For pragmatic alliances

The political architecture of India’s North East has been reshaped decisively since 2014, and nowhere is that transformation more visible than in the steady expansion of the BJP’s footprint through alliances with regional parties. Nagaland’s long-standing coalition with the BJP since 2003 and reflects a durable local interface that has delivered patronage, political stability and, crucially, electoral dividends for both partners. But beyond Nagaland, the picture is far less uniform and far more revealing about the limits of alliance politics in the hill states. Take Meghalaya, where, despite a sizeable Hindu population, has yielded only two BJP seats, while Mizoram has none. These are not failures of organization alone; they reflect deeper cultural and social fault lines, distinct political histories, and the resonance of regional identities that often run counter to the BJP’s core appeal of Hindutva. In Arunachal Pradesh the pattern of “aya rams and gaya rams” – regional outfits folding into whichever national party is dominant at the Centre -underscores volatility and a transactional streak in local politics. Manipur’s landscape, where the NPP and NPF align with the BJP, shows alliances can be pragmatically engineered to win power but do not automatically translate into coherent regional policy-making. The erosion of Congress as a viable pan-regional opposition after 2014 has left a strategic vacuum. The BJP-led North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA) has benefited from this absence as it faces little organized, cross-state resistance and can stitch together disparate local forces into governing coalitions. Beyond tactical alliances and ministerial berths, the hill states still struggle to articulate and implement economic strategies suited to their unique geographies, demography and developmental constraints. As commented at several times in this column, the North Eastern Council (NEC) has been a facilitator, but its catalytic mandate confines its capacity to drive a comprehensive, bespoke economic vision. More often than not, hill states accept central templates for development designed for vastly different terrains and social contexts. The outcome is implementation that is patchy and projects that fail to unlock structural growth. The over-centralisation of regional planning – with Guwahati frequently treated as the de facto hub for the entire Northeast – exacerbates this imbalance, sidelining smaller hill states and reinforcing perceptions of unequal access to decision-making and resources. Reinventing the NEC along the lines as suggested in this column- with state-specific expert cells, resident researchers and a mandate to draft broad-based regional and state blueprints – would be a meaningful step. Such a mechanism could produce context-sensitive policies for connectivity, sustainable agriculture, hill-appropriate industry, eco-tourism and climate resilience. Decentralising the region’s institutional architecture would ensure that Imphal, Shillong, Aizawl, Itanagar and Kohima are not mere satellites of a Guwahati-centric model. Regional parties must look beyond short-term political gain. Aligning with the Centre can provide immediate advantages, but it should not preclude the long-term task of building institutional capacity and intellectual platforms that engage economists, planners, civil society and the private sector. A non-partisan regional consortium of professionals and policy makers can negotiate with Delhi from a position of knowledge rather than dependence. Alliance politics has guaranteed stability for several states, but it must evolve. If the North East is to convert political access into sustainable development, its regional parties- and the Centre must prioritize institutional innovation, decentralised planning and an economic blueprint tailored to the hills. Only then will electoral alliances translate into genuine and inclusive progress for the region.