Abstract

Terminology defines to an individual/ethnic groups/communities identity. Application of correct terminology to identify to an individual/ethnic groups/communities is most important one. It is perceived, the affinity of language, culture and literatures, religions, and alike customs and traditions help group or regroup the scattered groups. So as to the Boro tribe interfaced the same. Identity becomes an identity when it gets acceptance by own group as well as others – notified and accepted. Terminologies as usage to a particular identity or name changes with changing times, spaces, perceptions and aspirations of the people with the arrangement of democratic dictates. And hence this paper aims to ascertain the terminological shifts with the changing time and political spaces of Boro tribe was lumped in to a colonial constructed ‘Plains Tribes’ term. It attempts to explain how Boro linguistic groups have been identified as Bodo by others (outsiders). It also analyses the genesis of Boro language development as to find the intrinsic elements that bound the Boro tribes to accept Bodo as Boro though mass Boro population proudly acknowledge themselves as Boro.

Key Words: Bodo, Boro, Bodo/Boro-Kacharis, Plains Tribes.

Nironjon Islary is Doctoral scholar, Tata Institute of Social Science, Mumbai

Bodo Defined

The Bodo is generic term which first used by Hodgson (Brahma 1992), to identify the alike groups of people belonging to the Bodos that were numerically and sociologically one of the most important tribes of India’s northeast. They (Bodos) are constituted by different groups of people who migrated from a tract of Tibetan land called as ‘Bod’ and hence the race called ‘Bodo’ is derived from it. But no concrete historical records or traditional evidences, either written or oral, of availability are found to support to these views. The basis of alike physical appearances, natures, customs and traditions of them help it to deemed to be termed as a group of ‘Mongoloid’ race. They are considered to be the earliest settlers of northeast India. Scattered both in to the hills and the plains areas of undivided Assam, Tripura, West Bengal, Nepal and adjoining regions of Bangladesh. For while their descendants have been considered as early settlers in the said regions/areas by locales inhabitants. The moved of those scattered groups are presumed to be initiated specifically from the south-east Tibet via Upper Burma (Myanmar). Therefore with due courses of time and space they had interfaced with locales Burmese inhabitants, intermixed with the new cultures and customs let them being ascribed anthropologically into a cocktail group identity called ‘Tibeto-Burman’ (race) that is validated the route they took at times of their moved, and now whole offspring of those scattered groups are called to be the origin of Tibeto-Burman (Roy 1995).

Gradual growth of their population, pressures from new other immigrants, interfacing the changed of different regimes on the basis of socio-political, economic and modern social institutions at the cost of whole traditional systems, forced some of them to move further in to the unoccupied isolated forested and hilly areas, settled in the areas such as Brahmaputra Valley, and North Cachar both hills and plains of Assam, Garo Hills of Meghalaya, Tripura both hills and plains, north West Bengal, south-eastern part of Nepal, and adjoining foot-hills regions of present Bangladesh. The rapid transitions through the intermixed of sociocultural, political and economic spheres, the new generation of those scattered groups subsequently acquired variations in their language, custom, culture and even some extent physical features through inter-marriage and close association with other locales inhabitants, and in that process further caused the gap of close association with their original kinsman. In lieu of such kinds, in courses of time and space, they have acquired separate tribe identities such as Lalungs, Rabhas, Koches, and Sonowal Kacharis in Brahmaputra Valley, Dimasas in North Cachar Hills, Burman in Cachar plains, Tippra in Tripura, Garos in Meghalaya, and Hajongs in the adjoining foot-hills of Bangladesh, Meches in lower Assam, north Bengal and south-eastern Nepal. These acquired separate identities are social construction that emerged at the conditions of time, space and often association with locales inhabitants and the lack of accessed to interaction with their kinsman (Roy 1995).

