North-East India: Development, Connectivity, and the Geopolitics of Growth

North-East India is increasingly being positioned as India’s strategic gateway to Southeast Asia, but beneath the narrative of development lies a deeper geopolitical reality. From colonial-era frontier policies to today’s Act East corridors and global investments, the region’s growth story raises a critical question: is this development truly people-centric, or is the Northeast once again being shaped by external strategic interests?

By Sheeza Sharona Rai

The recent push for development in Northeast India has often been portrayed as a long-standing effort to integrate the region with the national mainstream. However, a closer examination reveals that it is largely a strategy-driven and externally focused endeavour, shaped by the interests and policies of major global powers. When viewed alongside the region’s history of colonial neglect, post-independence marginalisation, and the persistence of insurgency, this pattern raises serious concerns about whether such development truly serves local needs or primarily advances geopolitical agendas.

Colonial Legacy and Strategic Isolation in North-East India

The British treated the region primarily as a frontier buffer to protect their imperial interests against Burma, Tibet, and China. The Inner Line Regulation of 1873 further isolated the region from the rest of the country by restricting movement into tribal areas. Industrial development during colonial rule was also externally oriented. Tea plantations in Assam, oil extraction in Digboi, and timber exploitation in forested areas were all geared towards serving imperial economic interests. Even infrastructure such as railways and roads was constructed to connect resource-rich regions to ports rather than to link places of local importance. Consequently, the region remained underdeveloped despite being a significant contributor to the British treasury.

The Siliguri Corridor and India’s Strategic Vulnerability

The marginalisation of the Northeast did not cease after independence. The perception of distance was further reinforced by the narrow Siliguri Corridor, which is barely 20–22 km wide. This corridor, also known as the “Chicken’s Neck,” is surrounded by Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and lies close to China. As the only land connection between mainland India and the Northeast, it holds immense strategic importance. Any disruption in this corridor could effectively isolate the entire region.

Consequently, development planning has often focused on strengthening connectivity and military mobility rather than addressing structural socio-economic challenges such as unemployment, healthcare deficits, and the lack of industrialisation. This imbalance contributed to persistent uprisings and insurgencies, further reinforcing the perception of the Northeast as a sensitive borderland. As a result, its holistic development was often relegated to the background.

Act East Policy and the Northeast as India’s Gateway

The introduction of the Look East Policy in 1991, which later evolved into the Act East Policy, marked a turning point. These policies reimagined the Northeast as India’s gateway to Southeast Asia. Trade corridors and cross-border connectivity projects became the centre of developmental planning. While these initiatives aim to integrate India with ASEAN economies through the development of transit infrastructure, many rural areas in the Northeast continue to suffer from a lack of basic amenities such as healthcare, education, and connectivity. This contrast in the approach to development indicates that it is being shaped more by external engagement than by local needs.

Japan, the US, and China’s Competing Interests

When we look at global investors, Japan has emerged as one of the most important partners under its Free and Open Indo-Pacific vision. The India–Japan Act East Forum, established in 2017, specifically focuses on enhancing connectivity and infrastructure in Northeast India. Agencies such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) have assisted in developing road networks, bridges, and energy projects by providing financial support. The North East Road Network Connectivity Improvement Project is one of the most prominent initiatives aimed at facilitating smoother trade and movement. In fact, Japan has already invested over 220 billion yen in these projects.

The United States has also shown increasing interest in Northeast India as part of its Indo-Pacific Strategy. This engagement is largely tied to China’s growing influence in Southeast Asia. Under this strategy, Washington seeks to counter China’s expanding geopolitical and economic presence. Northeast India serves as a crucial link between South Asia and Southeast Asia. By promoting alternative supply chains and enhancing regional mobility, the United States aims to reduce dependence on Chinese infrastructural networks.

At the same time, China’s expanding infrastructure networks in India’s neighbouring countries have intensified this global competition while maintaining pressure on the West. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, China has invested in ports, highways, and economic corridors in Myanmar and Bangladesh, thereby increasing its influence around India’s eastern borders. In response, India, backed by Tokyo and Washington, has accelerated its own connectivity initiatives. However, investments in agriculture, local industries, and humanitarian development still remain inadequate.

Border cities are increasingly being treated as commercial gateways. While cross-border trade is being facilitated, local industries are often adversely affected. Markets are becoming increasingly dependent on imported goods rather than local produce. Instead of fostering self-sustaining economies, such initiatives reinforce the Northeast’s role as a bridge between regions and mirror colonial patterns, where the region primarily served external economic interests.

Local Development vs External Geopolitical Priorities

In short, the development of Northeast India has been heavily influenced by external interests throughout history. Colonial regimes regarded the region as a resource frontier and a strategic buffer, leading to its economic and social marginalisation. Neglect after independence further deepened political isolation and fuelled insurgencies. Contemporary initiatives such as the Act East Policy, along with engagement from the United States, Japan, and other international actors, highlight the growing importance of connectivity and geopolitical relevance. The strategic significance of the Siliguri Corridor further intensifies global focus on the region. However, these strategies often align with broader geopolitical objectives, such as supporting the United States in curbing China’s growing influence in Asia.

Can the Northeast Achieve Inclusive Growth?

While such initiatives have enhanced the region’s importance in international politics, they risk overlooking local aspirations, environmental concerns, and grassroots economic needs. The lingering question remains: if the Northeast continues to be shaped primarily by strategic calculations and global power competition, can it truly achieve inclusive growth, or will it remain a geopolitical corridor serving external interests?

About the Author

Sheeza Sharona Rai is a student at St. Stephen's College, University of Delhi and is pursuing a B.Sc. (Hons.) in mathematics. With an emphasis on global power shifts, regional security, strategic affairs, international relations, trade routes, and energy security, she is interested in geopolitics, diplomacy, and geoeconomics.