Write abstract (150 words) Introduction (600 words), Research methodology with theoretical framework (500 words), in polished academic style using Complex vocabulary and sentence structures, including varied punctuation and transition words and Tone must be active, informative and authoritative and writing style is coherent, consistent, and organized and the sentences are logically structured to create a clear and progressive flow of ideas

The North-eastern insurgency in India and the Bangladesh war of Independence (1971), which resulted in the separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan, are considered two of the most devastating occurrences in South Asia, causing countless fatalities and incalculable losses in property. Since India’s independence in 1947, the North-east region has been plagued by a proliferation of separatist conflicts and violent uprisings. Although the motives and objectives behind these movements have evolved over time, the pursuit of a unified homeland has consistently remained a ubiquitous motif unifying them. Similarly, a series of egregious and prejudicial practices inflicted by West Pakistan on East Pakistan catalysed the latter’s aspiration for autonomy, culminating in a tumultuous struggle against its authoritarian rule. However, what remains unaddressed in these overarching narratives are the perspectives of those who lived or who live through the conflict: families, rebels, and marginalized groups such as women and children. A deeper understanding of war and insurgency can only be achieved by examining these voices, which are often ignored by the mainstream media. Therefore, this paper aims to critically analyze two literary works that provide perspectives from all crucial stakeholder groups, exploring themes of conflict, autonomy, accountability, and sacrifice. By examining familial bonds, affection, obligation, cultural hegemony, ethnicity, and the integrity of both the rebels and the oppressors, this study seeks to conduct a comparative analysis of these texts, building upon the premise that they offer unique insights into the complex nature of these events.

 Covering nearly an area of 2,62,179 km2, North-east India comprises the seven contiguous states of Assam, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, and Arunachal Pradesh, besides a new inclusion in the form of Sikkim. The region shares an international border with countries like China, Bangladesh, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, and Bhutan. Its connectivity to mainland India is facilitated via a thin strip of land known as the “chicken neck.” Besides, the North-east region is a melting pot of diverse ethnic groups who have immigrated or migrated to this region from different parts of the world and at various historical periods. As a result, the region boasts a rich cultural tapestry, with a range of distinct communities belonging to different racial groups, speaking diverse languages and practicing distinct customs and traditions.
Since India’s independence in 1947, the North-east region has been plagued by a proliferation of separatist conflicts and violent uprisings. Although the motives and objectives behind these movements have evolved over time, the pursuit of a unified homeland has consistently remained a ubiquitous motif unifying them. These sub-national movements, therefore, can be viewed as a manifestation or a response to the Indian State’s hegemonic and oppressive approach towards its attempts to assimilate the ethnic groups in the North-east. The State, by disregarding the unique cultural, historical, linguistic, societal, religious, and class differences among these groups, portrays them as a homogenous entity with the same needs as the rest of mainland India. In an effort to enhance the “legitimacy of the system,” the State endeavours to promote a “unifying sense of symbols, history, and purpose,” with the ultimate aim of forging a singular national identity, State, and homeland. 
Nonetheless, despite the efforts made by the State to restructure and define social space as part of the national territory, the people of the North-east region maintain a strong attachment to the idea of a homeland. This attachment is evident in their persistent struggle, rooted in a multi-ethnic region where the preservation of individual identity is perceived to be at risk under assimilation. In this light, Chatterjee critiques the notion of a unified Indian nationalism and argues that there are multiple “coexisting national voices” or “fragments,” including those of “women, peasants, the elite, castes, and outcasts,” each with its own distinct discourse. This is why both civil society and insurgent groups in the North-east jointly question the validity of Indian nationhood by contrasting it with the state of affairs in the pre-independence era when the region was comprised of several independent entities governed in various forms. The underlying motive behind this collective challenge is driven by a deep sense of loyalty to protect their culture, assert their dominance over other groups, and preserve their distinct identity, which often leads to intense ethnic confrontations.
Academic and political analysts have approached the study of the North-eastern insurgency conflict with a variety of analytical frameworks and perspectives. A cohort of intellectuals, such as T.S Murthy in his work Assam: The Difficult Years- A Study of Political Developments in 1979-1983 (1983), Amalendu Guha in Planter Raj to Swaraj: Freedom Struggle and Electoral Politics in Assam 1826-1947 (1977) and Hiren Gohain’s Assam: A Burning Question (1985), delve into the theme of insurgency by considering the impact of ‘migratory’ patterns on the region. Their insightful research places emphasis on British colonialism as the root cause of migration and the subsequent formation of communal identities among tribal communities in Assam. The demand for labour in British Assam brought about a continuous influx of migrants from Bengal and other nearby areas, causing apprehension among the local population about being relegated to secondary status in their own homeland. This fear of marginalization gave rise to the formation of a new identity among these various ethnic groups, ultimately leading to insurgency movements and ethnic conflicts.
In contrast, Sanjib Baruah, among other analysts, examines the role of ‘language politics’ in driving the insurgency and ethnic movements in North-east India. The imposition of the Bengali language on the native population resulted in the fragmentation of the diverse cultural landscape. Over time, the indigenous people harboured negative sentiments towards the Bengali migrants, perceiving them as exerting control over every aspect of their lives, including the social, cultural, economic, and political domains. Subsequently, these movements evolved into a struggle for the acknowledgement and validation of their local languages and dialects. As Udayon Misra (2014) asserts that the “growth of Assamese nationalism has been inextricably tied up with the question of official recognition of the Assamese language.” 
According to Marxist theorists, the root cause of the conflict in the North-east region is attributed to the underdevelopment and class fragmentation resulting from the colonial policies implemented by the central government. These researchers assert that the ethnic tensions in the region are perpetuated by the pre-existing privileged elites, who compete to shape the political and institutional systems to their advantage, with the ultimate goal of securing greater prosperity and progress. The conflict is thus viewed within the framework of clashing interests among ethnic groups, each seeking to assert dominance and control over the region’s resources.