With the advent of Ahoms from the Shan race of erstwhile from north-west regions of Thailand in to the kingdoms where once Bodos ruled undisputedly almost entire regions of undivided Assam’s plains areas and partly some hills regions, had been snapped bit by bit by the advanced Ahom invaders and lost most of the settled territories until the arrival of colonial rulers into Assam. As the domination of Ahoms over different Bodo dynastical kings’ ruled kingdoms increased, the Bodo kings and some of their closely associated subjects including warriors, shifted to different new territories and discovered new lands and established new kingdoms. Thus the existence of many new Bodo kingdoms are found recorded in history. So as to safeguard to protect their distinct Mongoloid sociocultural identity in an association of territorial boundaries, Bodos moved from the Dimapur to the present Dima Hasao hill district and Cachar, as a result the identity of Bodos have been variegating in social inter-mixed and inter-marriage between locales inhabitants of the new territories, acquired new identity as Dimasa who lived in Dima Hasao hill district, the Kacharis who lived in Cachar district and subsequently some of the groups of recent Bodo groups have acquired the suffix of the Kacharis as an identity such as Sonowal-Kacharis, Thengal-Kacharis, Tiuwa Kacharis, Boro-Kacharis, etc., of present day Assam (Sonowal 2010).

Common identical name of Bodos further shifted from the time when the colonial rulers divided whole Bodos and other ethnic groups on the basis of their place of residence – hills and plains – to identify them into two separate group as Hill Tribes and Plains Tribes. So with the advent of colonial rulers the identity of whole mongoloid racial groups including Bodos origin of Tibeto-Burman group were grouped on the basis of hills and plains. Majority Bodo groups were separated from the hills and they were lumped into a new monolithic colonial constructed group identity called Plains Tribes (Pathak 2010). Bodos were termed/ascribed by the colonial construction as Bodo-Kacharis, among these groups some of them converted into Hinduism over the period of time and accepted alien culture and custom, gave up their traditional customs and traditions and they gradually forgotten their Bodo language and became a part of a greater Hindu caste composite Assamese society. Today these groups have completely forgotten their language and accepted Assamese and some extent Bengali language as their mother tongue as for instances the Sonowal-Kacharis, Tengal-Kacharis, Chutiya, Moran, etc. the Boros, Rabhas, Garos and some groups have retained their original language and culture despite undergoing so much of upheavals in the process of modernisation and civilisation of twenty-first century. With due changing times, spaces, socio-political and governing patterns the generic term ‘Bodo’ has been changed on the claims of Mech or Mes and the Kacharis be their identity (Brahma 1992) and indeed now Boros to whom used to be called/known as the Kacharis or Meches are identified as Bodo for many sense, though they are linguistically known/called as Boro.

Delineation about Boros

Boro is known/called as Bodo. The Bodo terminology is used political deliberations and is widely been used in the academic spheres, continued to use since the older generation scholars till today, it is being used to denote the earliest Indo-Mongoloid migrants who subsequently spread over different parts of north-eastern regions (Bengal, Assam and Tripura) of India (Choudhury 2013). Though they (Bodo-Kocharis) spread over many regions of mentioned states however, they were mostly found in lived along the foot-hills of the Himalayas in Northern Bengal and Assam, who are actually retained their Bodo-Kocharis original language but intermixed to the belonging Hindu people who have intruded into what was once their undisputed home (Endle 2010). Though they once scattered and ruled entire regions of Assam valley and even some parts of hills in different dynastical names and founded many kingdoms subsequently decayed at the hands of powerful and advanced intruders from the Shout-East Burmese and the Tai Ahom and the West of Indian states, and totally ruined by the colonial rulers. They were pushed back from their own kingdoms, settled mainly in the districts of Kamrup, Goalpara, Darang and Nagaon of the Brahmaputra valley (Choudhury 2013). In the process of decades long Boroland movement the half portion of Boros’ population are confined into a newly created Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) comprises of four districts – Kokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udalguri that was once the part of former undivided districts. More or less, more than or little less Boros’ populations than the BTC are lived in outside the BTC and they spread over different districts of Assam, who speaks Boro language and retained the same tradition and cultures.

