*
Bhaskar
BhuyanPhulbari,
Lakhimpur, Pin-787023
ABSTRACT: Insurgency in North eastern states is
laying in the deepest part of its Historical Geo-politics. Identity crisis
regarding Land, Language and other social parameters between the middle class
sentiments have been provoking to happen such insurgencies, like- NSCN, ULFA,
NDFB, BLT, KLO etc. However Indian state mechanism has been trying to solve
such insurgency movements by different ways to protect its Sovereignty. In this
seminar paper, counter-terrorism strategies will be discussed by using the
methodology of case study. The basic characteristics of insurgencies of Assam
are bi-dimensional. Some insurgency groups, like ULFA and NDFB has been
demanding for a severing state arrangement as well as other insurgency groups,
like BLT are demanding for a separate state arrangement under the veil of Indian
Territory. However the state mechanism has been trying to solve this situation
by using both of Military strategies, like: Operation Rhino, Bojrong, All Clear
as well as some Soft Strategies, like: ‘Divide and Role’ policy, Peace Talk
etc. Counter terrorism strategies taken by the State mechanism however has
raised some serious issues, like Human rights violation in several parts of
Assam. But the situation has not been normalized yet. In this seminar paper,
the causes, historical link up as well as the basic scenario of insurgency will
be analyzed.
INTRODUCTIONS:
The last three decade of Assam
is the three decades of Insurgency and Counterterrorism initiatives by both of
the rebellion groups and the State mechanism. Assam now a day has been
integrated with a minimum of nine insurgent rebellion groups, who either demand
for sovereignty or special status. In this paper we will discuss with special
reference to ULFA that how insurgent groups has emerged and the reaction of the
state mechanism to handle the problem.
Insurgencies in Assam— A Historical overview:
Geo-political factor of North
Eastern insurgencies is derived from the situation of its isolation. Silliguri
Corridor is known as the connecting bridge between Indian mainstream areas and
North east, which is a narrow stretch of land of about 22 kilometers. The
silliguri corridor is popularly known as the ‘Chicken Neck’, by which North
East become an integral part of Indian political map. However, Subir Bhoumik
has mentioned that by the inner-line system and the ‘Government of India Act of
1919’ made Hill tribes differ from plan tribes of Assam1. It has created a kind of
Identity-sense between the hill tribes of North East. Naga and Mizo
insurgencies were an outcome of this identity-sense, created by the British
Indian circumstances. However in Assam the basic reasons of emergence of
insurgencies are the Assam movement and illegal cross border migration from
Bangladesh. In the era of colonial imperialism, a secessionist idea was grown
under the structural power (i.e. Colonial power). British Government had
proposed for a crown colony apart from India, named ‘Kupaland’. But, Phizo, the
Naga rebel leader has denied this proposal, as it was an extension plan of
British imperialism2. Though the proposal had failed, but Naga and Mizo peoples were
motivated by the idea of separation from Indian mainstream. And so just after
the Independence of India, the people of the northeast, particularly in
Nagaland and Mizoram saw this as an opportunity to revert back to their old
ways of independent living. They had never felt to be a part of India even
under the British rule, and with independence, they saw no reason to be under
the Indian government. Thus, when India attained her independence, the tribal
leaders of the north-east raised the demand for autonomy to preserve, what was
left of their tribal heritage. They wanted the British to leave the tribals to
their own rule once they left. The threat perception to their culture and
customs under Indian rule assumed significance with the imminent transfer of
power to the new Indian government. N.N.C (Naga National Council) under the
leadership of Phizo declared independence on 14th August of 1947 which was
transferred into a plebiscite on 16th March of 1951. Result of the plebiscite
was the favor for independence. A few years later, M.N.F (Mizo National Font)
on 1 March, 1966 declared Mizo district as the Independent Mizoram3.
