Assam Movement

Assam agitation
Assam agitation
	A student rally during the Assam Movement
Location	Assam, India
Caused by	Improper inclusion of foreign nationals in electoral rolls
Methods	Demonstrations, civil disobedience, rioting, lynching
Concessions	Passage of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act
Parties
All Assam Students Union, All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad	Government of India All Assam Minority Students' Union

The Assam Movement (also Anti-Foreigners Agitation) (1979–1985) was a popular uprising in Assam, India, that demanded the Government of India detect, disenfranchise and deport illegal aliens.^[4]^[2] Led by All Assam Students Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) the movement defined a six-year period of sustained civil disobedience campaigns, political instability and widespread ethnic violence.^[5] The movement ended in 1985 with the Assam Accord.^[6]^[7]

It was known since 1963 that foreign nationals had been improperly added to electoral rolls^[8]—and when the draft enrollments in Mangaldoi showed high number of non-citizens in 1979^[9] AASU decided to campaign for thoroughly revised electoral rolls in the entire state of Assam by boycotting the 1980 Lok Sabha election.^[1]^[10] The Indira Gandhi government that followed could not accept the demands of the movement leaders since it came at considerable political costs^[11]^[12] and the movement escalated to economic blockades, oppression, violent pogroms and lasting ethnic conflict. The political nature of this movement was heavily debated among scholars in the journal Economic and Political Weekly.^[13] The accord became possible under the Rajiv Gandhi ministry when the emphasis was on negotiation and compromise which both sides made, and particularly because Rajiv Gandhi was less concerned with Congress (I)'s electoral fortunes.^[14]

The Assam Accord did not solve the problem of foreigners' names in electoral rolls, primarily due to the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 passed by the Indira Gandhi government soon after the disastrous 1983 elections that made it practically impossible to prove anyone in Assam was an illegal alien.^[15]

^ ^a ^b "If there were a number of 'foreigners' in only one constituency—Mangaldai—what about other constituencies?...Naturally then, the next step for the AASU was to oppose the 1980 Lok Sabha elections without a thorough revision of electoral rolls of not just in Mangaldai but in the entire state...AASU leaders gave a call to political parties to boycott the polls till the EC revised the state's electoral rolls." (Pisharoty 2019:30)
^ ^a ^b (Baruah 1999:116): "The citizenship status of many of the newer immigrants was ambiguous[...] The campaign also led to friction between the ethnic Assamese and some of Assam's "plains tribal" groups."
^ "By September 1980 the immigrant organizations had become a third force in the negotiations on the Assam movement's demands. The government invited AAMSU leaders to Delhi for consultation during the negotiations between the government and the movement leaders." (Baruah 1986:1196)
^ "[T]he movement leaders demanded that the central government take steps to identify, disenfranchise, and deport illegal aliens."(Baruah 1986:1184)
^ "The years since 1979 saw governmental instability, sustained civil disobedience campaigns, and some of the worst ethnic violence in the history of post-independence India, including the killing of 3,000 people during the February 1983 election." (Baruah 1986:1184)
^ (Baruah 1986)
^ "Implementation of Assam Accord". assamaccord.assam.gov.in.
^ Cite error: The named reference reddi-1963 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ (Pisharoty 2019:28)
^ "Preparations to a bye election to the Mangaldoi parliamentary constituency in mid 1979 revealed that out of 47,000 alleged illegal entries of the names of foreigners brought to the notice of the electoral registration officers, 36,000 were disposed of and out of these as many as 26,000 or over 72 per cent were found to be and declared as illegal entries being those of non-citizens. What is true of the Mangaldoi constituency could be true of many other constituencies. No wonder, Mangaldoi became the rallying point of a renewed attack on the electoral rolls culminating in the boycott of the Lok Sabha poll in January 1980." (Reddi 1981:31)
^ "To treat Hindu immigrants from East Pakistan and what subsequently became Bangladesh as illegal, irrespective of what the citizenship laws state, would have alienated significant sections of Hindu opinion in the country. On the other hand, to explicitly distinguish between Hindu "refugees" and Muslim "illegal aliens" would have cut into the secular fabric of the state and would have alienated India's Muslim minority. To expel "foreigners" would also have political costs internationally in terms of India's relations with Bangladesh: the official Bangladeshi position is that there are no illegal immigrants from Bangladesh in India." (Baruah 1986:1192f)
^ "From the center’s point of view, readily giving in to the nationalists would exact a significant political cost: it would imperil its Bengali immigrant vote bank, 40 and treating Hindu immigrants from what had been East Pakistan as illegal aliens would have courted disaster in mainstream Hindu circles in the rest of the country. The “obvious” solution to this problem—of making an exemption for Bengali Hindus while declaring Bengali Muslim immigrants illegal—would open a unique can of worms, drawing into question the secular nature of the Indian republic as well as alienating Muslims at large, an important constituency for Congress. Finally, expelling Bengali immigrants would spell trouble for India’s relations with Bangladesh" (Butt 2017:90–91)
^ Some of the scholars who took part in the debate were Amalendu Guha, Hiren Gohain, Sanjib Baruah, Gail Omvedt, and others. The terms used in this debate were "chauvinism", "nationalism", "subnationalism" etc. (Kar, Manek & Lobo)
^ "As was the case in Punjab (see below), Rajiv Gandhi’s “decisiveness” garnered a great deal of credit. Unlike his mother, who “disliked making decisions,” Rajiv “hears his people and decides quickly—often immediately in the cabinet meeting.” The “fundamental difference” between the two was that while Indira was more interested in protecting Congress’ majority, Rajiv cared less about the party’s interests and wanted to be seen as a problem-solver." (Butt 2017:92)
^ "The Indian Parliament in 1983—at a time when Assam was largely unrepresented as a result of the election boycott—passed the Illegal Migrants (Determination of Tribunal) Act, making it difficult, if not impossible, to prove that someone was an illegal alien in Assam." (Baruah 1999:143–144)