Boros have been interfaced conversion, assimilation and discrimination that leading to the majority Boro elites to adhere to the Hindu faith leaving out the animistic faith (Bathou) and have become hinduaised, small significant Boros have become Christian and some remained in to original modernised Bathouism, ideas and information have been shared with Aryans that developed modern Boro elites, but still the common people among the Boro tribes retained their old language and culture and have continued to do so right up to the present days (Roy 1995).

Population Strength

Boros are the single largest Scheduled Tribe (ST) in India’s northeast including present state of Assam. They are notified as plains tribal and spread over across the state of Assam whose population is included in the 12.83 (2011 census) per cent of STs total Population and little less than half per cent of 12.83 per cent STs is Boros population, of Assam. More or less, more than or little less Boros population lived in BTC whose population included in the 52 per cent of STs population (2001 census) in which 90 per cent constituted Boros population. Overall the Boro population was 13, 52,771 against the 33, 08,570 total STs Population of Assam which stood 40.9 per cent against the 100 percent of STs (2001 census).

Political Recognition

Boros are politically recognised as Bodos that is widely used in political deliberation whatever available the tribal development funds are centrally as well as state is, made through the Tribal Sub-planned since post independent. Pre-independent period, Boros were recognised as Boro-Kacharis by the colonial rulers, and their representation was taken into consideration within the Tribal League domain. Apparently the Tribal League was dominated by Boro-Kachari/Boro leaders. Therefore the beginning of political representation of Boros on the sought of political recognition was entrusted with the platform of Tribal League during colonial rule. Post independent, until early 1960s Boros did not form any political organisation except the literary body called Bodo Sahitya Sabha (BSS) in 1952 which emerged to work towards the language and cultural development by creating Boro literatures. It was only 1967, when Plains Tribal Council of Assam (PTCA) came into being, primarily to unite all the plains tribals once again that was once united while the Tribal League was active, to seek social, political and economic rights that have been neglected by the subsequent congress led State Government. In PTCA too, participation of Boro leaderships were found more active and loud as a result Boros could gain more political attention to press their aspiration with a demand of ‘Udayachal’ separate state for plains tribes. Consequently since 1967 until late 1970s, PTCA became a single political instrumental organisation of Boros.

Lack of commitment on demand of separate state of Udayachal, instabilities of leaderships’ stance and the feuds of leaderships from within – collapsed the PTCA’s movement. Subsequently All Bodo Student Union (ABSU) which came into being a few months before PTCA was formed (1967), withdrew their supports. Single handedly under the leadership of late Upendra Nath Brahma, ABSU launched Bodoland movement in 1987 and was ended with Bodoland Autonomous Council (BAC) Accord 1993. This accord for the first time gave some political and economic powers to the Boros to govern themselves in their dominated areas. It was a political mark the Bodoland was in the line of Boro identity, given recognition without clear constitutional safeguard. A few years later the BAC fell apart due to various reasons, and the new movement for separate state of Boroland was resumed by the Bodo Liberation Tiger (BLT) who undertook the means of underground as methods of their fight that resulted the bitter and violent activities and that also eventually ended with the Bodoland Territorial Council Areas’ District (BTAD) in short Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) Accord in 2003. With this second accord Boros have gained some constitutional safeguard that they lagged since the colonial ruled. Now Boros are safeguarded under the Sixth Schedule of Indian Constitution through which their language, ethnic identity and sociocultural and political rights are ensured to be safeguarded. Boros have been also viewed as a deciding political factors of legislative assembly and parliamentarian politics of Assam and India.

