
What A Murder Tells Us About India's Hypocritical Treatment of Its Northeast
Real journalism holds power accountable
Since 2015, The Wire has done just that.
But we can continue only with your support.
Contribute Now
In Meghalaya, the last few days have been nothing short of a crime drama written consciously against the backdrop of the pristine, 'aesthetically pleasing' hills. A newlywed couple from Indore who arrived in the state for their honeymoon mysteriously went missing. The husband was soon found dead in a crevice in the hills, and a frantic search for the wife continued while calls for a CBI probe were heard. As CCTV footage, witness accounts and social media takes surfaced, one could almost hear suspenseful music in the background. Then the wife, along with three others, was arrested in Uttar Pradesh. She is now the prime accused in the case.
While the possible explanations for the case still remain myriad, what is most appalling is that between the initial disappearance, and the woman's arrest, the case managed to put an entire state – in fact, an entirety of a notably marginalised region of India – on a public and media trial. The clarity facilitated by the woman's arrest has sparked a notable outrage against this unwarranted defamation that is likely to damage the state's tourism industry. This presumptuous hypocrisy of not just the Indian mainlander but also of a major national news portal was called out even during the initial stages of the case by the likes of Meghalaya journalist and Padma Shri awardee Patricia Mukhim, who criticised a Times of India article that had irresponsibly labelled the hills 'crime-prone.' TOI appears to have now edited the online version of the article.
Edward Said, through his theory of Orientalism (1978), suggests that one of the modes of upkeep of a lopsided power dynamic between an oppressor and the oppressed is the synthesis of a romanticised and 'exoticised' image of the oppressed through a process which he calls 'orientalism'. The chief characteristic of orientalism is that it establishes prejudices about and against the oppressed via their cultural representations which are synthesised and presented by the oppressor themselves. This representation determines the power dynamic between the two classes as they engage. While Said's own work revolves around the specific dichotomy of the West and the East, this theory can no doubt be transplanted into this mainland-periphery relationship within India, and its historically lopsided unfolding.
Until his wife's arrest, the public discourse around the Indore man's murder predictably saw the demonisation of Meghalaya, and the Northeast as a whole, as 'non-tourism-friendly', 'unsafe for outsiders', 'crime-prone', ' jungalee ' and 'brainwashed by Christian missionaries'.
These accusations were ironically and arrogantly prefaced by the claim that the region is heavily tourism dependent.
The Northeast has historically been treated as an exotic amalgam of the mystical, the natural and of 'simple-minded and backward' tribes by the mainland. Of course, there has not been any true engagement with the people of these lands – be it from podcasters accusing women from Mayong of turning men into goats, or Bollywood, where films show 'NE' written on the registration plates of vehicles in a film about, and set vaguely, in the Northeast.
It is this exoticisation – now optimised through the powers of social media – that has triggered the idea that the Northeast is, or if not, that it must become a 'tourist destination'. Having lived in Meghalaya for a significant portion of my own life as an 'outsider', I find this idea nothing more than a clandestine attempt towards breaking the spirit of the Meghalayan people and their right to self-determination on economic and political terms. It also quite clearly contradicts the tangible realities of the state.
As prominent literature about the region, such as Sanjoy Hazarika's Strangers of the Mist (2000) suggests, having been significantly starved of the ointment of social, political and economic attention unlike the country's mainland, the Northeast is recovering from the pangs of British imperialist plunder at a much slower pace than the former. This is one of the catalysts of dissent amongst various peoples of the Northeast against the Indian state itself.
Also read: An Open Letter: 'I Have Small Eyes, Mr Prime Minister'
Even without accounting for armed secessionist movements, and within the constitutional fold itself, there are indications that the region craves a more equitable protection of cultural and linguistic rights in face of continuing threats of their erasure, along with demographic changes. In Meghalaya, these include demands for an Inner Line Permit (ILP) system that makes the tracking of entry and egress of non-residents of the state a more transparent (and perhaps complicated) process. There is also a longstanding organised dissent against the Union government's railway extension plans into the state, led by major political organisations such as the Khasi Student's Union (KSU).
Moreover, much of the state's and region's public memory retains the historically proven idea that the reaction of the Indian state to these concerns has generally been that of violence. In recent times, this has been coupled with a significant insecurity regarding the mainland-centric Hindutva agenda of reimagining 'tribality' as an offshoot of Hindutva, to make political inroads into the peripheral state.
Speaking of Meghalaya as a 'tourist hotspot' is in the same ballpark as Donald Trump's declaration about 'wanting to turn Gaza into a luxurious tourist spot', and the frequent mentions of 'tourism' in post-Article 370 Kashmir.
