When the BJP, in its so-called Delhi Vision Document, used the phrase “North-east immigrants” to describe the people from the region in the national capital, it rightly caused disquiet and outrage. The generally-accepted meaning of an “immigrant” is “someone who comes to live permanently in a foreign country”. Coming on top of the Hindu extremists’ anti-minority rhetoric, their claims on the Hindu character of the Indian nation and the attacks on churches and a school in Delhi, the misdescription represents the proverbial last straw on the camel&’s back as far as the Northeasterners are concerned.

Social media overflowed with righteous indignation. Many North-east organisations also spoke up in anguish. They could have been the happiest when the Delhi assembly results were out and the BJP gutted.

But is the misdescription such a big deal? It&’s one thing that parties, trying to grab votes in whatever way they can, will not miss such instances to score points and throw mud at each`other. Why do most North-easterners refuse to buy the BJP&’s explanation that the misdescription was a simple “typing error”? And now that the situation has passed, what would be the proper way to read this whole fiasco?

Frankly, I do not believe that the misdescription was intentional. The BJP, as a party, has nothing to gain and everything to lose by such a stupid act. As a Hindu-right party, it always has a perception problem with the North-east states, most of these Christian-dominated. The region may be insignificant in terms of its contribution of parliamentary seats, but it is crucial for the BJP as it attempts to solidify its image as a party with pan-India appeal.

Though it has now found a foothold in some states in the region, there is a temporariness about those electoral conquests and there is still some distance to go before the BJP finds acceptance in the region. It was the AB Vajpayee government that set up a separate ministry for the Northeast region. Perhaps the most serious attempt to resolve the insurgency, particularly the Naga issue, was made during the Vajpayee regime. There is reason to believe that the present BJP government is quite serious about tackling the issues of racism and discrimination against North-easterners in mainland India. It seems intent on seriously implementing the recommendations of the Bezbaruah Committee report, for example.

Whatever the reason for the misdescription, the damage is real — both symbolically and psychologically. The project of integrating the North-east into the Indian national imagination is still a workin-progress. It is sad, and ironic indeed, that just when thousands of North-easterners are trying to come out of the grip of secessionist insurgencies and seek refuge and acceptance in the mainland, they are subjected to racist attacks and being symbolically rebuffed. The BJP did not help itself by clarifying that what it meant to say was “migrants” and not “immigrants”. Many North-easterners in Delhi are permanent residents; “migrants” is a poor choice of term for them.

It is worth recall that things were not always like this. Angami Zapu Phizo, the Naga secessionist rebel, justified the demand for independence, claiming that the Nagas (and all of North-easterners, for that matter) were racially different from Indians. He was steadfast in his claim of being a “Naga”, not an “Indian”. In his biography of Phizo, Zapuphizo: Voice of the Nagas, Pieter Steyn records that when Phizo, accompanied by Michael Scott, reached London on 12 June 1960 after escaping from the Naga hills, there was much drama and bewilderment at Heathrow airport. To immigration officials, Nagaland then was a non-existent land. Nevertheless, Scott introduced Phizo to the immigration authorities as president of the Naga National Council.

When they asked Phizo why he had come without any passport, he replied, “When the British came to my country, they did not bring any passport with them. Why should I now carry one to Britain?” It was only after hours of haggling that Phizo was allowed to enter Britain as an “assumed” Commonwealth citizen. Following in that tradition, other secessionist movements like that of the Mizos were based on the claim of never being Indians.

Most insurgent groups are now willing to talk. Even NSCN(IM) chairman Isak Swu and general secretary Th Muivah now possess Indian passports. But the compromise is still delicate and the connection tenuous. In view of this, the damage caused by the “typing error” in the ruling party&’s Vision document on this very sensitive issue is hard to emphasise, however benign the intention may be. It feeds directly into the secessionist rhetoric of old. One only hopes that no insurgent groups will capitalise on this to advance their secessionist propaganda.

At the end of the day, though, the “typing error” is symptomatic of the general attitude of the mainland, both officially and unofficially, towards the North-east. That attitude is marked by a bored indifference and apathy. No one really cares. No one bothers to check and pay attention until the noise becomes too loud. The North-east is largely considered by the mainland as a region that occasionally causes nuisance and whose uncommon people need to be tamed with funds or guns. That though it may be a strategically important region, its economy is a burden and therefore it is irrelevant in the electoral numbers game. It is an attitude that permeates across all parties and institutions, the blame for which cannot be laid on mainlanders alone.

The writer is delhi-based freelance contributor