Emergence of ULFA: A legacy of Ambikagiri to
Assam Movement:
We have discussed that a
secessionist thought process was grown under the veil of structural power of
Pre-Independence. After the Independence of India, in Assam cross border
migration from Bangladesh was the immediate cause of emergence of ULFA as an insurgent
group. But, we can define a numbers of root causes of emergence of ULFA. These
are like:
A) Historical Cause: Assam has its own civilization, based on
the mighty river Brarhmapura, which has not a profound relationship with Indian
mainstream. So, historically Assam is not a part of India. In 1826, the Yandavu
Treary between Burmese ruler and Colonial ruler has happened. But importantly,
Assamese common masses were unware about such kind of treaty. A part of Ahom
elite society revolted against the British ruler to rescue independence of
Assam.4
B) Colonial Factors : Migration: By the Waste Land Grant Rules
of 1838, Old Assam Rules of 1854, Fee Simple Rule of 1874 and Lease Rules of
1876, the Colonial ruler occupied a huge amount of lands in the name of Tea
estates. However it was an intra-border migration was happened from Bihar,
Odisha, Banga, Central Province, United province and Madraj due to the high
demand of Labour in the then tea estates. The tea worker migration was being
continued to the mid of 1931. Apart of Tea worker migration, there were two
important migrations to Assam, who have changed the societal and demographical
scenario of the then Assamese society. These were the poor muslim peasants from
East Banga and a middle class Hindu-bengali migration from mainstream India.
Importantly the then Assamese middle class society accepted Tea worker
migrators and Poor muslim peasants, but linguistic as well as identical clashes
had been began with the Middle class Hindu-Bengali Migrators5.
In
1837, Bangla language was recognized as the court and Educational Medium
language in Assam, by which Assamese middle class was quite disappointed. It
was Anandaram Baruah and Missionaries, who effort a lot to re-establish
Assamese language. However, in 1874 it was happened. Bhimbar Deuri, the
spontaneous tribal leader of Assam has organized a synergetic political party
in 1945, named- “Assam Tribes and Races Fedaration”, by which he has demanded
for stop migration, implement inner-line system and finally demanded for a
sovereign Assam. He has demanded that- “In view of the fact that the past
history of Assam
proper
being never like that of the rest of India, this convention urge upon
government that Assam be separated from the rest of India, where there are a number
of divisions like Pakistan, Hindustan, etc. and let Assam’s destiny be guided
by the people of India.”6 Simultaneously a demand
for sovereign Assam was raised from the chair of Sivasagar summit of Asom
Sahitya Sabha in 1944.
C) Ambikagiri Raichudhuri : the spokesperson: Ambikagiri Raichoudhuri was
the first spokesperson of Sovereign Assam. He had represented the thinking of
Aggressive Assamese Nationalism. Raichoudhuri, from the banner of Jatiya
Mahasabha had been urged for the Sovereign spirit of Assam, which was
summarized on 4th January, 1948. Raichoudhuri said that: “Assam should come out
of India and become an independent country like Burma or any other country”7. The basic
deference between the then Assamese nationalist leaders and Ambikagiri was very
vivid. Ambikagiri represented the concept of Bor Asom, even he demanded to make
a tribal language as the state language; but in the same atmosphere other
Assamese nationalistic leaders were quite conservative. Ambikagiri was against
of both of the British rulers and Indian hegemony. He used armed protest
against colonial rulers as well as organized “Assam Atmorokhyi Bahini”. 8
D) Student Organizations : Satra Santha, Lachit Sena etc.: Industrial
backwardness, depriving in the field of employment and unlimited exploitation
on the resources of Assam made Assamese young society quite disappointed. To
articulate their anguishes on 8 August of 1967 “All Assam Students Union” was
emerged. Simultaneously “Sodou Assam Nirdoloyo Satro aru Jubo Sontha” was emerged
in Guwahati in the month of September of 1967. “Sodou Guwahati Satra Santha”,
“Assam Jatiyatabadi Dol” and newly formed AASU were merged and expressed their
anguishes towards Delhism. They exhorted to boycott the Republic Day of India.
