The Bodoland question represents a significant case of ethnic mobilisation, insurgency, negotiated settlement and institutional accommodation in Northeast India. Existing scholarship has extensively examined the emergence of the Bodo movement, the nature of ethnic conflict and the successive peace accords that attempted to address Bodo political aspirations (Sarma & Choudhury, 2024; George, 1994; Nath, 2003) [2, 8, 10]. However, greater attention is required to the transformation of the conflict arena itself: from mobilisation and armed confrontation towards institutionalised political negotiation, autonomous governance and post-conflict political participation. This article examines the Bodoland peace process through the theoretical perspective of conflict transformation. Rather than treating the signing of peace accords as the endpoint of conflict, the article investigates whether the institutional arrangements created through the 2003 and 2020[5, 6] settlements have altered the political, structural and relational dimensions of the conflict. It argues that the Bodoland process represents a significant but incomplete transformation. The establishment and subsequent strengthening of the Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), the demobilisation of armed cadres, recognition of cultural and linguistic claims, development initiatives and mechanisms for political participation demonstrate a shift from violent contestation towards institutional negotiation (Government of Assam, 2003; Government of India, 2021) [3, 4]. At the same time, scholarship on territorial autonomy indicates that autonomous institutions can themselves generate new tensions where competing communities perceive exclusion or unequal access to political power and resources (Bhattacharyya et al., 2017; Suykens & Vandekerckhove, 2008) [1, 11]. The article therefore conceptualises Bodoland as a case of continuing conflict transformation in which the principal challenge has shifted from negotiating the existence of political institutions to making those institutions inclusive, legitimate and capable of addressing structural grievances.