Assam comes face to face with an old question: Who is an Assamese

As Assam came to boil over two incidents separated barely by a few days — gang rape of a minor girl in the Nagaon district in central Assam, and assault of a 17-year-old female athlete in the Sibasagar district in upper Assam — the state found itself in the throes of an old battle — insider versus outsider.

The reaction of Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, however, instead of calming down tempers has reopened old fissures with a promise to ‘weed out the outsiders’. The problem is Assam is yet to arrive at a consensus on who is actually an outsider and who an insider in the state.

After massive public protests over the two incidents in which Miyas — Bengali-speaking Muslims in the state, and Marwaris, stand as accused, the Sarma-led BJP government declared it would implement 57 of the 67 recommendations of the Biplab Sarma Committee in order to provide constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards to the ‘Assamese’ people. The protests had erupted across the Upper Assam belt and was slowly spreading to other parts of the state, with protesters seeking deportation of illegal immigrants and constitutional safeguards for Assamese people.

Under pressure, the government announced a deadline to implement the decision — April 15, 2025 — which will mark the beginning of Assamese New Year. The 57 recommendations will apply state-wide, excluding Sixth Schedule areas like Dima Hasao, Karbi Anglong, and the Bodoland Territorial Region, where further consultations are required.

Sarma said that the Assam government will implement 57 of 67 recommendations, and will hold in depth discussions with the Union government for the remaining 10 recommendations.

The 13-member Biplab Sarma committee, formed in 2019 in response to mass protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), submitted its report to then Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal in 2020. Sonowal forwarded it to Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

In an attempt to pacify the people of Assam, the Union government had promised implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, which was signed by the Union government with the All Assam Students Union (AASU) in 1985 after a six-year long agitation demanding deportation of illegal immigrants from Assam.

The Biplab Sarma Committee's recommendations reportedly focus on protecting the rights of indigenous Assamese people, particularly regarding Clause 6 of the Assam Accord. Among other clauses, Clause 6 mandates that the names of all foreigners arriving in Assam after March 25, 1971, be detected and removed from the electoral rolls, with steps taken to deport them.

Clause 6 of the Assam Accord provides constitutional, legislative, and administrative safeguards to protect the cultural, social, and linguistic identity of the Assamese people. It also sets a cut-off date of March 24, 1971, for detecting illegal foreigners in Assam.

Though the committee had submitted its report on February 25, 2020, to the Assam government, it was put in the cold storage and neither then CM Sarbananda Sonowal, nor his successor, incumbent CM Sarma made any attempt to implement the recommendations.

But in the face of recent protests, the Assam government has decided to form a Group of Ministers to engage with AASU and other organisations to develop a clean roadmap and implementation framework.

Why now

According to political observers, the move has come in the wake of the BJP realising that it is losing popular support in the upper Assam region, which is the heartland for ‘Assamese nationalism’. The 2024 Lok Sabha results and the recent protests have made the party sense that it is on a sticky wicket.

“Upper Assam voters had voted enthusiastically for the BJP both in 2016 and 2021 in the hope of a permanent solution to the issue of identity and constitutional safeguards of the Assamese people, but the BJP government didn’t take any concrete steps and now the popular support is waning,” Sudipta Nayan Goswami, a political observer and analyst from Jorhat in upper Assam, told The Federal.

“This recent announcement by the chief minister is an attempt to win back some of the support,” added Goswami.

Goswami also said the recommendations which the government has announced it will implement are not the ones which will provide constitutional and legislative safeguards.

“The government has simply deflected the issue and pushed the important recommendations which are meant for providing constitutional and legislative safeguards to the Centre. This is because it knows very well implementing all the recommendations of the committee could be a huge gamble for the BJP which could result in newer political alignments,” added Goswami.

Who is an Assamese

Assam, whose residents include Assamese and Bengali-speaking Hindus, a medley of tribes people and Muslims, has seen an anti-immigration movement against ‘outsiders’ from neighbouring Bangladesh for decades. Bengali-speaking Muslims, in particular, have often been accused of being ‘undocumented immigrants’.

