By – Amar Yumnam
I have just received a research document from a national think-tank. This document relating to the Human Development Index is from the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy in New Delhi and made public recently a few days back dated as January 2026. One very attractive ornamental term applied to the provinces of the country is the distinction between ‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ States – a peculiar term unavailable in any other country following Federalism, and this distinction is abundantly followed in the document I am referring. In the main body of the analyses, Assam appears only once in the last figure for otherwise all the provinces in this South East Asian Part of country are abundantly absent. But very interestingly, the Minors in the region (Assam included) are mentioned in the conclusions while they were absent in the analysis part; how one comes to the conclusions despite the absence in the analysis part is a magical question.
While reading this document, the publication and the presentation of the Budget 2026-27 also came about. What is most interesting is that the Budget documents equally follow the tradition of lightly treating the South East Asian part of the country. While Geography – in the sense of New Economic Geography – is now considered a significant component of Economic Analysis and Policy Formulation, the Indian government finds it very convenient to completely ignore it. The lack of appreciation of this aspect is very prominent in the Economic Survey 2025-26 right from the beginning. In Annexure A of Part A of the Survey we read: “Indicative Terms of Reference of the High-Level Education-to-Employment and Enterprise Standing Committee – i. identify services sub-sectors with potential for growth, employment and exports, identify sector-specific gaps and measures to unlock employment potential; ii. identify cross-sectoral policy and regulatory issues, including standards-setting and accreditation; iii. examine areas for services export; iv. assess the impact of emerging technologies, including AI, on jobs and skill requirements; v. propose specific measures for embedding AI in the education curriculum from school level onwards and upgrading State Councils of Educational Research and Training institutes for teacher training; vi. propose measures for upskilling and re-skilling of technology professionals/engineers in AI and emerging technologies; and vii. Propose measures for AI enabled matching of worders, jobs and training opportunities; and viii. propose measures to make the informal workflow visible, verifiable and future-ready, to enhance upward mobility prospects; and ix. propose steps to be taken to attract skilled diaspora and foreign talent into the country.” In this framework, the big missing dimension is any concern for sports. During the last nearly a decade, India has won medals (including Gold Ones) at the international levels in sports in which the presence of the country has so far been invisible. The traditional emphasis of the robust relationship between sports and education has been dropped in the present framework for the Medals have been won by sportspersons from the Minor region, particularly Manipur; minors should not be treated as Majors in policy formulation. The non-recognition of Geographical factors is emphatic:”Our aim is to transform aspiration into achievement and potential into performance, as we ensure that the dividends of growth reach every farmer, the scheduled caste, the scheduled tribes, the nomads, the youth, the poor and the women.” The language and the core principle reflects demographic divisions.
In her Speech presenting the Budget, the Finance Minister asserts: “Under our first kartavya to accelerate and sustain economic growth,I propose interventions in six areas: i) Scaling up manufacturing in 7 strategic and frontier sectors; ii) Rejuvenating legacy industrial sectors; iii) Creating “Champion MSMEs”; iv) Delivering a powerful push to Infrastructure; v) Ensuring long-term energy security and stability; and vi) Developing City Economic.” She continues: “India has the potential to emerge as a global hub for high quality, affordable sports goods. I propose a dedicated initiative for sports goods …..” All these are confirming statements ignoring the geographically contextual realities. The unwillingness to give credit and achievement potentials of the region are also reflected in the very generalised statements on Khelo India Mission for “a) An integrated talent development pathway, supported by training centres (foundational, intermediate and elite levels); b) systematic development of coaches and support staff; c) integration of sports science and technology; d) competitions and leagues to promote sports culture and provide platforms; and, e) development of sports infrastructure for training and competition.”
In a very contrary and fully ridiculing way, there is an interesting proposal “I propose to launch a Scheme for Development of Buddhist Circuits in Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Assam, Manipur, Mizoram and Tripura. The Scheme will cover preservation of temples and monasteries, pilgrimage interpretation centers, connectivity and pilgrim amenities.”
Even further, we all know of a North Eastern Council, but in the 349 pages of the Expenditure Budget document there is one North East Council mentioned three times; we do not know what is it.
Overall, any Budget is a policy proposal, but there is nothing in the recent one which we can call a policy for the South East Asian part of India. The Minors should remain as Minors.