‘Lachit Sena’, the newly merged organization (May be called as the violent wing
of AASU) had played a violent role in the boycott program.
E) Language Politics : Vasha Movement: Assamese middle class
society is very serious in the matter of Language. History shows us that the
basic reason of the communal tensions between Hindu Bengali and Assamese is the
hegemony of Bangla language. Census report of 1971 shows that the Assamese
speaking people of that decade was 60.89%, whereas Bengali speaking people was
19.71%.9.
Assam Sahitya Sabha set the year 1960 as deadline to implement Assamese
language as the medium of instruction. So, finally the then Chip Minister of
Assam Mr. Bimala Prasad Chaliha introduces the “Assam Official Language Act”
and made the Assamese language as the medium of instruction.10 Bipan Chandra has rightly
observed
that- “This effort to impose the Assamese language became one of the factors
which hampered the process of evolution of the Assamese identity”11
Immediate Cause:
Cross and intra border migration
and Assam CArgoitsas tbioonrd: er influx from Bangladesh (Popularly known as
the Bangladeshi) has led to the Assam Agitation. Bipan Chandra has mentioned
that, “After 1971 there occurred a fresh, continuous and large-scale influx of
land-hungry Bangladeshi peasants into Assam. But land in Assam had by now
become scarce, and Assamese peasants and tribals feared loss of their holdings.
However, this demographic transformation generated the feeling of linguistic,
cultural and political insecurity…”12 From 1951
to 1971, the scenario of cross and intra border influx to Assam can be figured
like below—
Data Source: Demographics
Trends in Assam, Dr. Tushar Kanti Choudhuri13
By the above statistics, it is
very vividly manifested that the demographic scenario of Assam was completely
changed due to the cross and intra border influx from 1951 to 1971. Assam
agitation (Popularly known as the Assam Andulon or Assam Movement) was the
spontaneous output of such type of demographic changes.14 During the Assam agitation, a military wing
was formed within the then AASU to boost up the agitation, which was turned
into ULFA on 7th April, 1979 with the cader strengths of 5000. 15
The then Home Minister of India
has observed that there were militant groups within the AASU, who want a
sovereign state arrangement. Mrinal Talukdar has observed that there were two factions
within the agitation. The first faction had believed in the democratic
procedures of Indian state mechanism as well as another faction manifested a
model of ‘Swadhin Assam’.16
2.02 Emergence of NDFB and BLTF— an output of
Language Politics :
Vasha Andulon (Language
Agitation) has played the key role to emerge other ethnic insurgency groups,
like: NDFB and BLT. Consciousness of Identity and self-determination is mainly
derived from the language politics and demographic scenario of an ethnic group.17 The then hill tribe leader Captain Williamson
Sangma in the Assembly debate of 1960, has said, “…It was no because we
disliked Assamese brothers and sisters. But we are considered that by accepting
Assamese as the official language we shall be handicapped…”18 NDFB and BLTF were the direct outputs of the
Bodoland Agitation led by ABSU (All Bodo Student’s Union) and Bodo Security
Force, known as BDsF. BDsF was the militant wing of ABSU. After the Bodoland
Accord signed by ABSU, Bodo People Action’s Committee and Assam Government, the
Bodo agitation was concluded. But BDsF denied accepting the treaty as according
to them, it was an imperial policy of Indian state mechanism.19 BDsF renamed them as the National Democratic
Front of Bodoland, i.e. NDFB and started their activities by an ethnic
cleansing campaign. However in the mid of 1990, NDFB has confronted a resist
power, named BLTF (Bodo Liberation Tiger Force), who believed that agendas of
NDFB were impractical and Utopia. BLTF demanded more autonomy within the veil
of
Indian
state mechanism.20 some critics want to say that BLTF were a
strategic operation of Indian state mechanism to weak NDFB. However, BLTF
surrendered themselves in 2003 with their achievement of formation of the
Bodoland Territorial Council, i.e. BTC.