[pis-aasu-oppelect-1] "If there were a number of 'foreigners' in only one constituency—Mangaldai—what about other constituencies?...Naturally then, the next step for the AASU was to oppose the 1980 Lok Sabha elections without a thorough revision of electoral rolls of not just in Mangaldai but in the entire state...AASU leaders gave a call to political parties to boycott the polls till the EC revised the state's electoral rolls." (Pisharoty 2019:30)

[Baruah-2] (Baruah 1999:116): "The citizenship status of many of the newer immigrants was ambiguous[...] The campaign also led to friction between the ethnic Assamese and some of Assam's "plains tribal" groups."

[3rdside-3] "By September 1980 the immigrant organizations had become a third force in the negotiations on the Assam movement's demands. The government invited AAMSU leaders to Delhi for consultation during the negotiations between the government and the movement leaders." (Baruah 1986:1196)

[4] "[T]he movement leaders demanded that the central government take steps to identify, disenfranchise, and deport illegal aliens."(Baruah 1986:1184)

[5] "The years since 1979 saw governmental instability, sustained civil disobedience campaigns, and some of the worst ethnic violence in the history of post-independence India, including the killing of 3,000 people during the February 1983 election." (Baruah 1986:1184)

[6] (Baruah 1986)

[7] "Implementation of Assam Accord". assamaccord.assam.gov.in.

[reddi-1963-8] Cite error: The named reference reddi-1963 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[9] (Pisharoty 2019:28)

[10] "Preparations to a bye election to the Mangaldoi parliamentary constituency in mid 1979 revealed that out of 47,000 alleged illegal entries of the names of foreigners brought to the notice of the electoral registration officers, 36,000 were disposed of and out of these as many as 26,000 or over 72 per cent were found to be and declared as illegal entries being those of non-citizens. What is true of the Mangaldoi constituency could be true of many other constituencies. No wonder, Mangaldoi became the rallying point of a renewed attack on the electoral rolls culminating in the boycott of the Lok Sabha poll in January 1980." (Reddi 1981:31)

[11] "To treat Hindu immigrants from East Pakistan and what subsequently became Bangladesh as illegal, irrespective of what the citizenship laws state, would have alienated significant sections of Hindu opinion in the country. On the other hand, to explicitly distinguish between Hindu "refugees" and Muslim "illegal aliens" would have cut into the secular fabric of the state and would have alienated India's Muslim minority. To expel "foreigners" would also have political costs internationally in terms of India's relations with Bangladesh: the official Bangladeshi position is that there are no illegal immigrants from Bangladesh in India." (Baruah 1986:1192f)

[12] "From the center’s point of view, readily giving in to the nationalists would exact a significant political cost: it would imperil its Bengali immigrant vote bank, 40 and treating Hindu immigrants from what had been East Pakistan as illegal aliens would have courted disaster in mainstream Hindu circles in the rest of the country. The “obvious” solution to this problem—of making an exemption for Bengali Hindus while declaring Bengali Muslim immigrants illegal—would open a unique can of worms, drawing into question the secular nature of the Indian republic as well as alienating Muslims at large, an important constituency for Congress. Finally, expelling Bengali immigrants would spell trouble for India’s relations with Bangladesh" (Butt 2017:90–91)

[13] Some of the scholars who took part in the debate were Amalendu Guha, Hiren Gohain, Sanjib Baruah, Gail Omvedt, and others. The terms used in this debate were "chauvinism", "nationalism", "subnationalism" etc. (Kar, Manek & Lobo)

[butt92-rajiv-14] "As was the case in Punjab (see below), Rajiv Gandhi’s “decisiveness” garnered a great deal of credit. Unlike his mother, who “disliked making decisions,” Rajiv “hears his people and decides quickly—often immediately in the cabinet meeting.” The “fundamental difference” between the two was that while Indira was more interested in protecting Congress’ majority, Rajiv cared less about the party’s interests and wanted to be seen as a problem-solver." (Butt 2017:92)

[15] "The Indian Parliament in 1983—at a time when Assam was largely unrepresented as a result of the election boycott—passed the Illegal Migrants (Determination of Tribunal) Act, making it difficult, if not impossible, to prove that someone was an illegal alien in Assam." (Baruah 1999:143–144)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]