Culture and Linguistic Uniqueness

The Boro culture and language have been the crucial factors of Boros ethnic and identity assertion. Boros are sentimental on their culture and language thus they never retreat to acknowledge their culture as different as the Aryanised languages such as Assamese, Bengali, Hindi, etc. Cultural attires of Boro women wear, ‘Bwisagu’ festival, ‘Bathou’ religion, songs in the dance of ‘Bagurumba’ dunce by Boro women wearing different coloured ‘Dokona and Aronai’ after harvesting, food habits and habitations, and language – all these contributed to be different than the ‘others’. Boros have been, partially and fully, able to retained their culture and language despite being interfaced external forces of assimilation, conversion, modern civilisation, discrimination, prejudice, and hegemony from the advanced castes/races from the times of Ahom invasion and extensively continued until independent as well as until the Boroland movement. With growth of educated ‘ethno-centric’ middle class by late 1950s, Boros subsequently succeeded put forward their aspiration in seeking to preserve and to protect their sociocultural and linguistic identity alive – with developing literatures in whatever means they could – accelerated awareness among the Boros about their distinct culture and language, upsurged unity to protect to safeguard from the gallows of modern civilisation force and the hegemony of advance castes/races, that enhanced to demand of establishing Boro medium primary schools in the Boro villages to be imparted in Boro – came into being in 1963 and gradually it has been extended till the post-graduation in Boro till date. Besides, Boro language has been recognised as an associate official language of Assam (1985) and it also included in ‘Eight Schedule’ of Indian Constitution (2003).

Boro Ethnicity

Boro ethnicity began slowly from the Brahmanism movement headed by Gurudev Kalicharan Brahma. Persistent growth of educated middle class quickened the ethnic consciousness among the Boro community. The formation of Boro Satra Sanmilan (Boro student union) in 1920 became a potential platform to the Boro ethnocentric student activists to mobilise the mass Boro population, it united the middle class educated groups. It helped to consolidate other ethnic groups via kinship and/or common extended nuclear families of the Bodo-Kacharis stock that collectivised in to a single colonial constructed identity called ‘plains tribes’, it included other ethnic groups and together became vital political force. Some common socio-political problems, grievances and interests of plains tribes united, helped creation of Tribal League in 1933, to represent all plains tribes in greater political forums. Persistent demand via valid reasons helped to get four reserved seats in the Assam Provincial Assembly. Elected members from the reserved seats through Tribal League domain help negotiated to bargain the sociocultural rights, political and economic powers as well as bound the Muslim League Ministry to enlist a separate Bodo-Kacharis population in the census of 1941.

It became a benchmark and thereafter Boro leaders of Tribal League floated in to the congress party after independent, some of them got elected and became cabinet ministers. Their presence in the congress ministry and conviction to work for the interest of Boro community paved inroad to the Boro leaders to have an indirect political backing in need. The BSS effort, help worked hard to resurgent the Boro language, and produced Boro literatures with aimed to establish the Boro as a master race. It demanded Boro medium primary schools to be established in the Boro villages. The state government reciprocated the demand in 1963 and established some primary schools to be imparted in Boro language in the majority Boro dominated villages.

Subsequent growth of educated groups from younger generation consolidated to creation of All Bodo Student Union (ABSU) in 1967. It became a strong force. Immediately ABSU and BSS jointly launched democratic movement for introduction of Boro language in Roman script in the Boro medium secondary schools in 1968. The state denied the demand. Both ABSU and BSS launched a vigorous script movement between 1974 and 1975. Yet the movement vehemently dismantled by the state and it claimed more than 15 lives of Boros. But the assertion of Assamese linguistic identity followed by the recognition it as a lone official language in 1961 monopolised all governmental business along the line of Assamese language. Introduced it as medium of instruction in all educational institutions and authorised to use it only means of communication in all the government business transactions. It disregarded the sentiment of Boros and other tribes and it became a vital driving force to assert their distinct language to be recognised as an associate official language.

