368 3.6 22,154 4.7 − 29.4 77.1
Nagaland 24,213 3.7 12,757 4.3 159,281 14.3 51,857 11.3 45,734 4.5 23,467 5.0 306.5 − 54.7
Manipur 36,834 5.7 17,317 5.9 51,903 4.7 30,867 6.7 75,751 7.4 43,176 9.1 78.2 39.9
Mizoram 28,332 4.4 11,832 4.0 37,993 3.4 31,739 6.9 30,365 3.0 9,102 1.9 168.2 − 71.3
Tripura 79,240 12.2 27,100 9.2 65,655 5.9 23,538 5.1 85,862 8.4 30,061 6.3 − 13.1 27.7
Meghalaya 54,848 8.4 22,593 7.7 50,852 4.6 20,434 4.5 70,268 6.8 29,586 6.2 − 9.6 44.8
Assam 353,334 54.3 172,820 58.8 708,374 63.7 281,510 61.4 659,694 64.3 305,277 64.5 62.9 8.4
NE Region 650,489 100 293,685 100 1,111,680 100.0 458,690 100.0 1,026,501 100.0 473,549 100.0 56.2 3.2
% to Total 2.04 0.92 2.86 1.18 2.24 1.03
Popula-
tion

Source: Computed from Census of India, 1991, 2001, and 2011

The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423
 Table 2  Interstate Migration to Mainland India, 2001–2011
Mig. from NE States Census 2001 Census 2011 Gr. Rate (%)
2001–2011
Lifetime migrants Intercensal migrants Lifetime migrants Intercensal migrants Intercensal
Mainland Per cent* Mainland Per cent* Mainland Per cent* Mainland Per cent* Mainland

Sikkim 13,057 88.1 5,789 92.8 19,509 90.9 10,171 94.8 75.7
Arunachal P 13,147 57.7 7,015 56.1 14,797 39.6 9,722 43.9 38.6
Nagaland 141,945 89.1 43,066 83.0 15,951 34.9 9,349 39.8 -78.3
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

Manipur 23,288 44.9 14,120 45.7 28,068 37.1 19,830 45.9 40.4
Mizoram 5,357 14.1 3,124 9.8 4,892 16.1 3,477 38.2 11.3
Tripura 26,723 40.7 11,966 50.8 32,846 38.3 14,120 47.0 18.0
Meghalaya 21,476 42.2 10,963 53.7 21,765 31.0 12,099 40.9 10.4
Assam 509,413 71.9 190,650 67.7 403,492 61.2 190,753 62.5 0.1
NE Region 754,406 67.9 286,693 62.5 541,320 52.7 269,521 56.9 -6.0

Note: * per cent to total interstate migrants of respective states

Source: Computed from Census of India, 2001 and 2011

ISLE
403

13
404 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

7.3 Place of Destinations

Most of the interstate migrations occur between neighbouring states those are
close to each other in geographic proximity. In 2011, almost half of the intercensal
migrants from Sikkim preferred to migrate to West Bengal. A substantial proportion
of migrants from Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Meghalaya, liked to move to
Assam, 46.2, 45.8, and 47.8 per cent, respectively. Likewise, migrants from Tripura
prefer Assam (31.4 per cent) and West Bengal (20.0 per cent). Assamese prefer to
migrate to four neighbouring states, namely WB (15.1 per cent), Arunachal Pradesh
(13.9 per cent), Nagaland (8.2 per cent), and Meghalaya (7.7 per cent).
Irrespective of individual preference, people from the North-East prefer to
migrate to West Bengal. West Bengal shared 13.4 and 13.8 per cent in the 2001
and 2011 Census, respectively. Other predominant destinations in mainland India
are Delhi, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Bihar (Fig. 1). A fair pro-
portion of North-East migrants are also recorded in Haryana and Punjab. During
the intercensal period, north-East migrants in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi have
dropped drastically. North-East migrant in Bihar was recorded 13.4 per cent in 2001,
but it drastically reduced to 1.4 per cent in 2011; it is nearly 12 per cent point down-
fall during 2001–2011 (Census, 2011; 2001). Likewise, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi
have been recorded an almost 5.0 and 2.0 per cent point (respectively) decline of
North-East migrants from 2001 to 2011 (Census, 2011; 2001). Two South Indian
States, namely Karnataka and Maharashtra, have been gaining the ground of North-
East migrants during the intercensal period. Another two Southern States, such as
Kerala and Tamil, have emerged as new destinations for North-East migrants in
the 2011 Census. A changing pattern of migration flow to the mainland states is
observed—while the overall volume of North-East people migrating to the North
and East Indian states has declined during 2001–2011, the Southern states have been
accounted increasing of the same.

7.4 Migration from Mainland to the North‑East

According to the 2011 Census, around 0.57 million or 54.1 per cent out of 1.06 mil-
lion total lifetime in-migrants in the North-East came from mainland Indian states.
In 2001, it accounted for about 0.51 million or 58.8 per cent out of a total 0.87 mil-
lion in-migrants. Therefore, interstate lifetime migrants from mainland Indian States
have slightly declined from 59 to 54.1 per cent between 2001 and 2011. Meanwhile,
the share of intercensal in-migration remained the same, 51.0 and 50.8 per cent in
2001 and 2011, respectively.
Considering the data on state-specific intercensal migration, around 43 per cent
of the total migrants came from six mainland states, namely West Bengal (18.7
per cent), Bihar (12.3 per cent), Jharkhand (4.4 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (4.3 per
cent), Rajasthan (2.6 per cent) and Odisha (1.0 per cent). Bihar contributed 17.0 and
19.0 per cent in the 2001 and 2011 Census, respectively, followed by West Bengal,
13.0 and 12.3 per cent in 2001 and 2011. Migration flow from the states mentioned

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423 405

Fig. 1  Flow of migrants from North-East to Mainland States/UTs, 2011 Census. Source: Computed
from Census of India, 2011

above, excluding Bihar and Jharkhand which have witnessed an increasing trend,
has declined during 2001–2011.
There is a wide contention that in-migration or immigration to the North-East
region is perceived as threatening to indigenous people. The fear of assimilation and
diffusion begets the syndrome of xenophobia among the indigenous population in
the North-East (Shimray 2004). Earlier, colonial regulations like the Bengal Eastern
Frontier Regulation (BEFR) of 1873, and its later extension, the Inner Line Permit
(ILP) system in the post-independence period, have been one of the safeguards on
the policy front. Since the 1990s, the North-East has been confronted with further

ISLE 13
406 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

challenges in the trade-off between economic development and traditional economic

and socio-cultural systems due to India’s economic liberalisation and the effects of
globalisation (Yumnam 2018). Outsiders, either in the form of interstate migration
or immigration, enter into the North-East, fuelling social unrest against them, con-
tributing to the North-East’s image as an anti-migration region.