One senses a re-packaged imposition of the mainland's interests over the right of the Northeastern people to make their own political and economic, and therefore cultural, decisions. In fact, the almost neo-colonial characteristic of travel-influencing in the Northeast is palpable in people's phone screens now, as reach-hungry vloggers 'discover the undiscovered' with every other video, no differently from how Columbus 'discovered' America. 'Hidden gems' and 'secret spots' are unveiled and 'tourist spots' are manufactured in the aphotic parts of the region. This is, of course, also facilitated by private tour operators presenting sanitised clips of 'must visit' spots in the region as 'alternatives to international destinations'. Unintended consequences of this are microcosmic shifts from agrarian or natural resource-based economies in these places, to the more unpredictable and 'tourist-dependent' models of income. And of course, there is the mushrooming of 'concrete' structures in and around such spots and the ecological threat they bring.
In a clear attempt to render it toothless, even the Northeasterner's anger becomes exoticised as a product of what the mainland portrays as their 'simplemindedness'. This idea legitimises mainland India's racially prejudiced 'we know what is better for them' attitude. Consequently, the image of the Northeastern people as 'mindlessly violent' and 'wild' tribals has been intricately embedded in the mainland's consciousness. Thus, when any tangible violence against the mainlander unfolds within the northeastern region, such as the case of the Indore man's murder, the quickest assumption is that it was inflicted by the local.
And it must be noted that this is despite the fact that there are no real statistics to back up claims of any patterns of hostilities towards tourists in the state. In fact, as tourism gradually increases in the Northeast, instances of tourists not respecting the land have grown. For instance, in December, 2024, Akash Sagar, a social media influencer with 1.5 million followers on Instagram, uploaded videos of himself provocatively chanting 'Jai Shri Ram', and singing Hindu hymns inside the Church of Epiphany located in Meghalaya's famously 'cleanest Asian village', Mawlynnong. This led to criticism and an FIR. Similarly, in another incident in June, 2025, a local man was physically attacked by a group of intoxicated tourists from Uttar Pradesh. And yet, in these cases, national – and local –reports have had the decency to not speculate such incidents as indicators of stereotypical characteristics of tourists visiting the state.
Meghalaya need not be at the beck and call of its tourism industry for its prosperity. There is no precondition to its existence that compels its people to turn every inch of their homeland into an amusement park for tourists from other states. Whether or not it is, and will be a tourist destination —and to what extent it will—depends significantly on the consent and mandate of its people, and not only on government policy and state highhandedness. It is of the utmost importance that the discourse, and the industry itself, de-centres the mainlander and makes it about the people of the state and their interests.
Ayaan Halder is a poet, author and doctoral research scholar at the Department of Law, Gauhati University, Assam (India). He spent his childhood and teenage years in Meghalaya, and is still closely associated with residents of the state.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
India won't take first step to normalise ties, onus on Pakistan: Shashi Tharoor
Shashi Tharoor stated that India won't initiate normalizing relations with Pakistan due to repeated betrayals. He urged Pakistan to dismantle terror networks operating from its soil. Tharoor recalled past attempts at outreach that were met with hostility. He cited the 2008 Mumbai attacks as a key example of Pakistan's insincerity. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads India no longer has the appetite to take the first step in normalising ties with Pakistan after repeated betrayals, senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor said on Tuesday, urging Islamabad to demonstrate sincerity by dismantling terror networks operating from its was speaking at the launch of the book "Whither India-Pakistan Relations Today?", an anthology edited by former ambassador Surendra Thiruvananthapuram MP said every Indian attempt at outreach -- from Jawaharlal Nehru 's pact with Liaqat Ali Khan in 1950, to Atal Bihari Vajpayee's bus journey to Lahore in 1999, and Narendra Modi 's Lahore visit in 2015 -- had been "betrayed" by hostility from across the border."Given the record of Pakistani behaviour, the onus is on them. They're the ones who have to take the first steps to show some sincerity about dismantling terror infrastructure on their soil."Why can't they be serious about shutting down these terror camps? Everyone knows where they are. The UN committee has a list of 52 names of individuals, organisations and places in Pakistan. It's not that Pakistan doesn't know they exist," Tharoor said, "Shut them down, arrest some of these characters, show some serious intent." India would be more than willing to reciprocate once such action is taken, but won't take the first step now, the Congress leader the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, Tharoor said India had provided "overwhelming evidence" of Pakistani involvement, including live intercepts and dossiers, yet "not one mastermind has been prosecuted".He noted that New Delhi showed "extraordinary restraint" after attacks, but subsequent provocations left India with little choice, leading to surgical strikes in 2016 and 'Operation Sindoor'."In my book Pax Indica, which was published in 2012, I had warned that if there was ever another Mumbai-like attack of comparable impact, with clear evidence of Pakistani complicity, the restraint we had shown in 2008 might become impossible and all bets would be off."And indeed, that is exactly what happened. No democratic government, least of all in India with its long record of betrayals by Pakistan, could sit idle while its neighbour assaults its civilians and innocent holidaymakers with impunity," he also stressed that "peace and tranquillity on the borders is indispensable to our national interest", and cited the reconciliation between France and Germany after World War II, as well as the United States' eventual ties with Vietnam, as examples of adversaries turning into discussion was also joined by former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal, former Indian ambassador to Pakistan T C A Raghavan, ex-Army chief general Deepak Kapoor and academician Amitabh Mattoo.