Other Insurgency groups of Assam:
According to the South Asian
Terrorist Portal, in Assam, there are 9 insurgent groups along with ULFA-I.
These are like—
i.
United Liberation Front of Assam- Independent
ii.
IK Songbijit faction of National Democratic Front of Bodoland
iii.
People’s Democratic Council of Karbi-Longri
iv.
Rabha National Liberation Front
v.
United People’s Liberation Army
vi.
United Democratic Liberation Army
vii.
Tiwa Liberation Army
viii.
Rabha Viper Army
ix.
Karbi Land Protection Force
Counter insurgency initiatives:
Reaction of Indian state
mechanism towards ULFA was turned into violent in the end of 1990. AGP
government had showed a soft heart towards ULFA as they belong to the same
historical background. On 23rd May of 1986, the first arm encounter between
ULFA and State mechanism was happened within the range of Sonari Outpost of
Sivasagar district21. But it was ULFA, who had been dominated the entire Assamese
society for a decade.
The immediate cause of Central
government’s intervention was the issue of the tea estates. Swaraj Paul, former
chairman of Assam Frontier Tea Estate was killed by ULFA on 9th April of 1990.22 Research and Analytic Wing (RAW) had carried
Non-Assamese officers of “Dumduma India Limited” on 8th November of 1990.
Simultaneously a political changing was happened, when National Front resigned
from the power. On 28th November of 1990, under the article 356 of the Indian
constitution, the then president R. Vanketaraman had announced Assam as a
disturbed area and simultaneously enacted Arm Forces Special Power Act, which
is popularly known as AFSPA.23 ULFA and
NSCN were banned and announced them as illegal.
Operation Bojrong :
Operation Bojrong was the first
army operation against ULFA. It was a systematic part of declaration of the
Presidential rule, which led to a direct encounter between Indian Army and ULFA
caders. However Lieutenant General Kuldeep Singh Brar (Eastern Commander) had
led the operation. To the date of 20th April of 1991, more than 2,800 ULFA
caders were arrested, while fifteen caders were died, 1,208 numbers of weapons
and five crore Indian currency were arrogated.24
However, the Operation Bojrong
was concluded on 19th April of 1991 with a green signal of ULFA to the peace
talk.
Operation Rhino:
On 30th June of 1991, Hiteswar
Saikia became the Chip Minister of Assam along with his other fifteen Ministers.
Suddenly ULFA had re-boosted themselves and kidnapped fifteen government and
high profile officers within 24 hours and used them as hostages to release
arrested ULFA caders during the operation Bojrong.25 Sergei Gritchenko, the Soviet coalmine expert
was one of those abducted peoples, who was unfortunately killed (As ULFA said
he was died) in the custody of ULFA.26
On 9th August, freedom fighter
and journalist Kamala Saikia, on 23rd August, Chabnam Kalita (5 years old) and
T.S. Raju in September were killed by ULFA.
Circumstances had submissived
Indian State mechanism to start a new army operation against ULFA. Operation
Rhino, under the leadership of Lieutenant General Ajay Singh had achieved the
biggest victory.27 Twelve ULFA camps were raided where more than
2,875 members were arrested and other 237 members surrendered themselves.28 The greatest achievements of Operation Rhino
were Anup Chetia (Golap Boruah), Pravat Saikia, Raj Boruah, Pradip Gogoi (Vice
Chairman) and Javed Borah- the topmost leaders of the then ULFA, who were
arrested by the Westbengal Police and Indian Army.
However, on 19th December of
1991, Arabinda Rajkhowa, the then Chairman of ULFA had announced a unilateral
ceasefire declaration to made stop the operation. Rajkhowa had fevered to the
negotiation table, which was the greatest achievement of the Operation Rhino.