7.5 Net Balance of Migration

The migration balance is the difference between the number of migrants entering
and leaving an area in a certain period. If the net migration becomes negative, it
infers that people are leaving the area through out-migration. The positive net migra-
tion suggests the population gaining through in-migration. According to the inter-
censal (0–9 years) migration, the North-East region has witnessed a negative bal-
ance of migration, − 69,476 and − 15,865 in the 2001 and 2011 Census, respectively
(Table 3). The rate of migration has declined to − 0.04 per cent during 2001–2011
from − 0.22 per cent during 1991–2001. Though the negative balance of migration
has reduced around four folds from the 2001 to 2011 Census, it is still negative. It
suggests that more people are still leaving the North-East region than migrating into
it.
Manipur and Assam experienced negative migration balance in the 2011 Census;
these had also witnessed negative in 2001. Nagaland (− 1.37 per cent) and Mizoram
(− 0.10 per cent) had witnessed negative net migration in 2001, but these turned into
a substantial positive in 2011.

8 Section B: Thrust of Migration

8.1 Reasons for Migration

The Census of India collects information on reasons for migration in seven catego-
ries: work/employment, business, education, marriage, moved after birth, moved
with household, and others. The category ‘natural calamities’ as one of the reasons
for migration was excluded, and a new reason ‘moved at birth’ was added in the
2001 Census.
Table 4 shows the reason for (intercensal) migration, ‘family moved/moved with
household’ was recorded highest share over the census periods, 36.5, 30.3 and 29.3
per cent in 1991, 2001, and 2011, respectively. It is followed by marriage and work/
employment. ‘Moved with household’ is the association migration or family unifica-
tion, as in due course of time, the entire dependent family members unite with the
migrant at the new place.
In India, there is a wide gender difference in the reasons for migration, especially
for work/employment and marriage. Interstate migration is female-dominated. The
share of interstate lifetime migrants for females was recorded- 55.5, 53.6, and 56.0
per cent in the 1991, 2001, and 2011 Census, respectively. More than half of females
migrate due to marriage. In contrast, interstate male migration is attributed to work/

13 ISLE
 Table 3  Net Balance of Intercensal (0–9 years) Migration, 1991–2011
States Total population in In-migration from other In-migration from other Out-migrants in Net Migrants in Migration Rate
2001 Census States in 2011 census Countries in 2011 census 2011 census 2011 census (%) (2001–2011)

Sikkim 540,851 32,334 6,331 10,726 27,939 5.17

Arunachal Pradesh 1,097,968 64,201 1,858 22,154 43,905 4.00
Nagaland 1,990,036 53,311 2,235 23,467 32,079 1.61
Manipur 2,166,788 7,309 671 43,176 − 35,196 − 1.62
Mizoram 888,573 20,969 7,527 9,102 19,394 2.18
Tripura 3,199,203 41,532 10,848 30,061 22,319 0.70
Meghalaya 2,318,822 46,022 2,136 29,586 18,572 0.80
Assam 26,655,528 148,892 11,508 305,277 − 144,877 -0.54
North-East Region 38,857,769 210,542* 43,114 269,521** − 15,865 -0.04
States Total population in In-migration from other In-migration from other Out-migrants in Net migrants in Migration rate
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

1991 census States in 2001 census Countries in 2001 census 2001 census 2001 census (%) (1991–2001)

Sikkim 406,457 22,519 7,655 6,238 23,936 5.89

Arunachal Pradesh 864,558 71,789 2,931 12,507 62,213 7.20
Nagaland 1,209,546 33,594 1,752 51,857 − 16,511 − 1.37
Manipur 1,837,149 4,529 182 30,867 − 26,156 − 1.42
Mizoram 689,756 22,599 8,436 31,739 − 704 − 0.10
Tripura 2,757,205 40,262 11,246 23,538 27,970 1.01
Meghalaya 1,774,778 33,710 1,154 20,434 14,430 0.81
Assam 22,414,322 121,803 5,053 281,510 − 154,654 − 0.69

ISLE
North-East Region 31,953,771 178,808* 38,409 286,693** − 69,476 − 0.22

Note: * In-migration from the Mainland Indian States/UTs, ** Out-migration to the Mainland India States/UTs
Source: Computed from Census of India, 1991, 2001, and 2011
407

13
 408

13
ISLE
Table 4  Reasons for Interstate (within and outside of NER) out-migration, 1991, 2001, and 2011
1991 census 2001 census 2011 census Intercensal migrants
Reasons for Migration Lifetime Intercensal Lifetime Intercensal Lifetime Intercensal % Change % Change
migrants (%) migrants (%) migrants (%) migrants (%) migrants (%) migrants (%) 1991–2001 2001–2011

Employment 14.9 18.2 14.8 20.0 21.3 28.1 1.8 8.1

Business 4.7 4.4 2.4 2.3 3.1 2.4 − 2.1 0.0
Education 4.0 6.1 2.7 5.8 3.9 6.9 − 0.3 1.1
Marriage 26.2 20.3 35.9 25.3 24.6 19.0 5.0 − 6.4
Moved after birth 1.2 1.0 1.8 1.3 0.3
Family moved/Moved with household 32.0 36.5 23.6 30.3 27.8 29.3 − 6.2 − 1.0
Natural calamities like drought, floods, etc. 1.2 0.9
Others 16.9 13.5 19.5 15.2 17.4 13.0 1.7 − 2.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: ’Moved after birth’ & ’Moved with household’ were added in 2001, when the category, ’Natural calamities like drought, floods, etc.,’ was dropped
Source: Computed from Census of India, 1991, 2001, and 2011
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423 409

