
30/07/2025
Across the Northeast, governments taking action against illegal immigration are often praised. Assam’s eviction drives are seen as strong governance. Similar measures in Meghalaya and Nagaland are considered bold steps to protect indigenous rights.
But in Tripura, when Bubagra Pradyot Kishore Manikya raises his voice for the indigenous people, he is labelled as communal. Why is it that when others act, it’s governance but when Tripura’s royal heir defends his people, it becomes controversial?
Is speaking up for indigenous rights in Tripura no longer acceptable? Or is justice now selective, depending on who is speaking and where?