The formation of PTCA motivated to demand a separate state of Udayachal for plains tribes. PTCA in collaboration of ABSU and BSS launched the movement on the basis of fractional historical evidences, comprising a vast geographical areas from the foothills of Bhutan to the Brahmaputra River via extended or common ethnic groups. However with due course of time the leaderships of the PTCA rift from within, movement collapsed. Then ABSU withdrew its supports prepared to launch Boroland movement thus when its extensive mobilisations were on the heights, All Assam Student Union (AASU) launched Assam Movement to detect and deport aliens/foreigners in 1979 and ABSU postponed its proposed movement, actively supported to AASU and six years later Assam movement ended with Assam accord in 1985. Quickly after the accord, AASU student activists formed Assam Gana Parishad (AGP) a regional party and majority of them floated in, contested election and own significant majority and formed the government. Quickly some clauses of the Assam accord let to believe the Boro leaders being cheated and the action taken by the AGP government of detection and eviction resulted eviction of some significant Boro families from the forest, these together became a solid ground for Boros resentment against the state, gave a way to construct ethnicity.

Therefore, ABSU consolidated all unheeded problems and grievances since independent such as denial of roman script to be used in Boro language, denial of admission of Boro students in the state reputed colleges and universities, discrimination and exclusion in the government jobs for Boros, etc., all these have been propagated to the mass and launched Boroland movement by 1987 for a separate state of Boroland which ended with Bodoland Autonomous Council (BAC) accord in 1993. This movement united almost all majority Boro organisations. Thus movement became so strong and violent in which many Boros were killed, tortured, displaced, and women were raped by the state police. These adversities on the Boro community meted out by the state terror nexus Assamese chauvinists created identity crisis, ethnic feuds and animosity gave potential to the Boros to reconstruct to resurgent their ethnicity. The bitter experiences of this movement became impetus to redraw the ethnic boundaries based on the historical memories and distanced past conquered kingdoms. In the same tune, the secessionist movement of National Democratic Front of Boroland (NDFB) which begin imbibed in 1986 has been asserted their demand for sovereign Boroland, reclaiming their ancestral lands/territories for self-rule. This group has been attempted refashioned, repositioned, and resurgent the lost Boro nation/kingdom. Another group, Bodo Liberation Tiger (BLT) repealed the BAC with Bodoland Territorial Council (2003) have positioned the Boro ethnicity in to a definitive ethnic boundaries, constructed Boro ethnic identity along the line of territory and the movement activists could gain political and economic power.

The various movement ranging from the sociocultural and economic rights, linguistic and cultural identity, script, Udayachal separate state movement by PTCA, Boroland movement by ABSU and BLT, and sovereign Boroland movement by NDFB, and all these issue based demands have been become instrumental to the formation of Boro ethnicity. The (re)construction of Boro ethnicity refashioned, revived, and positioned to reclaim the ancestral territories in some extent in the mutable political ethnic boundaries. Thus, due to persistent and persuasive demands through the movements today Boros have been able to position their linguistic and cultural identity via ethnicity that resulted the Boro language included in Eight Schedule of Indian Constitution in 2003 and recognised in the state as an associate official language in 1985.