employment. Interstate lifetime male migration due to work/employment was

reported- 43.4, 52.2, and 47.2 per cent in the 1991, 2001, and 2011 Census, respec-
tively. The North-East states are not an exception. The intercensal male migration
for work/employment was recorded 31.9, 38.0, and 46.9 per cent in 1991, 2001, and
2011, which is observed an increasing trend. In India, interstate educational migra-
tion is always low, 3.5, 2.6, and 2.5 per cent in 1991, 2001, and 2011, respectively.
But the North-East states witnessed almost double, 6.1, 5.8, and 6.9 per cent in
1991, 2001, and 2011, respectively (Table 4), compared to all India average. Migra-
tion due to ‘business’ has twofold declined between 1991 and 2001 and this trend is
continuing in 2011.
Those who are not covered above-mentioned six reasons for migration are catego-
rised as migration for ‘other’ reasons. Significantly, a large proportion of North-East
people reported the cause of migration, ‘other’, 13.5, 15.2, and 13.0 per cent, respec-
tively, in 1991 and 2001 and 2011 (Table 4), which are higher than all India average,
11.0, 8.4, and 11.3 per cent, respectively. It has been mentioned at the beginning that
the category ‘natural calamities’ was omitted in the 2001 Census. When ‘natural
calamities’ are excluded from the primary category, it is automatically merged with
reason, ‘other’, which includes natural calamities or hazards and socio-economic
and political stressors, such as riots, conflict, and political unrest.
North-East is affected by three major natural stressors: floods, earthquakes, and
landslides. The whole North-East region, excluding Sikkim, is included in the seis-
mic zone V, a very severe intensity zone. The low-intensity tremors are quite fre-
quent in the North-East. Since the mid-nineteenth century, North-East has witnessed
seven earthquakes with an intensity of more than 7.0 on the Richter scale, of which
two (in 1897 and 1950) occurred during the last hundred years (Dikshit and Dik-
shit 2014). These were measured 8.7 and 8.5 on the Richter scale, respectively. The
earthquake of 1950 was triggered a colossal loss of property and life and changed
the course of rivers (Dikshit and Dikshit 2014). Flood is very common in Assam in
every monsoon caused by the mighty Brahmaputra. Another river is the Barak flows
through Manipur, Mizoram, and Assam. During 1953–1995, a total of 98.10 million
people was affected by flood in Assam itself (Dikshit and Dikshit 2014, p. 181). The
most landslide-prone states are Mizoram, Manipur, and Arunachal Pradesh. Fre-
quent tremors and heavy rainfall lead to landslides with various scales from large to
small intensity.
Earthquakes and landslides do not force the people to move long-distance, rela-
tively locally displaced (Perch-Nielsen 2004; Belcher and Bates 1983). Even people
return to their original places after the water goes down in case of a flood (Mistri
2019; Banerjee et al. 2011). In the Indian context, natural calamities either cause
displacement locally or migration within the state boundary but hardly cause inter-
state migration (Mistri and Das 2020). It is observed that natural calamities induced
25,107 interstate migrants in North-East states during 1981–1991 (Census 1991).
The share is pretty small, 0.9 per cent to total interstate migrants in North-East in
the 1991 Census (Table 4), whereas all-India share is 0.4 per cent. Meanwhile, the
reason for migration, ‘other’ accounted for around 17 per cent of interstate migrants
in the same Census, 1991. Therefore, the reason for migration, ‘natural calamities’,
which fall in the category, ‘other’, hardly contribute to a large. In the North-East

ISLE 13
410 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

context, the reason for migration, ‘other’ reflects socio-political factors underlying
migration. The prolonged ethnopolitical turmoil caused predicaments of economic
development, employment opportunities, and challenge to social well-being result-
ing in people being forced to move out.

8.2 Reasons for Migration to the Mainland States

In the 2011 Census, on average, 30 per cent of North-East migrants reported work/
employment as the reason for migration to mainland states, which accounted for
around 17.0 per cent in 2001 and increased by 13.0 per cent point during 2001–2011
(Table 5). Nearly one-third (32.1 per cent) of intercensal migrants from Assam and
one-fourth from Manipur (29.0 per cent), Mizoram (26.0 per cent), and Nagaland
(25.0 per cent) migrated for work/employment in 2011. Student migrants in the
mainland in 2011 were recorded as 9.0 per cent, which increased from 7.0 per cent
in 2001. The students mostly prefer to go to cities like Bengaluru and Delhi (March-
ang 2017; McDuie-Ra 2014; 2012), and to some extent, to Mumbai and Kolkata.
Except for Assam, all the North-East states witnessed substantially higher student
migration to mainland India. Manipur ranked top, which shared 29 per cent in 2011,
though it had stepped down from 37.3 per cent in 2001, followed by Mizoram (25.0
per cent) and Arunachal Pradesh (23.3 per cent). Assam, especially Guwahati, is
educationally and culturally endowed since the colonial period. Post-independent
period, many central and state-funded universities, IIT, NIT, and research institu-
tions have been set up; these helped retain the students and also attract others from
neighbouring states.
The reason, ‘other’, which includes forced migrants, increased to 13.0 per cent
in 2011 from 10.2 per cent in 2001. Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh witnessed
the highest addition in interstate migrants, 7.0 and 6.0 per cent points, respectively,
between 2001 and 2011. Migration for ‘business’ to mainland states from Tripura
was recorded, 3.6 per cent, a bit higher than the rest of the North-East states.

8.3 Unemployment Rate

Since the 1990s, the unemployment rate of the North-East, both in rural and urban
areas, strode up (Fig. 2). The urban unemployment rate on usual status (principal
status + subsidiary status) jumped to 6.2 per cent in 1999–2000 from 4.5 per cent in
1993–1994 and shot up to 10.2 per cent in 2007–2008.
At the far end of the 2000s, it declined to 6.8 per cent in 2009–2010, but
again bounced to 9.6 per cent in 2011–2012 and finally reached 10.5 per cent in
2017–2018. Likewise, the rural unemployment rate in the North-East States has
steadily worsened and doubled in every decade since 1993–1994. In 2017–2018,
the rural unemployment rate reached 7.9 per cent. The urban–rural difference was
around 3.0 per cent in 2017–2018. At the beginning of the 1900s, the urban and
rural unemployment rate in North-East was more or less equal to the Indian average.
Since the end of the 1990s, these surpassed the Indian average, and the gaps have
started widening in the 2000s and 2010s.

13 ISLE
 Table 5  Reasons for Intercensal (0–9 yrs.) migration to Mainland India, 2001 and 2011
States Work/Employment Business Education Marriage Moved after birth Moved with house- Others
hold
2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011 2001 2011

Sikkim 19.4 17.3 1.3 1.1 12.9 13.2 19.4 29.3 1.4 1.2 33.8 21.8 11.7 16.0
Arunachal P 18.0 15.6 0.6 0.6 16.6 23.3 12.8 7.0 1.7 1.3 35.0 30.5 15.4 21.7
Nagaland 12.1 24.9 0.4 1.2 4.2 14.6 56.4 9.8 1.1 2.1 17.7 32.8 8.0 14.6
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

Manipur 18.4 29.4 1.2 1.1 37.3 28.8 9.3 5.7 1.1 0.9 23.1 22.1 9.6 12.1
Mizoram 19.2 26.0 0.3 0.7 29.5 25.0 8.4 5.5 1.2 0.8 29.6 29.1 11.7 12.9
Tripura 20.5 22.7 2.1 2.0 9.7 11.2 12.6 15.6 1.3 1.3 39.2 31.0 14.5 16.1
Meghalaya 17.9 23.0 1.0 1.1 9.8 12.3 10.5 9.4 1.2 1.4 48.0 39.7 11.5 13.0
Assam 17.3 32.1 1.3 1.3 3.9 5.1 32.3 17.8 1.1 1.5 33.9 30.8 10.1 11.6
NE Region 16.8 29.5 1.2 1.2 6.9 9.0 32.1 16.0 1.2 1.4 31.7 30.2 10.2 12.6

Source: Computed from Census of India, 2001 and 2011

ISLE
411

13
412 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

12.0
10.2 10.5
9.6
10.0
Rate of Unemployment (%)

7.9 7.8
8.0 7.1 6.8
6.2
6.0 5.3
4.5 4.8 4.7
4.5 4.7 4.5 4.4
4.1
4.0 3.4 3.4

2.8
1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7
1.5
2.0 1.2

0.0
1993-94 1999-00 2004-05 2007-08 2009-10 2011-12 2017-18
Years
North-East (R) North-East (U) India (R) India (U)

