Published Paper Details:

Autonomy has been a central instrument through which the Indian state has sought to manage ethnic diversity and political claims in the Northeast. Institutionalized primarily through the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, autonomy is envisaged as a mechanism for self-rule, cultural protection, and participatory governance for tribal communities. This paper examines the gap between the notion of autonomy and its praxis through a case study of the Dima Hasao Autonomous Council (DHAC) erstwhile North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council in Assam. Drawing on historical analysis, constitutional provisions, and secondary literature, the paper argues that autonomy in Dima Hasao operates as a negotiated and constrained form of governance rather than substantive self-rule. While DHAC provides symbolic recognition and limited administrative powers, its functioning is shaped by financial dependence, bureaucratic control, internal political hierarchies, and security imperatives. The paper concludes that autonomy in Dima Hasao reflects broader contradictions within India's subnational governance framework, where decentralization coexists with strong centralized oversight