Literary practitioners of the region have tackled a plethora of subjects in their literary works, including but not limited to immigration, cultural estrangement, racial tensions, violence, crises of self-identity, and political and economic issues. Despite the diversity of subject matter, the recurrent presence of conflict serves to create a harmonious sense of discord throughout their oeuvre. In addition to challenging the dominant discourse and representing marginalized perspectives, these authors also aim to infuse the collective imagination of their homeland through their literary creations.
An examination of the studies mentioned above and methodologies employed to analyse the North-east insurgency reveals a predominant focus on contextualizing the conflict through historical, linguistic, class, political, and economic lenses. This approach, while significant in establishing the identity of insurgent groups, has limited the discourse on the Northeast insurgency to these dichotomies and has failed to address a host of unresolved questions. The focus of these overarching narratives often neglect the human element and the personal experiences of those impacted by the insurgency, such as families, rebels, and marginalized groups such as women, and children. By giving voice to these individuals, a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the insurgency can be gained. As noted by Desai (2020), the stories of these individuals, who are frequently ignored by mainstream media, are crucial in filling the gaps left by conventional approaches. For this reason, I have chosen to examine this issue through the lens of the offbeat narrative, How to Tell the Story of an Insurgency (2020) by Aruni Kashyap, to explore the problem from multiple angles.
The book is a meticulously curated compilation of fifteen narratives, edited by Aruni Kashyap, a preeminent figure in the realm of Assamese literature. These stories, originally written in Assamese, Bodo, and English, “attempt to humanize the longstanding” and often brutal conflict in North-east India, “that the rest of India knows of only through facts and figures or reports in newspapers and on television channels.”  The stories within the compilation traverse a plethora of themes such as love, family, home, insurgency, freedom, sacrifice, and self-identity, offering multifarious perspectives that range from those of insurgents, parents, police officers, siblings, and children. This not only adds depth to the authenticity and credibility of the narratives but also provides a comprehensive picture of the complex and nuanced nature of the conflict. The focus of the text lies on ‘individual stories’ and their interactions with the environment. By bringing the reader into close proximity with the lived realities of the conflict, How to Tell the Story of an Insurgency goes beyond merely chronicling events and instead seeks to provide an insightful and empathetic perspective on the human dimension of the conflict.
Bangladesh War of Independence
The examination of the events leading up to East Pakistan’s (present-day Bangladesh) fight for independence in 1971 uncovers certain contributing factors that are analogous to those observed in the North-eastern insurgency. After the partition of India into India and Pakistan in 1947, East Pakistan, an area largely composed of Muslims, was incorporated into Pakistan’s jurisdiction. This resulted in the formation of a nation consisting of two Muslim-majority regions: one in the East, known as East-Pakistan, and another in the West, known as West-Pakistan, separated in between by the vast Indian Territory. However, over time, the West started to exhibit a colonial attitude towards the East, causing a rift between the two regions despite their shared religious foundations. The condescending and paternalistic behaviour by West Pakistan towards East Pakistan reached a boiling point, leading to the initiation of a full-scale independence movement in the form of the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971.
The administration, headquartered in the West, engaged in a pernicious exploitation of the economic situation in East Pakistan. Despite East Pakistan contributing a greater share to the generation of revenue, resources were apportioned unevenly between the two regions, with the East’s resources being depleted and utilized solely for the development of the West. Furthermore, the representation of East Pakistanis in administration and governance was marginal, tailored to serve the interests of the Western elite who did not hesitate to commit acts of injustice against the Eastern population. East Pakistanis were deemed unworthy of holding higher positions in government, leading to a destruction of their self-esteem and pride.
In the second place, central government’s (West Pakistan) decision to impose Urdu as the official language of Pakistan sounded an alarm for the East Pakistanis, who perceived this move as a threat to their own unique culture and language, Bengali. They recognized that if they failed to safeguard their culture and language from the aggression of the West Pakistan administration, they would become extinct. Hence, it was this persistent political, economic, linguistic and social exploitation that the East Pakistanis were subjected to prior to their eventual independence and serves as a testament to the struggle and sacrifices made in the name of self-determination. Nevertheless, the narratives surrounding the independence of Bangladesh, much like the North-eastern insurgency, are bereft of the invaluable perspective provided by individual voices. This absence of personal accounts impairs our comprehension of the intricacies and tribulations experienced by individuals in these tumultuous situations. Therefore, to address this gap, Tahmima Anam’s novel A Golden Age (2007) has been chosen as another text to analyse the Bangladesh War of Independence and its parallels with the North-east insurgency. Through its central protagonist Rehana’s voice, the reader gains an intimate understanding of the thoughts, emotions, and motivations of an individual caught up in the historical events of the era.
Tahmima Anam’s literary work A Golden Age, is a thought-provoking narrative that delves into the intricacies of the 1971 Bangladesh war of independence. The story, which is told from the perspective of Rehana Haque, a woman, highlights the centrality of love, family, emotions, and sacrifice, and how these themes intersect with larger issues of violence, turmoil, self-identity, and otherness. Through a nuanced exploration of its characters, the novel illuminates the nature and essence of revolution, the iniquity of oppression, and the difficult choices that individuals must make in times of uncertainty.
Now building upon the premise that the two primary texts delve into themes of conflict, autonomy, accountability, and sacrifice, this paper endeavours to conduct a comparative analysis of the works through the lens of familial bonds, affection, obligation, cultural hegemony, ethnicity, and the integrity of both the rebels and the oppressors