Operation All Clear:
Operation All Clear was
conducted by the Royal Bhutan Army, with the help of Indian Army between 15th
December of 2003 to 3rd January of 2004. The operation includes ULFA along with
NDFB, BLTF and KLO.
490 caders were arrested, where
160 caders were killed. However the operation was concluded with the
achievement of liberate Bhutan Borders from insurgent groups.
The Soft Policies: Split and Secret Killing :
After the unilateral ceasefire,
declared by Arabinda Rajkhowa, ULFA had decided to negotiate with the
government. But Paresh Baruah, Commander-in-Chief of ULFA had denied the
proposal, which compelled ULFA to refuge the negotiation. However it was a
vivid split of ULFA on the basis of the variances between Paresh Baruah and
some other members.
The split within ULFA had
created a sub group, derived from ULFA, i.e. Surrendered ULFA or SULFA. From
18th August of 1992, the notorious Secret Killing was started and had been
continued for the last decade. According to the Justice K.N. Saikia Commission
of enquiry, around 400 people were killed during the black era of the secret
killing by some unidentified murderers.29
In the last decade, a numbers of
ULFA leaders along with Arabinda Rajkhowa, Sasadhar Choudhuri, Chitraban
Hazarika and Raju Boruah were arrested in different parts of South Asia.
Simultaneously the 28 number battalion of ULFA had declared ceasefire
situation. As the 28 number battalion was the most active battalion of ULFA, by
which ULFA become more passive. Circumstances compelled Arabinda Rajkhowa to
come to the stage of Jatiya Avibartan, led by Dr. Hiren Gohain, the highly
celebrated intellectual, who tried to make a resolution of the situation.
However all these efforts have vividly divided ULFA on 22nd November of 2011
into two factions— First one is known As the ULFA Independent (ULFA-I), led by
Paresh Boruah and second one is known as the ULFA-Pro talk (ULFA-PT), led by
Arabinda Rajkhowa.30 Now a days, ULFA become
too weak due to these operations and soft policies, which was started by
Hiteswar Saikia.
Human right violation by State mechanism
(During the operations):
Human right violation during the
operations as well secret killings is a serious issue, created by the state
system. Professor Noni Gopal Mahanta has rightly observed that, “the Government
of India is adopting a lot of draconian laws which blatantly violate the human
rights by giving sweeping powers to the police and the army. Some of these laws
are the NSA, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act of 1967 and the TADA,
which lapsed in 1996.”31 In 2011, 183 alleged
fake encounter death registered, whereas the then home minister P. Chidambaram
has said that the highest encounter murder accident is happened in Assam.32 During the operations, Indian Army tortured
common masse and raped women as a kind of strategy, which was against of human
rights.33 Indian army had killed Debajit Moran (6 years
old), Bhanimai Dutta (14 years old), Dr. Suresh Phukan, Sarat Sonowal and a
numbers of registered or unregistered common innocent masses.34 According to Asia Watch, AFSPA was being
misused by the Indian Army.
FINDINGS:
i) Insurgency in Assam is emerged due to its
own geo-political factors and endless exploitation by the state mechanism. So
in a way, insurgency is a political phenomenon, which has to be solving by
political initiative.
ii) Behaviour of the state system against the
insurgencies are two dimensional— Militant and Soft Policy. In comparatively,
Soft Policies become more hurtful to the Assamese society, as it created secret
killings.
iii) Arm operations were successful, but human
rights were violated in a large scale, which cannot be reconcilement.
iv)
Cross and intra-border migration should be stopped within a very immediate
time.
v) Economic infrastructure should be structured
in a positive dimension, including Assamese society.
vi)
Peace-talking negotiation have to be organized by the both of the State and Insurgent
groups.
CONCLUSION:
Insurgency in Assam is emerged
due to its own geo-political factors and endless exploitation by the state mechanism. So in a way, insurgency is a
political phenomenon,which has to be solving by political initiative. Behaviour
of the state system against the insurgencies are twodimensional— Militant and
Soft Policy. In comparatively, Soft Policies become more hurtful to the
Assamese society, as it created secret killings. Arm operations were successful,
but human rights were violated in a large scale, which cannot be reconcilement.
