[Assam] Asom’s ‘Sovereignty’: Some Confusing Aspects

[Jyotirmoy Sharma]

Mr JP Rajkhowa has written an interesting article. It makes sense to me.
Wonder if it does make sense to all the outfits fighting for "independence"
from India, Assam.
JS


>From the Sentinel by JP Rajkhowa

The demands for sovereignty as raised by various insurgent groups of Asom
have not only affected the thinking of the policy-makers in the government,
political analysts, schools of conflict resolution, political parties,
intellectuals or even the disorganized 'think tanks' of the State, but they
have also had their effect on the common people belonging to the various
ethnic and non-ethnic groups. In spite of the efforts made to ascertain the
root cause of insurgency and the demand for sovereignty by each of the
insurgent groups, and to devise ways and means to get rid of the burning
problems, no solutions acceptable to all the groups and the people at large
appear to be in sight. In this column, I do not intend to go into these
aspects, but limit to certain basic aspects of the demand related to
geographical territories of a ''sovereign Asom'' or the ethnicity of
demands. I have been prompted to restrict my approach due to the sudden and
unexpected demand raised by the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB)
for a ''sovereign Kachari kingdom'' — a front-page story of The Sentinel
(December 12, 2007).
As per the report, the NDFB, presently under a ceasefire agreement with the
Centre, has asked the people belonging to the Kachari community to ''unite
and repeat the history of the Kachari kingdom''. The press release by the
militant outfit stated that the Kacharis, also known as Bodos, ruled the
Brahmaputra and the Barak valleys in ancient times. It said, ''The Kacharis
lived in a free nation with dignity and honour till the British annexed
their dominions... The land of the Kachari people was neither conquered by
India, nor did the Kachari people join India by referendum. But till today,
unlawfully, India is installing its colonial government, thereby subjugating
the people.''
It is absolutely unclear under what circumstances the proscribed outfit has
now issued such a radical statement, demanding sovereignty for ''the Kachari
people'', identifying the Bodos for the first time with ''a common
ancestor'' of some other ethnic groups, though their primary demand known to
one and all so far had been a ''sovereign state of Bodoland'' exclusive of
the ethnic groups named by it lately.
The NDFB, it seems, now calls itself, though
indirectly, as the representative of the Mottoks,
Koches (Rajbongshis), Chutias and Morans too (though not listed by NDFB),
who constitute a very sizable population of Asom and who are only demanding
ST status, not any ''sovereignty''. The other ethnic communities named by
the NDFB have maintained their own separate identities for centuries, and
never call themselves as Bodos; some of them have their own autonomous
councils. Interestingly, in the scheme of Bodoland within the Indian
Constitution, the Bodo agitation led by the ABSU and the BLT (since
disbanded), indirectly also blessed by the NDFB, which got concretized in
the granting of BTAD under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, has
totally excluded all the ethnic groups coming from ''a common ancestor'',
and made reservation of 30 out of 40 council seats for Bodos only, not
''Kacharis''. While there is no dispute to the claim that all these ethnic
groups belonged to the Tibbeto-Burman race, and that the ''Bodo-Kacharis'',
not Bodos as such, were the ruling classes in Assam with territorial control
changing over time, most of the tribes were separate, independent people
with their own kingdoms and monarchs — for instance, Kachari (Dimasa)
kingdom, Mottok kingdom, Moran kingdom, Barahi kingdom, Chutia kingdom, Koch
kingdom etc — with many interior areas under the governance of chieftains
either independently or as valet chiefs of other kings.
At different times of history, certain tribes dominated over a huge region:
the Chutias, Morans, Mottoks and Kacharis in upper Asom, the Koches in lower
and parts of central Asom, and Kacharis in the south of upper Asom bordering
Naga hills right up to Kalang and extending to the Barak valley, though
before annexation by the British colonialists most parts of Asom were parts
of the Ahom kingdom. There were also tiny kingdoms, like Demoria dominated
by the Tiwas and Gobha dominated by the Rabha-Hasongs. History also tells us
about the once powerful Bar Bhuyans and the extensive areas held by them in
central Asom, and also of the powerful Kalita kingdom in the foothills of
Arunachal Pradesh, which had separate ancestors, and also about the Miris
and Hill Miris. The Bodos, it seems, identified themselves with the Kacharis
in those days till India's independence; so we do not find mention of any