It is this fissure the BJP has tried to use to its advantage. Since coming to power in 2016, the BJP has rallied its vote base of Hindus and tribal communities by announcing policies have been discriminatory towards Muslims.

After returning to power in 2021, the BJP government forcibly evicted thousands of people in a controversial drive against illegal encroachments - most of those affected were Bengali-speaking Muslims. Earlier this year, the government also approved the classification of five Muslim groups as ‘indigenous Assamese’ communities, raising fears of further marginalisation of others.

Though the full Bipal Sarma panel report has not been made public till date, civil society groups allege that the definition of Assamese which has been proposed by the committee is not acceptable across all communities.

As per insiders the Committee had proposed the base year as 1951 for definition of Assamese, and have mentioned the word Indigenous in the report.

Speaking to The Federal, Hafiz Ahmed, president of the Char Chapri Sahitya Parishad, an organization which promotes literature of the Riverine islands in Assam, said that he supports implementing Clause 6 of the Assam Accord for constitutional safeguards of the Assamese people, but also said he is opposed to the Biplab Sarma committee in toto.

Ahmed said he totally supports Clause 6 of the Assam Accord but the difference here is regarding the base year for defining ‘Assamese’, and while the committee has proposed the year 1951, Ahmed had proposed that both 1951 and 1961 should be taken as the base year.

“I support the base year based on 1951 but during that period there was displacement of thousands of families so many had missed the 1951 census. So, I had suggested to keep the base year flexible between 1951 and 1961 (census), and this will be inclusive,” said Ahmed.

Elaborating his position, Ahmed also said that the biggest obstacle to inclusivity with the present stand by the Biplab Kumar Sarma committee is the mention of the word indigenous, in the definition of the Assamese people.

“The word indigenous will cause division and newer identity issues, and I personally feel that it will not stand in the court. It will be best to mention that word,” Ahmed added.

This is not the first time that an attempt has been made to define ‘Assamese’. Former Speaker of the Assam Assembly Pranab Kumar Gogoi, during the Congress government between 2011 and 2016, had made an attempt to build a consensus and create an inclusive definition of Assamese.

Gogoi had held consultations with political parties, student groups, socio-cultural organisations and prominent groups representing various communities in the state over the issue. The report he came up with was left in the cold storage as he couldn’t find the required support in the Assembly.

Interestingly, when Gogoi had placed it in the Assembly for discussion, Congress itself opposed it along with All India United Democratic Front, while the then opposition parties, both BJP and the Assam Gana Parishad (now both in the Government) had supported the then Speaker’s initiative.

Loopholes and lies

While the opposition political parties have called the announcement by the chief minister a drama to divert his failures, civil society members have also called the announcement by the Chief Minister as lies.

“As per the Accord provisions, the state government has no jurisdiction over the report. The chief minister has distorted the report by promising to implement parts without any authority. This is an attempt to put the legislative safeguards for Assamese people in cold storage,” said Basanta Deka, an Assam-based social and political activist.

Deka also alleged that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is opposed to the Assam Accord from the beginning and this is an attempt to dilute the accord.

Opposition political parties also pointed out the fact that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs is the nodal authority and the expert committee report is yet to be approved by the Centre.

“How can the state government implement the recommendations of the report then,” questioned Assam Pradesh Congress Committee president Bhupen Bora.

Other opposition political parties in the state have also said that the chief minister is misleading the people of Assam.

“The report has not yet been signed by the representatives of the central government, which means that the central government has not yet approved the report. Then how can the CM announce he will implement the recommendations,” said Jagadish Bhuyan, general secretary of Jatiya Parishad, a regional political party.

Bhuyan also questioned how could the Assam government simply split the recommendations into 57 and 10 when this report is an integrated plan to protect the political, linguistic, cultural, economic and land rights of the Assamese people.