Fig. 2  Unemployment rate in North-East India, 1993–2017. Source: Compiled from different NSS
Rounds of 1993–94, 1999–00, 2004–05, 2007–08, 2009-10, 2011–12 by NSSO in 1997, 2001, 2006,
2010, 2011, 2014 respectively and PLFS, 2017–18 by NSO in 2019

The state-specific unemployment rate (Table 6) reveals that Nagaland has caught
severe unemployment since the end of the 2000s. According to the Periodic Labour
Force Survey (PLFS) 2017–2018, Nagaland ranked top among the Indian State/UTs
(NSO, 2019). The state’s estimated total unemployment rate was 21.8 per cent, fol-
lowed by Manipur (11.6 per cent) and Mizoram (10.1 per cent). In the 2000s, the
highest unemployment rate in North-East was observed in Tripura, 13.3 and 28.0
per cent in rural and urban areas, respectively, in 2004–2005, but, later, it has started
to decline. Manipur has witnessed a consistently high unemployment rate, especially
in urban areas, during the last three decades. According to the 2011 Census, nearly
82 per cent of people lived in rural areas in North-East states. Meanwhile, the rate
of urbanisation is also very high, 37.5 per cent during 2001–2011. Hence, growing
unemployment, both in urban and rural areas, leads to interstate migration to urban
centres elsewhere in India.

8.4 Employment Elasticity of Economic Growth

Employment is one of the essential components of the growth and development

process of an economy; it links economic growth and poverty elimination. Thus,
employment opportunities are considered a way of attaining inclusive growth and
sustainable development in a region or a country. When the lack of job opportunities
is inducing a considerable volume of migration from the North-East, it is essential
to provide insight into the economic growth and its ability to generate employment
opportunities for its population. The employment elasticity of economic growth
serves the purpose best. Employment elasticity refers to the percentage change in

13 ISLE
 Table 6  Unemployment rate in the North-East States, 1993–2017
States 1993–1994 1999–2000 2004–2005 2007–2008 2009–2010 2011–2012 2017–2018
Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban

Arunachal P 1.0 2.6 0.5 2.9 0.9 1.2 2.7 4.8 1.3 3.4 1.7 4.8 5.3 9.9
Assam 5.2 8.9 3.9 9.7 2.6 7.2 4.7 9.5 3.9 5.2 4.5 5.6 8.3 6.3
Manipur 1.0 4.2 1.9 6.7 1.1 5.5 3.8 5.4 3.8 4.8 2.6 7.1 11.6 11.4
Meghalaya 0.2 1.7 0.4 4.6 0.3 3.5 1.1 5.3 4.0 5.1 0.4 2.8 0.6 6.7
Mizoram 1.0 0.5 0.9 3.0 0.3 1.9 0.3 4.6 1.3 2.8 1.8 5.0 6.5 14.4
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

Nagaland 1.4 6.8 2.4 9.1 1.8 5.5 5.4 16.7 10.6 9.2 15.1 23.8 21.6 21.1
Sikkim 0.7 3.1 2.8 7.5 2.4 3.7 3.6 10.2 4.3 1.0 2.3 2.7 5.8
Tripura 2.3 8.5 1.2 5.8 13.3 28.0 13.3 25.2 9.2 17.1 10.5 25.2 6.3 8.7
NE Region (Avg.) 1.6 4.5 1.8 6.2 2.8 7.1 4.4 10.2 4.8 6.8 4.7 9.6 7.9 10.5
India 1.2 4.5 1.5 4.7 1.7 4.5 1.6 4.1 1.6 3.4 1.7 3.4 5.3 7.8

Source: Compiled from different NSS Rounds, 1993–1994, 1999–2000, 2004–2005, 2007–2008, 2009-10, 2011–2012 by NSSO in 1997, 2001, 2006, 2010, 2011 and 2014
respectively, and PLFS, 2017–2018 by NSS in 2019

ISLE
413

13
414 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

Table 7  Average annual growth rate of per capita net state domestic product (NSDP), 1993–2012
Average annual growth (AAGR)%
States 1993–1994 to 2001–2002 to 2004–2005 to 2001–2002 to 2010–2011 to
1999–2000 2004–2005 2009–2010 2009–2010 2012–2013

Arunachal P 0.5 7.3 6.0 6.0 3.1

Assam 0.2 2.9 3.7 3.5 4.7
Manipur 3.4 4.3 4.2 3.9 2.8
Meghalaya 4.6 4.2 6.2 5.4 5.9
Mizoram NA 3.3 6.3 5.4 5.9
Nagaland − 0.6 3.6 5.1 4.9 5.0
Sikkim 2.8 6.0 17.9 13.9 7.3
Tripura 6.3 7.4 7.2 7.3 7.0
NE Region 2.7 4.9 7.1 6.3 5.2
India 4.6 4.6 6.8 5.9 4.7

Source: Computed from CSO, 2014, MOSPI, GOI

employment associated with a one percentage change in Gross Domestic Product

(GDP) or economic growth (Misra and Suresh 2014; Kapsos 2005). In the study,
the employment elasticity of North-East states is computed for the 1900s and 2000s.
The average annual growth rate (AAGR) of per capita Net State Domestic Prod-
uct (NSDP) in the North-East (excluding Mizoram) had retained at 2.7 per cent
from 1993–1994 to 1999–2000 (Table 7). Later, it increased to 4.9 per cent during
2001–2004 to 7.1 per cent during 2004–2009. The AAGR for the 2000s is estimated
at 6.3 per cent, which is higher than the Indian average of 5.9 per cent. All the states,
except Manipur, have experienced economic growth in the 1990s and 2000s.
The ‘arc’ elasticity based on the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) approach
unveils that there has been a continuous decline in employment elasticity since
1993–1994 in the North-East region (Table 8). During 1993–1994 to 1999–2000,
employment elasticity in North-East (excluding Mizoram) is estimated at 0.81 and
has declined significantly to 0.05 in the second half of the 2000s. In the first half
of the 2000s, the employment rate is elastic1 for Arunachal Pradesh (2.16), Assam
(1.21) and Manipur (2.01), and almost unitary2 elastic for Meghalaya (0.99) in
response to the per capita NSDP growth, but in the latter half, they have slipped sig-
nificantly. Though all the financial years’ income statistics are not available, Naga-
land has performed the worst in employment elasticity among the North-East states.
Despite the world economic crisis in 2007–2008, North-East states as a whole had
maintained an average of 7.8 per cent per capita economic growth (CAGR) in the
second half of the 2000s (Table 8). But none of the North-East states has shown an
improvement in employment elasticity. The growth output has not able to sensitise
employment in North-East India.

1
The proportional change of employment rate is larger than the change of NSDP per Capita growth.
2
The proportional change of employment rate is equal to change of NSDP per Capita growth.

