The same survey was again conducted by CSDS in the year 2006-March . The main findings of this survey is as follows-

1. 39 % of the total surveyed considers them as only Indian.
2. 14.7% considers them to be only Assamese.
3. 41% consider both as Indian and Assamese.

CONTESTING XENOPHOBIC AND REGRESSIVE ETHNICITY:
Struggles over identity can also lead to regressive and xenophobic policies that retard human development. They can encourage a retreat to conservatism and a rejection of change, closing off the infusion of ideas and of people who bring cosmopolitan values and the knowledge and skills that advance development. For it is often the suppression of culturally identified groups that leads to tensions. The UNDP report 2004 makes a case for respecting diversity and building more inclusive societies by adopting policies that explicitly recognize cultural adopting policies that explicitly recognize cultural differences—multicultural policies individuals have to shed rigid identities if they are to become part of diverse societies and uphold cosmopolitan values of tolerance and respect for universal human rights.

Thus, what needs to be contested is the craze for mono-ethnic homeland that is exclusionary and does not bear the existence of others. In North-east India the craze for ethnic exclusiveness and reorganizing space in exclusive ethnic terms has created a tussle between the State and community on the one hand and the community-community on the other hand. The clash over Nagalim or ‘Greater Nagaland’ and reaction by the ethnic groups in Manipur, Assam and Arunachal Pradesh;  the reaction of the Non-Bodos like the Koch-Rajbangshi, the Rabhas etc. in the Bodo Territorial Council , the recent Karbi-Dimasa clash in Karbi Anglong are a few examples of such quest for exclusive home land.

The State by creating innumerable tribal district councils accentuates such tendency for exclusivity by relying on a ‘tribal to tribal’ approach. While the existing identities as of now will have to be recognized, fragmentation will have to be halted . Or else we may soon end up facing innumerable demands for tiny home republics. Though the contemporary world appears to be completely divided on ethnic lines yet the parochialism of the ethnic orientation should not be overlooked. The universal humanitarian values take a back seat when the reality is perceived from ethnic point of view. The exclusive rights claimed by the ethnic identities on the basis of indigenous status are also problematic because no community can conclusively prove that they are the original inhabitant of an area. They can merely claim. The evidence about authenticity is rather insufficient and definitely not verifiable.

What is missing in such mono ethnic territorial space is effective communication among the communities. The recent ethnic clashes between the Karbis and Dimasas in Karbi Anglong that had claimed about more than 100 lives make us the need to think about inter ethnic accommodation. Surgical vivisection of territorial space into some mono-ethnic homelands seems to be the guiding principles of ethnic politics in Northeast India today. Viewed thus, our solution to conflicts is marked by the same craze for reorganizing the space– albeit according to the same binary principle. The prospects of peace according to this discourse are decided in a game that is admittedly of zero-sum character. In the midst of such uncertainties the state is believed or legitimized to play a dominant role as it goes to the old dictum of liberalist principle of the State as the neutral umpire among contending forces. Thus a conflict between the State and community becomes a conflict between communities. In this tussle between justice and justice –injustice seems to be the end result.