Assam movement

https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2201223&reg=3&lang=1

Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: DD News

Context:

Prime Minister recalled the valour of all those who were a part of the historic Assam Movement, on the occasion of Swahid diwas.

What was Assam movement?

The Assam Movement, often referred to as the Anti-Foreigners Agitation, was a major socio-political uprising that took place in Assam between 1979 and 1985. It witnessed widespread protests, civil disobedience, and episodes of violence. The central issue driving the agitation was the demand to address illegal immigration from Bangladesh and its perceived implications for Assam.

What are core concerns behind the movement?

• Economic Pressure: Many Assamese felt that the continuous influx of migrants was intensifying competition for scarce resources, including land, employment, and public services. This rise in population was perceived as a threat to economic stability and local livelihoods. The 1981 Census showed that Assam’s work participation rate among locals was declining, while migrant-dominated areas like Dhubri and Barpeta experienced rapid population growth but stagnating employment opportunities.

• Threat to Cultural Identity: There was widespread worry that immigration from culturally and linguistically different groups would erode Assamese traditions, language, and heritage. The fear of cultural dilution became a major rallying sentiment. The 1931 Census already indicated Bengali-speaking dominance in bordering districts like Nowgong and Sylhet. Post-1971, Assamese-speaking proportion declined further.

• Political Marginalisation: As the immigrant population expanded, locals feared losing political representation and influence. The growing demographic change was seen as weakening the political authority of indigenous Assamese communities. Voter list revision in 1978 by-elections in Mangaldoi reportedly revealed thousands of “foreign” names, triggering mass mobilisation led by All Assam Students’ Union (AASU). This incident became a tipping point, reinforcing the demand for cleansing electoral rolls.

What are the objectives of the Assam movement?

Detection and Deportation of Illegal Migrants: A core demand was to identify, remove from electoral rolls, and expel undocumented immigrants residing in Assam.

Preservation of Assamese Cultural Identity: The agitation stressed the need to protect Assam’s linguistic, cultural, and social heritage, which activists feared was being eroded due to large-scale migration from Bangladesh.

Securing Political Representation and Rights: Another major goal was to ensure that indigenous Assamese communities retained adequate political voice and representation, which they believed was threatened by demographic changes.

Key leaders of All Assam Students Union (AASU):

• Prafulla Kumar Mahanta – Served as AASU President and later became Assam’s Chief Minister, symbolising the political impact of the movement.
• Bhrigu Kumar Phukan – As General Secretary of AASU, he emerged as an influential organiser, instrumental in mobilising mass support.

What are the key outcomes of Assam Movement?

Assam Accord (1985)

The Assam Accord was signed on 15 August 1985 between the Government of India, Government of Assam, the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP). It marked the formal conclusion of the six-year Assam Movement (1979–1985), which demanded action against undocumented migration into the state.

Purpose of the accord: The agreement sought to identify, classify and address foreign nationals living in Assam, particularly those who entered after 24 March 1971, which became the benchmark date for determining illegal presence.

Key Provision of Accord:

Cut-off date for detection migrants:

• The Accord fixed 1 January 1966 as the primary cut-off date for identifying and removing non-citizens from electoral records.
• People arriving from the “specified territory” (Bangladesh) before this date were to be treated as citizens.

Categorisation of Migrants (1966–1971):

• Individuals who entered Assam between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 were to be:
  • Identified under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1939;
  • Deleted from electoral rolls; and
  • Registered under the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939.

Voting Rights withheld temporarily:

• These identified migrants were not deported, but were allowed to regain voting rights only after a 10-year period from the date of their detection as foreigners.

Deportation rules for post-1971 migrants: Under the Assam Accord, any individual who entered Assam on or after 25 March 1971 was required to be identified as a foreigner, removed from electoral lists, and lawfully expelled from the state in accordance with existing legal procedures.

Clause 6: Safeguarding Assamese Identity:

Clause 6 of the Accord obligated the Union government to introduce constitutional, legislative, and administrative safeguards to protect and promote the cultural, linguistic, and social identity of the Assamese people, addressing long-standing concerns over demographic change and cultural erosion.

Biplab Sarma Committee Report:

In July 2019, the Union Home Ministry set up a 14-member panel headed by retired Justice Biplab Kumar Sarma of the Gauhati High Court to propose measures for implementing Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, which focuses on safeguarding the identity and rights of Assamese people.

Definition of Assamese people: The committee submitted its report in February 2020 and suggested that the term “Assamese people” should include indigenous tribal communities, other native groups of Assam, Indian citizens residing in the state on or before 1 January 1951 along with their descendants, and the broader indigenous Assamese population.

Major Recommendations

The committee made 52 recommendations that emphasised safeguarding land rights, promoting regional languages, and preserving cultural heritage.

• It advised creating revenue circles where only recognised Assamese people can hold or transfer land, implementing a three-year programme to regularise undocumented land ownership, and conducting a special land survey of char areas while prioritising erosion-affected families for allotment.
• It proposed establishing an autonomous academy to preserve indigenous languages and recommended making Assamese a compulsory subject up to Class VIII or Class X in schools under the state and CBSE boards.
• It called for an autonomous body to support and develop sattras (neo-Vaishnavite monasteries), along with district-level cultural complexes to strengthen the heritage of diverse ethnic groups.
• The report suggested that the Sixth Schedule autonomous councils — Bodoland Territorial Council, North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council, and Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council — should decide on operationalising the recommendations.
• The committee recommended that the predominantly Bengali-speaking Barak Valley and the Sixth Schedule areas of Assam should be exempted from the application of these proposals.
• It also recommended reserving seats and opportunities for Assamese people in Parliament, the state legislature, local governments, and public employment.

What are the key challenges in implementation of Assam accord?

• Identifying Illegal Migrants: The Accord fixed 24 March 1971 as the cut-off for detecting migrants, but producing verifiable documents from that period is highly problematic. During the NRC update (2013–2019), more than 3 crore applications were scrutinised, yet 19.06 lakh people were excluded, many due to documentation deficiencies rather than proven illegality.
• Deportation Is Nearly Impossible Without Bilateral Acceptance: Although the Accord mandates expulsion of post-1971 entrants, Bangladesh does not accept deportees without proof of citizenship.
• Large-Scale Disenfranchisement Creates Political Sensitivity: The Accord required deletion of migrants’ names from electoral rolls, yet voter removal risks ethnic polarisation. Example: The 1983 Assembly election triggered violent backlash, culminating in the Nellie massacre, where over 2,000 people were killed—making authorities reluctant to repeat mass disenfranchisement without safeguards.
• Clause 6 safeguards remain undefined: Clause 6 aimed to ensure constitutional safeguards for Assamese identity, but successive governments failed to operationalise it for 35 years.
• Tribunal Inefficiencies: Foreigners’ Tribunals were meant to identify illegal migrants, yet capacity constraints persist. Assam has 300+ Foreigners’ Tribunals, but over 2 lakh cases remain pending due to shortage of judges, inconsistent standards, and appeals.

Conclusion:

The Assam Movement marked a major assertion of regional identity rooted in anxieties over demographic change, cultural survival, and political marginalisation. While it culminated in the Assam Accord of 1985, providing a negotiated framework for addressing migration and safeguarding Assamese interests, its implementation gaps, renewed contestations, and unfinished promises continue to shape politics in the state. The movement thus remains both a symbol of mass mobilisation for identity-based rights and a reminder of the complexity of reconciling national priorities with regional aspirations.

Source: PIB