13 ISLE
 Table 8  Employment elasticity: compound annual growth rate (CAGR) approach
States NSDP/capita growth (CAGR) Employment growth (CAGR) Employment elasticity
1993–1994 to 1999–2000 to 2004–2005 to 1993–1994 to 1999–2000 to 2004–2005 to 1993–1994 to 1999–2000 to 2004–2005 to
1999–2000 2004–2005 2009–2010 1999–2000 2004–2005 2009–2010 1999–2000 2004–2005 2009–2010

Arunachal P 0.3 3.1 4.9 − 1.3 6.7 0.0 − 4.30 2.16 0.00
Assam 0.2 3.0 4.0 1.6 3.7 0.4 8.03 1.21 0.10
Manipur 3.3 2.5 3.6 1.3 4.9 − 0.6 0.38 2.01 − 0.17
Meghalaya 4.5 4.6 6.2 0.3 4.6 0.6 0.07 0.99 0.09
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

Mizoram NA NA 7.1 3.7 3.1 2.2 NA NA 0.31

Nagaland -0.7 NA 5.9 11.3 2.7 − 5.1 − 15.04 NA − 0.86
Sikkim 2.7 5.1 17.9 2.2 3.9 1.4 0.79 0.78 0.08
Tripura 6.3 NA 7.2 0.0 2.4 4.8 0.00 NA 0.67
NE Region 2.22 -3.09 7.8 1.80 3.76 0.42 0.81 − 1.22 0.05
India 4.60 4.03 7.0 1.09 2.87 0.28 0.24 0.71 0.04

Source: Computed from CSO, 2014, MOSPI, GOI & various NSS rounds of 1993–1994, 1999–2000, 2004–2005, 2007–2008, and 2009-10 by NSSO in 1997, 2001,
2006, 2010, and 2011 respectively

ISLE
415

13
416 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

The indicator of employment elasticity not only infers the employment inten-
sity of growth but also implies the technological intervention, GDP share for pub-
lic expenditure, policies and implementation. Governments often try to take good
policies, but the essential parts are the proper implementation, which is associated
with the system’s functioning, a conducive socio-political environment and inclu-
siveness (Aisen and Veiga 2013; Fosu 2001; Alesina et al. 1996). Another impor-
tant aspect is the public expenditure that energises the job market. In the finan-
cial year 2007–2008, the public expenditure in India was nearly 30 per cent of the
GDP; after that, it started to decline. It has recently reached the bottom level (Basu
2020). The North-East states are not an exception. The limited budgetary allocation
for North Eastern Council (NEC) has affected the accelerating economic progress
of the region (Umdor 2016). A declining trend of budget allocation for NEC from
1,485 crores in 2018–2019 to 1,476.28 crores in 2019–2020 and 1,474.49 crores in
2020–2021 has been witnessed (PIB 2021). Moreover, trustworthy ambient, stable
political condition, and acceptance of dissent are prerequisites for private investment
or Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Divisive politics based on ethnicity jeopardise
the investment environment in North-East (Yumnam 2018). Ethnic politics control
the legislative assemblies; stable governments are hardly found (Shimray 2004). In
addition, illegal taxing and extortion by underground groups (Sharma 2016) and
political corruption are rampant (Muhindro 2016; Time of India 2011). The income
per capita growth in the North-East is far from inclusiveness and has become a
fiasco to incentivise employment opportunities.
In addition to that, it is a broad consensus that youth unemployment leads to
insurgency or terrorism (Jelil et al. 2018; Bagchi and Paul 2017; Urdal 2004). If
a county fails to provide employment opportunities to its youth bulge, a sense of
grievances is fumed. Terrorist groups take advantage of recruiting frustrated youth,
resulting in violence increases (Bagchi and Paul 2017; Urdal, 2004). Likewise, in
the North-East, economic opportunities in the form of employment by the under-
ground groups lure the educated and unemployed youth. Upadhyay (2006) pointed
out that terrorism in North-East has taken a form of ‘criminal enterprise’ and
become a ‘lucrative industry’, particularly for the unemployed-educated youth. The
Government of India has also expressed grave concern regarding youth recruiting
in militancy due to ‘inadequate economic development and employment opportu-
nities’ and ‘corruption in Government machinery’ in the North-East (GOI, 2008,
p.146; GOI, 2006, p.2).

9 Section C

9.1 Discussion

Since the balance of intercensal migration in the North-East is negative, more people
are leaving than entering the region. It is conspicuous that Nagaland and Mizoram
have witnessed an unprecedented growth of out-migrants in the 1990s. Even Assam
and Manipur have also experienced a mass out-migration in the 1900s and recorded
a persistently negative migration growth rate. On average, 30 per cent of workers

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423 417

migrated from the North-East region to mainland India in the 2011 Census. This
tendency is more prominent in Nagaland, Mizoram, Assam, and Manipur. Employ-
ment opportunities remain a grave concern in North-East India. Employment elas-
ticity implies that per capita income growth does not lead to employment opportuni-
ties, inducing the workers to migrate from North-East into mainland India on a large
scale. Not only the labour migration but the student migration at large infers the poor
educational provisions in the North-East. A considerable proportion of students,
one-fourth of intercensal migration, of Manipur, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh
are migrating out. A noticeable aspect of interstate migration from the North-East
is the reason for migration ‘other’, which includes the forced migration, is far higher
than the Indian average. During the last two decades, the 1990s and 2000s, no large
natural disasters occurred with mass casualties in the North-East. Hence, the rea-
son ‘other’ strongly indicates the mass interstate migration induced by ethnopolitical
unrest in the North-East.
The 1990s witnessed the pick of ethnopolitical movements in different parts
of the North-East. The demand for ‘Nagalim’ (Greater Nagaland) was intensified
in the 1990s by the solidarity of the Naga clans spreading over Manipur, Assam,
Arunachal, and across the border of Myanmar. In 1997, the Naga ceasefire agree-
ment was signed between the largest Naga group, the National Socialist Council
of Nagalim- Isak-Muivah (NSCN-IM) and the Indian Government (GOI 2001).
Though the Ceasefire Agreement tried to restore a peaceful ambient in North-East,
NSCN—Khaplang faction has engaged in unlawful and violent activities in the
Eastern Nagaland and the Tirap and Changlang districts of neighbouring Arunachal
Pradesh. The demand for ‘Nagalim’, along with a separate flag and constitution,
necessitates a massive re-organisation of neighbouring states, which is not only a
matter of widespread discontent and agitation, but may also fuel the ethnic conflict
and resume insurgency at a large scale.
After the Mizoram Peace Accord in 1986, Mizo National Front (MNF) had sur-
rendered all arms, ammunition, and equipment, and Mizoram emerged as a full-
fledged state. The 1990s was the formation stage, where the ethnopolitical aspi-
ration for ‘self-determination’ like Lai, Mara and Chakma Autonomous District
Councils (ADCs) led to the ethnic conflicts in Mizoram. It was very challenging to
tackle by the newly formed government led by MNF. The insurgent activities by the
Hmar Tribe for autonomy in Mizoram are still alive. In the 2000s, the situation has
improved in Nagaland and Mizoram, and by now, Mizoram is quite a peaceful state
(GOI 2008).
Manipur has often been disturbed due to ethnic conflicts and secessionist move-
ments. Hostility between Nagas and Kukis dates back to colonial times (Haokip
2015). The conflict was heavily landed in 1992, and more ruthlessly on 13 Sep-
tember 1993, known as ‘Joupi Massacre’ and observed as ‘Black Day’ every year.
NSCN-IM faction uprooted roughly 350 Kuki villages, killed more than 1000 ordi-
nary people, and displaced more than tens of thousands between 1992 and 1997
(Saikia 2018). Kukis residing hilly areas are claiming as ‘Koki-homeland’, which
coincides with the ‘Nagalim’ envisioned by the NSCN is a prime cause of conflicts.
Naga Ceasefire of 1997 and the latter Framework Agreement of 2015 are not only
a matter of ethnopolitical brawl between the two major hilly tribal groups but also