REFERENCES:
[1].
Bhoumik,
Subir: Trouble Periphery, Page: 8
[2].
Ajir Batori,
17/07/1992
[3].
MNF:
Declaration of Independence
[4].
Boruah, Rofiul
Hussain: Swadhin Axom aru Oitihakhik Potovumi, P: 3
[5].
Talukdar,
Mrinal: ULFA, P: 11
[6].
Ibid, P: 15
[7].
Assam Tribune,
4th January/1958
[8].
Ibid, P: 18
[9].
Konwar,
Narayan: Society and Politics in Assam, Page: 71
[10]. Chandra,
Bipan: India Since Independence, P: 402
[11]. Ibid,
P: 403
[12]. Ibid.
P: 403
[13]. Boruah
, Rofiul Hussain: Swadhin Assam aru Oitihalhik Potovumi, P: X
[14]. Talukdar,
Mrinal: ULFA, P: 31
[15]. South
Asian Terrorist Portal, ULFA-I
[16]. Talukdar,
Mrinal: ULFA, P: 44
[17]. Konwar,
Narayan: Society and Politics in Assam, P: 100
[18]. Assam
Legislative Assembly Debate: 1960:57
[19]. Chronologies
of Modern Terrorism, Barry M. Rubin; Judith Colp Rubin P: 151–169
[20]. South
Asian Terrorist Portal, BLT
[21]. Talukdar,
Mrinal: ULFA, P: 6
[22]. Ibid,
P: 93
[23]. Duwarah,
Niku: Rastrosantrakh aru AFSPA, N.L. College Magazine, 54th ed., P:24
[24]. State
and insurgency: Study on counter
[25]. India
Today, 15 October, 1991
[26]. Taludar
Mrinal: ULFA, P: 105
[27]. Mahanta,
Noni Gopal: Confronting the state, P: 93
[28]. India
Today, 31 January/1992
[29]. Talukdar,
Mrinal: ULFA, P: 110
[30]. The
last supplementary report of N. Saikia Commission of Enquiry
[31]. Talukdar,
Mrinal: ULFA, P: 194
[32]. Mahanta,
Noni Gopal: Confronting the state, P: 156
[33]. The
telegraph, 23/05/2012
[34]. Talukdar,
Mrinal: ULFA, P: 109
[35]. Duwarah,
Niku: Rastrosantrakh aru AFSPA, N.L. College Magazine, 54th ed., P:25-27
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
[1].
Book and
Magazines: Boruah, Rofiul Hussain : Swadhin Assam aru Oitihakhik Potovumi,
Published- 1993
[2].
Bhoumik, Subir
: Trouble Periphery, SAGE Publication Ltd., Published- 2009 Chandra, Bipan
Mukherjee, Mridula
[3].
Mukherjee,
Aditya : India since Independence, Penguin Books, Published- 2007
[4].
Gogoi, Puranda
(Ed.) : N.L. College Magazine, 54th Edition, Year: 2016-17
[5].
Gohain, Hiren
: Agnigarbha Assam aru Subha Uttaranar Proshesta, Ashok Book Stall, Published-
2010
[6].
Konwar Narayan
: Society and Politics in Assam
[7].
Kothari, Rajni
: Politics in India, Orient Blackswan, Published- 2015
[8].
Mahnata, Noni
Gopal : Confronting the State, SAGE Publication Ltd., Published- 2003 Talukdar,
Mrinal
[9].
Kalita,
Kishore Kumar : ULFA, Bhabani Books, Published- 2012
Websites:
[10]. South
Asian Terrorist Portal: www.satp.org
[11]. Rare
documents:
[12]. The
Last supplementary report of Justice K, N. Saikia commission of
[13]. Inquiry
on the last group of ten cases.
0 Comments