Northeast India seems to grow in its stature of populism which perhaps is a (alien) perspective that lies in the inherent identity of being a periphery; which is ought to be given due attention for multiple possibilities of fragility embedded. The being of a periphery induces the permanence of the temporaries thereby extensively generating terms and conditions on the nature of requirements, needs, relationships, debates, rights, native mechanism of livelihoods, politics, and cultures of communities in the region. Northeast India, which credited to a colonial praxis, still finds constantly clubbed for political and policy purposes which is an historical instrumentalism of Govern mentality. The populism, fragility, and peripheries provide rationale to differential political praxis. The differential praxis erects a towering thorn in the flesh of the State which is also constantly used to blanket and deny historical contradictions; of fascist State building projects, liberal economic onslaught on the one had; and class and people’s struggle on the other hand. This historical question is a fundamental confrontation that is far beyond a prospective resolution, at least, within the ambit of the given political structures. The lived worlds of Assam and Manipur powerfully indicate to such a situation. This write up argues that the State has widely clubbed the northeast India while responding to the upsurges of people. It also classifies the responses of the Indian State into two important aspects’ militarism in the state building and excessive resorting developmentalism. Interestingly, the two aspects indulge in such a way that it claims to define to safeguard human security. Vertical economic orientation (including dependent economic practice), exploitation of indigenous resources (construction of mega dams and softening borders) are continuing diminishing sites of indigenous societies. Resistances to onslaught of developmentism grow manifold when development becomes a unilateral subject of the State which at the same time is also construed as a means and ways to peace and security. Existing conception of development and security finally gets reduced to construing ‘counter politics’ to dissents (armed/non-armed) and alternatives discourses. Is it possible to interrogate the very nature of development and the way it is linked to human growth and security? Is it the kind of development that the worlds (who have experienced more immediately and directly) have anticipated and though of? If otherwise ; can one suspect an actual need for rethinking/reversing what we have so far been made to belief as development & security?