ISLE 13
418 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

involve non-tribal ethnic groups, such as the Meitei and Meitei-Pangal. Manipur
also witnessed the Meitei-Pangal riots in 1993 in Imphal valley and the Kuki-Zomi
clash in 1997 in Churachandpur District by Kuki militants (Shimray 2004). Apart
from inter-ethnic conflicts, separatist movements and incidents of ambushing are
common in Manipur. These disturbances are historically rooted. Once an independ-
ent princely state, Manipur was merged with Indian Union on 21 September 1949.
Hence, a political, social, and emotive issue is associated with the Meiteis. Differ-
ent Meiteis outfits have emerged from time to time with a demand for a sovereign
nation, almost resembling the Kashmir issue.
Assam has also been suffering problems ranging from internal ethnic conflict for
autonomy or a separate state like the Bodoland Movement, and separatist demands
for sovereignty by the United Liberation Front of Asom to controversies over lin-
guistic and religious issues and tension on illegal immigrants from neighbouring
Bangladesh. Recently, the political uproar over the National Register of Citizens
(NRC) and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) of 2019, both dealing with
the ‘outsider’, has brought worrisome consequences. Assam has witnessed periodic
riots between plane land tribes, Bodos, and Bengali speaking Muslims. The ‘Nellie
Massacre’ in 1983 was one of the worst pogroms since World War II, and further
violence on 20 July 2012 and 01 May 2014 (Choudhary 2019).
A contrasting pattern of migration flow to the mainland Indian States from the
North-East is portrayed in the 2001 and 2011 Census. North-East migrants in the
North and East Indian States have declined, whereas the South Indian States have
witnessed an increase of North-East people. There is a significant drop of interstate
migrants entering Delhi from the North-East and South India from the 2001 to 2011
Census. The North-East migrants to Delhi have dropped 26 per cent, and South
Indian migrants to Delhi have dropped 20 per cent during 2001–2011, and migrants
from UP and Bihar have filled up that vacuum (Singh and Gandhiok 2019). Fewer
people from the North-East States are ‘making Delhi their home’ (Singh and Gan-
dhiok 2019) and moving South instead. This phenomenon could be attributed to the
sporadic racial violence against North-East people in mainland India (McDuie-Ra
2014; 2012). In Delhi and its surroundings, UP and Bihar, violence against north-
easterners are rampant.

9.2 Conclusion

Eight North-East states of India share around four per cent of the country’s total
population. Though it is a small proportion, it is significant in the demographic and
ethnopolitical perspective. North-East’s 45.8 million people divide into many eth-
nic groups, and most of them are recognised as Scheduled Tribes (ST), around 28
per cent or 12.7 million in the 2011 Census. Hilly states like Mizoram, Meghalaya,
Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh are predominated (more than two-thirds) by the
tribal. Tribal communities are primarily dependent on agriculture and forest-based
livelihoods (Majaw 2021). According to the report on ‘Tribal Health in India’ in
2018, more than half the country’s 104.3 million tribal population have to reside
outside India’s 809 tribal majority blocks (GOI 2018). Their migration from tribal to

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423 419

non-tribal areas are primarily searching for job and educational opportunities (GOI
2018). Tribals of the North-East are not an exception. Irrespective of social groups,
on average, nearly 60.0 per cent of migrants prefer to migrate to mainland India for
various reasons, primarily for work/employment and education. In the last couple of
decades, more people are moving out than entering the region. The negative balance
of migration has gradually declined, and some states have already started to gain.
North-East India is endowed with natural resources and eco-tourism for its pris-
tine beauty. The frontier region is a significant geostrategically and potential cor-
ridor for foreign trade with South and South-east Asia. Since the financial year
1993–1994, North-East has witnessed the positive growth of the economy. Income
growth per capita has been observed higher than the Indian average in the 2000s
and the first half of the 2010s. But the income growth in North-East states lacks
inclusiveness and fails to sensitise employment opportunities, which induce the
mass exodus of workers from North-East states in the 1990s and 2000s. Not only
the labour migration but the student migration is also conspicuous, which exhib-
its the weakness of the educational system. States, namely Manipur, Mizoram, and
Arunachal Pradesh, witness a very high level of student migration.
Inclusive development is deep-rooted in the peaceful socio-cultural and political
atmosphere and trustworthy economic conditions. North Eastern Council (NEC),
a ‘regional planning body’, constituted under the NEC Act of 1971 with the great
hope of accelerating development and addressing the region’s common security
challenges. The member states have widely criticised the functioning of the coun-
cil (Umdor 2016). The council has limited power to sanction big projects. Limited
budget allocation to NEC and delayed sanction of funds severely hamper the accel-
eration of developments in the region (Umdor 2016). Moreover, the council lacks
expertise in many areas, poor assessment and review processes, and the absence
of a funding mechanism to maintain assets (Umdor 2016). In addition, ‘progres-
sive erosion of states’ authority’ to uphold ‘rules of law’ (Yumnam 2018; Upad-
hyay 2006) and weak governance capacities shackle their ability for effective plan-
ning and execution (Kundra 2019). Security cannot be separated from the issues of
development, and it is also an important mandated function of NEC, which has been
shown a severe apathy in dealing (Kundra 2019; Umdor 2016). In 2011, a separate
ministry, the Ministry of Development of the North Eastern Region, was set up for
better care of economic and social development in the North-East region. Govern-
mental structures, legislation, policies, and various agreements or accords are not
the sole criteria of development. Proper implementation is crucial along with these.
Ethnopolitical unrest for self-determination or sovereignty, illegal taxing and extor-
tion, ambushing by different ethnic outfits, and rampant corruption are major pre-
dicaments to the execution of any project and a hindrance for investment. In addition
to that, more than sixty years of enforcement of draconian law, AFSPA of 1958,
and militarisation under the act subdue the culture, fundamental human rights, and
social well-being of the North-East peoples. The non-armed public got frustrated
and depressed and migrated out of states in the 1990s and 2000s.
On the other hand, intercensal migration in the North-East region, especially
from geographic proximity states like Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, and Uttar
Pradesh, has remained more or less the same in the 2001 and 2011 Census and