Discussion

Today, identity of Boro speakers who acknowledge/identify themselves as Boro is loudly recognised/identified Bodo (s) although this term is generic, was first used by Hodgson. Somewhere above I have already stated that the Boros political and ethnic consciousness began with the formation of Boro Satra Sanmilan meaning Boro Student Union in 1920 which was formed under the leadership of Gurudev Kalicharan Brahma. This means that Boros never accepted themselves identifying Bodos. Boros in those time might had clear understanding between the generic Bodo and specificity Boro nomenclature. The usage of Bodo on behalf of Boro is perhaps rejuvenated from the formation of Bodo Sahitya Sabha (BSS) in 1952 whose nomenclature itself seemed to be intrigued by Hodgson’s consolidated writing. On the one side, if at all the BSS stood with an intension of consolidate all sub-tribes of Bodos which also known as Bodo-Kacharis stock then it would sound justifiable but, on the other side the activities and leaderships compositions of BSS explicitly indicates that the usage of generic Bodo term of self-claim literary body for all said sub-tribes has nothing to do other than Boros (Boro linguistic group). Demand to the introduction of Bodo medium school which meant to Boro medium for Boro linguistic group in their dominated districts’ villages, encouraging Boro writers to write any kinds of literary manuscripts, articles, stories, novels, poetries and proses to be able to produce Boro literatures, making awareness to the mass Boro population, demand of roman script for Boro language to be used in Boro medium schools, direct involvement of Bodoland movement of ABSU which also meant to Boroland, such activities have clearly revealed that the BSS has consciously been used Bodo generic terminology at any piece of writing as well as forming other allied organisations under its patronisation or influenced are found to be seen initiated with Bodo terminology such as All Bodo Student Union (ABSU), Bodo Liberation Tiger (BLT), All Bodo Women Welfare Federation (ABWWF), etc., however the entire actions and activities of those organisations continued to be undertaking till date have shown nothing worthwhile for other than the Boros.

The usage of Bodo terminology is politicised just because the term itself is politically manipulative one. Indeed having seen motivated Boro leaderships at the cost of generic Bodo terminology to claiming the major political lions share on its deliberation, the other sub-tribes of Bodos such as Rabhas, Garos, Sonowal Kacharis, Deoris, Thengal Kacharis, etc., distanced from the Boros. Demanded their own autonomous council making an imaginary territorial boundaries have enabled to acquire separate identity council such as Sonowal-Kacharis Autonomous Council, Thengal Autonomous Council, Deori Autonomous Council, Rabha Hasong Autonomous Council, etc., these development has distanced the brotherhood affinity of Bodos further, and made isolated one another.

On the development of separate autonomous councils for the sub-tribes/groups of Bodos have help developed separate identity but most of the acquired separate identity belonging said groups have lost their language, either forgotten or unwilling to speak, thus the descendants of such newly acquired separate identity groups of Sonowal-Kacharis, Deoris, Thengal-Kacharis, etc., have now accepted the Assamese language as their mother tongue.

Retaining to use the generic Bodo terminology while identifying the Boros by both Boro leaders and others (outsiders) have given uncontested scope to the recent academician, politician, media and other affairs to project Boros in the usage of Bodo. That is why now any kinds of writings on Boros be it linguistic literatures, social research, print and visual media reports, so on and so forth have been seen used Bodo usage instead of Boro. Even the new educated Boro generation have started telling their identity to others or outsiders as Bodo. But one who is inquisitive in nature be it Boro or non-Boro (outsiders) who has a little knowledge of the Bodo history finds difficulty to identify him/her as Bodo and makes confuse between Boro and Bodo to understand the others. A huge Boro illiterate population who do have neither much historical knowledge nor educations, express their identity as Boro without a single minute of delay as to when they are being questioned about their identity by outsiders. If at all illiterates can pronounce or tell the genuine identity without friction then why do the Boro elite groups so called educated intellectuals still continues to write Bodo in lieu of Boro. It’s alright to use Bodo as usage for political deliberation if at all political leaders find suitable it for governmental scheming for the development funds, but keeping intact the political terminology to identify the identity is vague idea.

