Abstract
This article examines the transformation of Bodo ethnic identity into a framework of hegemonic authority following the achievement of constitutional autonomy in the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR) of Northeast India. Drawing on Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, the study explores how Bodo identity, initially mobilized in response to marginalization and demands for territorial recognition, has become institutionalized within governance, development, and public administration structures after the establishment of the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC) and subsequent peace accords. The research adopts a qualitative methodology, utilizing semi-structured interviews with political leaders, government officials, civil society actors, and residents, as well as documentary analysis of policy documents and scholarly literature. The findings demonstrate that Bodo identity has evolved from an oppositional, mobilizing force to a legitimizing principle of governance, reinforced by cultural narratives and the delivery of development outcomes. Hegemonic authority in the BTR is maintained through the production of consent, with legitimacy rooted in both ethnic representation and the effectiveness of development and welfare delivery. However, this authority remains contested and conditional, subject to renegotiation amid internal class, generational, and ethnic divisions, as well as the demands of non-Bodo communities. The study argues that autonomy has not diminished ethnic politics but has reconstituted it as a dynamic interplay of identity, governance, and development, resulting in a form of negotiated hegemony. This analysis contributes to broader debates on ethnic autonomy, state formation, and the complexities of political legitimacy in plural societies.
References
1. Baruah, S. (2005). Durable disorder: Understanding the politics of Northeast India. New Delhi: Oxford Uni-versity Press.
2. Baruah, S. (2020). In the name of the nation: India and its Northeast. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3. Behera, A. (2017). The majoritarian way to democracy: The Bodoland conflict in Assam. Alternatives: Global, Local, Politi-cal,https://doi.org/10.1177/0304375418757094
4. Bieler, A., & Morton, A. D. (2004). A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: Neo-Gramscian perspectives in international relations. Capital & Class, https://doi.org/10.1177/030981680408200106
5. Bhattacharjee, C. (1996). Ethnicity and autonomy movement: Case of Bodo-Kacharis of Assam. New Del-hi: Vikas Publishing House.
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
7. Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity without groups. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Choudhury, S. (2007). The Bodos: Emergence and As-sertion of an Ethnic Minority. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
9. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative in-quiry and research design: Choosing among five ap-proaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
10. Deka, H. M. (2014). Politics of identity and the Bodo movement in Assam, Gauhati University, Guwahati.
11. Dutta, A. (2016). The politics of complexity in Bodo-land. Economic and Political Weekly, 51(6), 45–53.
12. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison note-books (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Eds.). London: Law-rence & Wishart.
13. Misra, U. (2000). The periphery strikes back: Chal-lenges to the nation-state in Assam and Nagaland. Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
14. Samaddar, R. (Ed.). (2016). A rights-based approach to peace: Peace studies in Northeast India. London: Routledge.
15. Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 South India Journal of Social Sciences