ISLE 13
420 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

is expected to decline in the forthcoming Census. Since the mid of 2019, Assam
had been rumbling when more than 1.2 million Hindus out of 1.9 million were
excluded from the NRC list published on 31 August 2019, and later erupted in
a violent demonstration over the CAA of 2019. These tremors have spread over
the country and reeked of the anti-migration image of Assam. The President of
India issued the Adaptation of Laws (Amendment) Order of 2019 to amend the
historic law, the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation (BEFR), 1873, where areal
exclusion (from Assam) and inclusion under Inner Line Permit (ILP) system had
been done. An ILP is a travel document required by non-domiciled persons to
enter the region. The area under the ILP system is exempted from the provision
of CAA passed in December 2019. On 10 December 2019, Manipur was brought
under ILP, and just a day before, on 9 December 2019, the Nagaland government
extended IPL to include Dimapur. Meghalaya Assembly also adopted a resolu-
tion favouring ILP in December 2019 but could not implement it like Arunachal
Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, and Nagaland. However, the ILP system not only
controls the movement of labourers from mainland Indian states but also bars the
spontaneous movement of ethnic groups among the sister states.
Nowadays, North-East is relatively peaceful, and there have been no massive
demonstrations witnessed in the 2010s. The demand for ‘Nagalim’ by certain
Naga factions is still a great apprehension, which often turns into ethnic hostil-
ity and creates political unrest. Besides, unemployment in North-East is still high
and growing. Though the increasing unemployment rate gets mass anxiety in
every Indian, in the North-East, this has become gradually severe. Some North-
East states like Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, and Tripura have already touched
a double-digit unemployment rate in the 2010s. In addition, the annual income
growth has started to decline since the beginning of the 2010s. Furthermore, the
pandemic Covid-19 hard-hit the economic growth and employment in the recent
time.
There is no hope of reducing North-Eastern labour migrants to mainland India
in the figures of the forthcoming Census. But it can be expected that there may be
a decline in student migrants. Because of the many centrally funding educational
institutions, research centres, tribal universities, sports and cultural universities have
been set up and upgraded to the existing ones in the 2010s. State governments have
also taken initiatives. Hence, nowadays, there is much more scope for studying and
pursuing research within the North-East region.

Acknowledgements The author is thankful to Prof. Kh. Pradeep Singh and Dr. A. Mangalam, Dept. of
Geography, Manipur University, for sharing their in-depth knowledge and views on ethnic history and
conflicts in the North-East.

Funding There was no funding for the research work; it is the research of personal interest.

Declarations

Conflict of interest The work has not been published before, and it is not under consideration for publica-
tion anywhere else. There was no funding for continuing the research work, and no financial interest was
involved with it and will not be in future. The work is only for the dissemination of knowledge and policy
intervention for the development.

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423 421

References
Aisen, A., and F.J. Veiga. 2013. How does political instability affect economic growth? European
Journal of Political Economy 29 (2013): 151–167.
Alesina, A., O. Sule, R. Nouriel, and S. Phillip. 1996. Political instability and economic growth. Jour-
nal of Economic Growth 1 (2): 189–211.
Bagchi, A., and J.A. Paul. 2017. Youth unemployment and terrorism in the MENAP (Middle East,
North Africa, Afghanistan, and Pakistan) region. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 64 (2018):
9–20. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​seps.​2017.​12.​003.
Banerjee, S., J.Y. Gerlitz, and B. Hoermann. 2011. Labour migration as a response strategy to water
hazards in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. Kathmandu: ICIMOD.
Basu, K. 2020. India’s divisive politics, intolerance a major obstacle to economic growth’, the WIRE.
Retrieved May 19, 2022, from https://​thewi​re.​in/​econo​my/​watch-​kaush​ik-​basu-​karan-​thapar-​
chief-​econo​mic-​covid-​19-​world-​back.
Belcher, J.C., and F.L. Bates. 1983. Aftermath of natural disasters: coping through residential mobil-
ity. Demography 7 (2): 118–128.
Brahmachari, D. 2019. Ethnicity and violent conflicts in northeast india: Analysing the trends. Strate-
gic Analysis 43 (4): 278–296.
Census of India. (1991). Migration tables, CD-ROM. Registrar General and Census Commissioner of
India, Government of India.
Census of India. 2001. Migration tables- (D- Series). From https://​censu​sindia.​gov.​in/​Digit​alLib​rary/​
Table​sSeri​es2001.​aspx.
Census of India. 2011. Data on migration 2011. From https://​censu​sindia.​gov.​in/​2011c​ensus/​migra​
tion.​html.
Choudhary, R. 2019. Nellie massacre and ‘citizenship’: When 1,800Muslims were killed in Assam in
just 6 hours. The Print, 18 February 2019, from https://​thepr​int.​in/​india/​gover​nance/​nellie-​massa​
cre-​and-​citiz​enship-​when-​1800-​musli​ms-​were-​killed-​in-​assam-​in-​just-6-​hours/​193694/.
CSO. 2014. Databook for PC’. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MOSPI), GOI,
from https://​niti.​gov.​in/​plann​ingco​mmiss​ion.​gov.​in/​docs/​data/​datat​able/​data_​2312/​comp_​data2​
312.​pdf.
Das, B., and A. Mistri. 2015. Is nativity on rise? Estimation of interstate migration based on census of
india 2011 for major States in India. Social Change 45 (1): 137–144.
Dikshit, K.R., and J.K. Dikshit. 2014. North-east India: Land, people and economy. Heidelberg:
Springer.
Feng, Yi. 1997. Democracy, political stability and economic growth. British Journal of Political Sci-
ence 27 (3): 391–418.
Fosu, A.K. 2001. Political instability and economic growth in developing economies: Some specifica-
tion empirics. Economics Letters 70 (2001): 289–294.
GOI. 2001. Question No: 297 on Ceasefire Agreements, Raised by mr. Jayanta Rongpi, MP, Answer
on: 24.07. 2001 by Home Affairs, Lok Saba. from http://​eparl​ib.​nic.​in/​bitst​ream/​12345​6789/​
408376/​1/​24972.​pdf.
GOI. 2006. Annual report, 2004–05, Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI. from https://​www.​mha.​gov.​in/​
sites/​defau​lt/​files/​Annua​lRepo​r t_​04_​05.​pdf.
GOI. 2008. Capacity building for conflict resolution. Second Administrative Reforms Commission,
GOI. from https://​darpg.​gov.​in/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​capac​ity_​build​ing7.​pdf.
GOI. 2018. Tribal health in India: Bridging the gap and a roadmap for the future. Ministry of Health
and Family Welfare (MOHFW), Ministry of Tribal Affair, GOI. from http://​nhm.​gov.​in/​nhm_​
compo​nents/​tribal_​report/​Execu​tive_​Summa​r y.​pdf.
Haokip, T.L. 2015. Ethnic separatism: The Kuki-Chin insurgency of Indo-Myanmar/Burma’. South
Asia Research 35 (1): 21–41.
Hoenig, P., and K. Kokho. 2018. Armed opposition groups in northeast India: The Splinter scenario.
In Northeast India: A reader, ed. B. Oinam and D.A. Sadokpam, 41–51. New Delhi: Routledge.
ILO. 2018. Employment-rich Economic Growth. Retrieved May 20, 2022, from https://​www.​ilo.​org/​
global/​topics/​dw4sd/​themes/​emplo​yment-​r ich/​lang--​en/​index.​htm.
Jelil, M. A., Bhatia, K., Brockmeyer, A., Do, Q.T., Joubert, C. 2018. Unemployment and violent
extremism: Evidence from daesh foreign recruits. World Bank Group, Policy Research Working

