Recently, the former Chief Minister of Mizoram, in a strikingly provocative statement in the United States, suggested the need to create a new nation, “Jogam,” urging America to assist in establishing it by supporting the Kuki and Chin people. This controversial comment reflects a complex web of geopolitical ambitions with roots in colonial history, which, in today’s context, sheds light on evolving tensions in South Asia. To fully grasp the depth of this statement, it’s essential to delve into a pivotal historical episode that resonates to this day.

In 1769, a region in Southeast Asia, close to Indonesia, known as Timor Leste, or modern-day East Timor, was inhabited by indigenous tribes. In that year, the Portuguese colonized Timor Leste and began an ambitious mission to convert the indigenous people to Christianity, systematically eradicating their native practices. For over two centuries, from 1769 to 1975, Portuguese missionaries worked to shift the region’s demographics, gradually creating generations rooted in Christianity, altering the societal fabric of Timor Leste.

By 1975, when Indonesia—an Islamic nation—drove the Portuguese out of Timor Leste, a power vacuum emerged. The Portuguese, together with the United States, maneuvered to shift Indonesian governance to a regime more aligned with Western interests, propagating a narrative that the people of Timor Leste did not wish to merge with Indonesia. They pushed for a plebiscite to determine the people’s desires. After 206 years under Portuguese rule, Timor Leste’s newly Christian population voted in favor of an independent Christian nation, unwilling to join the predominantly Muslim Indonesia. Today, East Timor remains a Christian-dominated country—a focal point for intelligence agencies from the CIA to British and Australian operatives, monitoring Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

But what is the relevance of this historical precedent to the statement by Mizoram’s former Chief Minister? It suggests a blueprint of future ambitions. The playbook employed centuries ago appears relevant once again.

During British colonial rule in India, Christian missionary activity flourished in the Northeast, a hilly region densely populated by indigenous tribes. Slowly, these indigenous communities were converted to Christianity. The British had a strategic motive: if these communities adopted Christianity, Britain could better access the area’s resources, such as timber and other forest products. Oil and gas, though undiscovered at the time, were later found in this area. During the Indian National Movement, the British foresaw a scenario where, should they need to grant India independence, the Northeast could potentially serve as a separate Christian nation, especially in the context of emerging Third World nations in the post-World War II period.

This notion of a Northeast Christian nation is far from a recent concept; it has simmered since British times. Indeed, the British once believed that a Christian country in the Northeast was essential, especially in the post-World War II period when the Third World, as the United States would later define it, was taking shape. Unlike the secular identity of India and the Muslim-majority Bangladesh, they thought a Christian nation in Northeast India would round out the ideological spectrum. Although the British failed to create such a nation, they established a strategic base in the vicinity by dividing Pakistan and creating East Pakistan.

Following India’s independence, the British maintained close ties with Christian communities in the Northeast, indirectly fueling instability. Organizations like the Kuki National Front, Kuki Chin National Army, and Zoram People’s Movement emerged. Through these groups, the CIA and British intelligence, based in East Pakistan, began to influence Northeast India from the 1950s onward.

By the 1970s, India recognized that eliminating the East Pakistan base was crucial to stabilizing the Northeast. The Indian government and its intelligence agency, RAW, allied with Bengali Muslims in East Pakistan, eventually leading to the creation of Bangladesh. With the formation of Bangladesh in 1971, British and American ambitions to establish a Christian nation in the Northeast waned. But did they abandon their aspirations entirely? The answer appears to be no.

After 1971, the British and Americans turned their focus to Myanmar, seeing potential there for a strategic foothold. However, Myanmar’s government maintained ties with both China and India, complicating matters. This led to a strategic struggle among the British, Americans, Chinese, and Indians in the 1980s and 1990s. Although Myanmar never became a full-fledged base, it remained a focal point. Concurrently, Pakistan’s ISI began efforts to unite extremist elements in Bangladesh, leveraging organizations such as Jamaat-e-Islami and Ansar-ul-Bangla.

The broader aim was to establish a Christian nation in the Northeast, with the understanding that such a nation would provide ideological balance in a region otherwise lacking in Christian-majority Third World countries. During the Cold War, creating a Christian nation in the Northeast would have cemented ideological diversity among countries in South Asia. But with the end of the Cold War, the global power landscape shifted. As America basked in its Cold War victory, China focused on strengthening its economy. By 2010, America began to perceive China as an economic rival, and by 2015, recognized China as a global competitor, triggering what is now known as Cold War 2.0.

To counter China’s influence, then-President Obama launched the “Asian Rebalancing Initiative” or “Pivot to Asia,” instilling insecurity among China’s neighbors and positioning itself as their protector. This insecurity allowed America’s defense industry to flourish, supplying weapons tailored to the Asian context. Under this initiative, the United States sought to rally countries like India, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, portraying China as a threat.

However, the United States struggled to gain an unequivocal ally. By 2015, it recognized that business alone could not counter China; it needed strong allies. So, when Trump assumed office in 2017, he initiated the “Quadrilateral Security Dialogue” or QUAD, with an explicit request for India and Japan as allies. Japan, having been an American ally since the 1950 Treaty of San Francisco, readily agreed. India, however, joined QUAD but refrained from aligning itself outright with America’s anti-China stance, maintaining that its agenda was independent.

When Biden took office, his administration attempted to engage India more directly. Biden asked India to become an ally, but India refused. Consequently, a global campaign to tarnish India’s image began, with domestic unrest fueled to destabilize the government. This campaign also extended to Bangladesh, which similarly resisted America’s push to reduce its ties with China and provide a base for countering China. America subsequently orchestrated a regime change in Bangladesh, replacing Sheikh Hasina with CIA-trained agent Muhammad Yunus, a Nobel laureate known for his grassroots work but seen by some as a pawn for Western interests.

Today, Bangladesh is seen as a testing ground for America’s geopolitical experiments. This recent statement by Mizoram’s former Chief Minister advocating for a separate Christian nation named “Jogam” is therefore not surprising; it aligns with a larger historical pattern. The British legacy of missionary activity in the Northeast and the continuous push for a Christian state in the region remain enduring themes.

As recent geopolitical developments indicate, America’s efforts to form alliances in South Asia have faced significant setbacks. Bangladesh, with Muhammad Yunus at the helm, has become a laboratory for Western strategies. The broader objective remains the same: to leverage Christian communities in the Northeast to destabilize India from within, aiming ultimately to establish a Christian state.

India’s reluctance to be drawn into America’s anti-China agenda and its refusal to endorse any destabilizing tactics, however, has forced America to resort to indirect influence, as illustrated by the statement of Mizoram’s former Chief Minister. This agenda, deeply rooted in British colonialism, continues to unfold, with evolving motives suited to contemporary geopolitics.

In the foreseeable future, India’s territory seems secure from any divisionist ambitions. Still, the statement by Mizoram’s former Chief Minister raises serious questions, suggesting a larger agenda is at play—an agenda that stretches back to the British era and has been shaped to fit present-day geopolitical landscapes.

Info credit: Pavneet Singh