The Hindu
21 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Trump imposed tariffs on India to end Russia-Ukraine war, says White House
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) said that U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed sanctions on India to bring an end to the Russia-Ukraine war. 'The President has put tremendous public pressure to bring this war to a close. He has taken actions as you seen sanctions on India and other actions as well. He has made himself very clear that he wants to see this war end,' she added. Earlier, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Tuesday (August 19, 2025) accused India of 'profiteering' by reselling Russian oil while sparing China for the same, saying it has 'diversified inputs of their oil.' The remarks came amid strain in India-U.S. relations after Mr. Trump imposed tariffs totalling 50% on India. This includes 25% for New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil that will come into effect from August 27. While replying to a question on CNBC on the different treatment of China and India for purchasing Russian oil, Mr. Bessent said China's oil imports from Russia have increased only 3% post the Russia-Ukraine war, while India's oil imports from Russia have increased over 40%. 'China's importing (Russian oil) is suboptimal. If you go back and look pre- 2022, pre-invasion (of Ukraine by Russia), 13% of China's oil was already coming from Russia; now it's 16%, so China has diversified inputs of their oil,' said Mr. Bessent. Mr. Bessent added that 'less than one per cent' of Indian oil was coming from Russia pre-invasion 'and now I believe it's up to 42%'. 'India is just profiteering; they are reselling... They made 16 billion in excess profits... some of the richest families in India. This is a completely different thing,' added Bessent. He further said that this 'Indian arbitrage, buying cheap oil and reselling it as a product, has just sprung up during the war... is just unacceptable.' Mr. Bessent made similar comments last week ahead of the Trump-Putin meeting. In an interview with Bloomberg, he said if 'things don't go well' between Trump and Putin at the summit meeting, then secondary sanctions on India for purchasing Russian oil could go up. India has called the tariffs 'unjustified and unreasonable'. Trump ended India-Pakistan conflict, says White House The White House once again claimed that Mr. Trump has ended the military conflict between India and Pakistan. 'The President is using the might of American strength to demand that respect from our allies, our friends, and our adversaries all around the world,' Ms. Leavitt said at a press briefing. She said that it was seen not only in the progress with Russia and Ukraine but also 'in the closing of seven global conflicts around the world'. 'We've seen it with the end of the conflict between India and Pakistan, which could have resulted in a nuclear war if we had not had a President who believed in the strength and the leverage that comes with the job of being the President of the United States of America,' Ms. Leavitt said. In an answer to another question, Ms. Leavitt said that Mr. Trump used trade 'in a very powerful way as leverage' to bring the India-Pakistan conflict to an end. Since May 10, when Mr. Trump announced on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to a 'full and immediate' ceasefire after a 'long night' of talks mediated by Washington, he has repeated his claim over 40 times that he 'helped settle' the tensions between India and Pakistan. India has been consistently maintaining that the understanding on cessation of hostilities with Pakistan was reached following direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said in Parliament that no leader of any country asked India to stop Operation Sindoor.


Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
‘Sanctions on India' part of Trump's plan to stop Russia-Ukraine war, says White House - The Economic Times Video
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt revealed that President Trump imposed new sanctions on India to apply indirect pressure on Russia to end the Ukraine war. The tariff rate on Indian goods was raised to 50%, doubling the existing rate. Leavitt described this as 'secondary pressure' to force Moscow's hand. The announcement followed Trump's meeting with Ukrainian President ZelenskKy, where Trump expressed openness to a trilateral meeting with Putin to help resolve the conflict.