Bodo king or Bodo kingdom in any history of Asom. If one goes by the
experience of the long agitation for ''Bodoland'' and the contents of the
''Bodoland Peace Accord'' with the government, one would find near-total
exclusivity for the Bodos in terms of political and socio-economic
arrangements, not for Bodo-Kacharis or Kacharis. Therefore, the motive
behind the latest demand raised by the NDFB needs close scrutiny and
analysis.
In the context of the NDFB's ''sovereignty demand'' for ''Kacharis'', it
would be relevant to briefly examine the sovereignty demands raised by other
insurgent groups. Everyone knows of the ULFA's demand for a ''sovereign
Asom'', though the ULFA is yet to publicly spell out the territorial area
and boundaries of a ''sovereign Asom''. Now in view of the NDFB's demand,
would the ULFA redraw the boundaries of ''sovereign Asom'', by excluding the
two hill districts and the Barak valley, these ''being part of the Kachari
kingdom forcefully wrested by the British and handed over to India at the
time of Independence''? Would the ULFA also make similar concessions in
respect of the historical kingdoms of the Ahoms, Chutias, Mottoks, Morans,
Borahis, Shingfows, Koches, Bar Bhuyans, Kalitas etc? What would then remain
of their ''sovereign Asom''?
Now coming to the Dimasas (Kacharis), the DHD (anti-talk) wants a
''sovereign Demaraji'', whereas the DHD (pro-talk) seems to be satisfied
with a ''Demaraji'' as a separate State carved out of Asom under the
Constitution. So what would happen to their demands? As for the UPDS, the
anti-talk faction as also the recently formed KLNLF have taken up arms for
an independent Karbi land, whereas the UPDS (pro-talk) is demanding a
separate Karbi State under the Constitution? Would the Karbis support the
NDFB's demand for a ''sovereign Kachari kingdom'', considering the fact that
the erstwhile Mikir Hills district formed part of the Kachari kingdom at the
time the British annexed it? What would be their stand to live with dignity,
honour and independence as a separate Karbi people, with a sovereign
Karbiland?
Apart from the ethnic tribes of both non-Aryan and Aryan origins as
mentioned earlier, we have about three million tea tribes, who are settled
here for more than 150 years and have been struggling for their political
and economic rights, including ST status. Though they have no historical
case for demanding a sovereign state, they have also given birth to a
militant organizations like the Cobra Militant Force (under ceasefire now),
All Adivasi Tiger Force (also under ceasefire, and the recently formed
Adivasi National Liberation Army. Though their objectives towards a
sovereign state are not clearly spelt out, it is obvious that they are
targeting the tea tribes-dominated tea gardens and peripheral areas,
including parts of Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon districts, presently under the
BTAD. Then there is the North Bengal-based Kamatapur Liberation Army which
has demanded formation of a ''sovereign Kamatapur'' which includes seven
districts of West Bengal and lower Asom districts of Goalpara, Dhubri,
Bongaigaon, Kokrajhar, Kamrup (undivided) and Darrang.
In addition to these groups, there are Islamic militant
outfits like the Muslim United Liberation Army and
the Muslim Tiger Force, and a number of fundamentalist outfits who are
determined to get their share of the cake for nearly seven million
Bangladeshi immigrants, of whom a large number falls in the illegal
category. All these groups want to carve out an Islamic state of Asom. What
would then happen to the Asomiya Brahmins and non-Brahmins, Asomiya Muslims,
Mahantas, Bengali Hindus, Scheduled Castes, and other Hindi settlers without
the backing of any historical claim for a ''sovereign'' land in Asom? Are
they also supposed to raise their own militant outfits in order to
safeguard, assert and promote their rights and privileges?
The moot question is: Do we stand any chance to survive as Asomiyas or even
as any of the many ethnic communities of our own by subscribing to the
dangerous demands of ''sovereignty'' by militant outfits, which are not only
self-contradictory, misleading and divisive, but which also bear the potency
of turning Asom into a civil war zone — even worse than Kashmir? Would any
useful purpose be served by trying to invoke the historical kingdoms of the
past and the mere days of slavery passed, whether under their own monarchs
and nobles or the British? If one were to reverse the clock and go by
history alone, there would be hundreds of ethnic groups in India demanding
sovereign status. Therefore, the best available and viable option would be
for the Centre to create environment for starting dialogue with all militant
groups and thrash out solutions of the problems — of course, by involving
the civil society groups too.
(The writer was Chief Secretary, Assam)