ISLE 13
422 The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423

Paper (WPS) 8381. from https://​openk​nowle​dge.​world​bank.​org/​bitst​ream/​handle/​10986/​29561/​

WPS83​81.​pdf?​seque​nce=​5&​isAll​owed=y.
Kapsos, S. 2005. The employment intensity of growth: Trends and macroeconomic determinants.
Employment Strategy Department, International Labour Office. from http://​www.​ilo.​org/​
wcmsp5/​groups/​publi​c/---​ed_​emp/---​emp_​elm/​docum​ents/​publi​cation/​wcms_​143163.​pdf.
Kipgen, N. 2013. Politics of ethnic conflict in Manipur. South Asian Research 33 (1): 21–38.
Kundra, A. 2019. Realise the potential of the North Eastern Council. Hindusthan Times, Sep 26, 2019
08:41 PM IST. from https://​www.​hindu​stant​imes.​com/​analy​sis/​reali​se-​the-​poten​tial-​of-​the-​north-​
easte​r n-​counc​il/​story-​vsKCo​ecueM​rKTEg​dKDme​qK.​html.
Lusome, R., and R. B. Bhagat. 2006. Trends and Patterns of Internal Migration in India, 1971–
2001. In The Annual Conference of Indian Association for the Study of Population (IASP),
Thiruvananthapuram.
Majaw, B. 2021. Indo-Bangladesh borderland issue in Meghalaya. South Asian Research 18 (1):
22–37.
Marchang, R. 2017. Out-migration from North Eastern region to cities: Unemployment, employability
and job aspiration. Journal of Economic & Social Development 13 (2): 43–53.
McDuie-Ra, D. 2012. Cosmopolitan tribal: Frontier migrants in Delhi. South Asian Research 32 (1):
39–55.
McDuie-Ra, D. 2014. Ethnicity and place in a ‘disturbed City’: Ways of belonging in Imphal,
Manipur. Asian Ethnicity 15 (3): 374–393.
Misra, S., and K. S. Suresh. 2014. Estimating employment elasticity of growth for the Indian economy.
RBI Working Paper Series, Department of Economic and Policy Research. from https://​www.​rbi.​
org.​in/​SCRIP​Ts/​Publi​catio​nsView.​aspx?​id=​15763.
Mistri, A. 2019. Is the migration from Indian Sundarban an environmental migration? Investigating
through sustainable livelihood approach (SLA). Asian Profile 47 (3): 195–219.
Mistri, A. 2021. Migrant workers from West Bengal since 1991: From the left to TMC Government.
Economic and Political Weekly 56 (29): 21–26.
Mistri, A., and B. Das. 2020. Environmental change, livelihood issues and migration sundarban bio-
sphere reserve, India. Singapore: Springer Nature.
Muhindro, L. 2016. Corruption and election in conflict Northeast India. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science Invention 5 (9): 38–45.
NSSO. 1997, 2001, 2006, 2010, 2011 and 2014. Employment and unemployment situation in India.
MOSPI, GOI.
NSO. 2019. Periodic labour force survey (PLFS) 2017-18. MOSPI, GOI.
Perch-Nielsen, S. 2004. Understanding the effect of climate change on human migration: The contri-
bution of mathematical and conceptual models. department of environmental studies. Zurich:
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
PIB. 2021. Budgetary allocation for North Eastern Council. Ministry of Development of North-East
Region, GOI. From https://​pib.​gov.​in/​Press​relea​sesha​re.​aspx?​PRID=​17797​33.
Saikia, A. 2018. 25 years after naga-kuki clashes in Manipur, reconciliation is still elusive. Scroll.
in. On 14 September 2018. From https://​scroll.​in/​artic​le/​894324/​25-​years-​after-​naga-​kuki-​clash​
es-​in-​manip​ur-​recon​cilia​tion-​is-​still-​elusi​ve.
Sharma, S. K. 2016. Taxation and extortion: A major source of militant economy in Northeast India.
New Delhi: Vivekananda International Foundation. https://​www.​vifin​dia.​org/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​
Taxat​i on%​2 0and%​2 0Ext​o rtion%​2 0A%​2 0Maj​o r%​2 0Sou​r ce%​2 0of%​2 0Mil​i tant%​2 0Eco​n omy%​
20in%​20Nor​theast%​20Ind​ia.​pdf.
Shimray, U.A. 2001. Ethnicity and socio-political assertion: The Manipur experience. Economic and
Political Weekly 36 (39): 3674–3677.
Shimray, U.A. 2004. Socio-political unrest in the region called North-East India. Economic and Polit-
ical Weekly 39 (42): 4637–4643.
Singh, P., and J. Gandhiok. 2019. Fewer people from northeast and southern states making Delhi
their Home. The Times of India. On 11 November 2019, from https://​times​ofind​ia.​india​times.​
com/​city/​delhi/​fewer-​people-​from-​north​east-​and-​south​ern-​states-​making-​delhi-​their-​home/​artic​
leshow/​70458​576.​cms.
Times of India. 2011. Root out corruption from the system, cries northeast. Times of India. On 11
August 2011, from https://​times​ofind​ia.​india​times.​com/​city/​guwah​ati/​root-​out-​corru​ption-​from-​
the-​system-​cries-​north​east/​artic​lesho​wprint/​96529​76.​cms.

13 ISLE
The Indian Journal of Labour Economics (2022) 65:397–423 423

Umdor, S. 2016. Challenges before the North Eastern council. The Shillong Times. On May 26, 2016.
From https://​thesh​illon​gtimes.​com/​2016/​05/​26/​chall​enges-​before-​the-​north-​easte​r n-​counc​il/
Upadhyay, A. 2006. Terrorism in the North-East: Linkage and implications. Economic and Political
Weekly 41 (48): 4993–4999.
Urdal, H. 2004. A clash of generations? Youth bulges and political violence. International Studies Quar-
terly 50 (2006): 607–629.
Yumnam, A. 2018. Critiquing the development intervention in the northeast. In Northeast India: A
reader, ed. B. Oinam and D.A. Sadokpam, 406–419. Routledge.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

ISLE 13