Recent India’s phenomenon has indicated us that many British English named of the places, identities and regions during colonial rule have been changed in to regional linguistic base identity to safeguard to protect the reality of the lost distanced past such as the Bombay is renamed to Mumbai (in Marathi), Madras to Chennai, Calcutta to Kolkata (in Bengali), Orissa to Odissa, Travancore-Cochin to Kerala, Gauhati to Guwahati, Lalung Autonomous Council to Tiwa Autonomous Council, etc., if these cities, states, and council, of people could revived their original names without being kept dictating by colonial constructed nomenclature, why Boro leaders and intellectuals who have been fighting for a separate homeland for Boros to safeguard to protect the sociocultural and linguistic identity, keeps using Bodo terminology on supposing to use Boro. All other sub-tribes of Bodos have developed their own distinct identity and perhaps none of their leaders and intellectuals probably do not wish to reintegrate into the single Bodo identity due to rifts that have caused beyond reparable of historic long disassociation. In two decades in the ethnic and ethno-political conflicts occurred between Boros vs. Adivasis, Boros vs. Muslims, and Boros vs. other communities, Boros have been single handedly needing to fight against the said ethnic groups/communities no matter what reasons triggered to conflagration the conflicts. In all conflicts occurred – Boros are viewed as dominant groups by the dominant ruling class of high caste Hindu as well as other intellectuals. No other sub-tribes of Bodos have been affected as much as Boros have been affected and no other sub-tribes of Bodos have been found to step in to help at the need hour of Boros, if it all so why does it an important to intact the generic Bodo identity by only Boros, thus the writer of this article finds scientifically justifiable to use Boro instead of Bodo and he also thinks that it’s a highly important to use Boro terminology to identify Boro Identity as such. History repeats itself and thus it would be significantly scientific if the identity of Boro be given or intact in Boro which makes better sense.

Conclusion

No social phenomenon be it nomenclature, identity, culture, language, religion, ethnicity and ethnic boundary, and institution is fixed. Social phenomenon changes because its attributes are variegated ( Rothschild1981) at all times. Therefore, ethnic group formation may be with discarding some in-group members to out or regrouping scattered groups into a single group, for certain political interest is bound to change the identity, nomenclature and dialectic language as well. Therefore, no definitive historical records are found to qualify the identity of Bodos as a generic ethnic group identity except a few colonial ethnographers and thereby in course of time many new separate identities have emerged out of Bodos. Oral histories of Boros and common mass Boro population who lags outsiders’ influenced have clear understanding on their identity thus they proudly acknowledge themselves Boro when question of identity is being asked by outsiders. Therefore this is a need hour of reflection to all the Boro leaders and intellectuals no matter what organisations affiliated to reexamine the established usage of Bodo on behalf of Boro identity. This will make clear sense to the others (outsiders other than Boros) to differentiate between the Bodos and Boros, and identity of Boros will remain intact as original for Boro speakers (Boro linguistic group).

Reference:

• Brahma, Dr. Kameswar (1992). A Study of Socio-Religious Beliefs, Practices and Ceremonies of the Bodos (with special reference to the Bodos of Kokrajhar District). Calcutta, Punthi Pustak.
• Roy, Ajoy (1995). The Boro Imbroglio. Guwahati: New Delhi, Spectrum Publications.
• Choudhury, Sujit (2013). The Bodos Emergence and Assertion of an Ethnic Minority. Shimla, Rashtrapati Nivas, Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
• Endle, Rev. Sidney (2010). The Kacharis. Delhi, Low Price Publications.
• Sonowal, C. J. (2010). Quest for Identity, Autonomy and Development among the ethnic Groups of Assam. In Sonowal, C. J. (ed), Quest for Identity, Autonomy and Development: The contemporary Trends of ethnic and Tribal Assertion in Assam: Vol 1. New Delhi, Akansha Publishing House.
• Pathak, Suryasikha (2010). T ribal P olitics in the A ssam: 1933-1947. Economic & Political Weekly, March 6, vol. xlv no 10.
• Rothschild, Joseph (1981). Ethnopolitics A Conceptual Framework. New York, Columbia University Press.
• Deka, Hira Moni (2014). Politics of Identity and the Bodo Movement in Assam. New Delhi, Astral International Pvt. Ltd.
• Misra, Udayon (2014). India’s Northeast Identity Movements, State and Civil Society. New Delhi, Oxford University Press.
• Singh, Bhupender (2002). Autonomy Movement and Federal India. Jaipur and New Delhi, Rawat Publications.
• Sonowal, Khema (2013). Why Bodo Movement? Guwahati, EBH Publishers (India).