Justification of Sovereign Assam: A Summary of ULFA’s 1990 Letter to the United Nations

By: AxomSon

An armed organization formed in 1979 against the backdrop of rising ethno-nationalist sentiment in Assam, United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) has always been a notorious factor in the equation of the state’s socio-political life. Ever since its inception, the group has been successful in creating an enigma about itself in the minds of the general populace and the Government alike. In its peak days, ULFA was known for its guerrilla attacks, ability to place cadres and conduct operations in both urban and rural areas as well as their untraceable presence primarily owing to the immense support it enjoyed among the common folk. Although the same cannot be spoken as strongly about the urban middle class of Assam at that time who were mostly inclined to preservation of the status quo owing to a kind of equilibrium in their lives which they dared not disturb. But it is an undeniable fact that ULFA grew to what ULFA became solely because of the sub urban and rural populace of that time who having suffered the brunt of Governmental exploitations and stagnancy in development had ironically become the progressive section of the society. ULFA internationalized their demand for sovereignty in 1990 when they wrote a letter to the general assembly of the United Nations through the then Secretary General, Mr. Perez de Cueller, with justification of their core demands. A look at this letter (memorandum might be a better word) gives us a clear view of ULFA’s core ideology and the hard facts that it was based upon. The fact that the concept of ULFA is not the same as that of any other fringe insurgent group that rose as an impulsive reaction to external stimulus is cemented by this document.

At a time when the Government and the pro-talks faction of the ULFA are gearing up to sign the final ULFA accord and speculations are rife whether Commander in Chief, Paresh Baruah, will be a part of these discussions, it is important to remember the original demands of the organization to figure out whether they really will be addressed in the final accord or whether it will settle for benefits of newer applicability as shown in that of the recent NDFB accord. Through this article, an attempt is being made to explain the arguments ULFA wished to make in front of the United Nations and the world. Let me make this clear that the next paragraphs are a summarized, and in many cases paraphrased, version of that document and should not be considered a product of my opinion in any way. I do not wish to glorify or support the acts of violence committed by the group.

The Yandabo treaty was signed between the Burmese and the British empires on 24 February, 1826 to end the First Anglo Burmese war. It handed over control of the territories of Assam and major parts of the North East to the British. This was the first time ever in history when the reins of control over Assam were transferred to a central Indian empire. Until then, Assam was never a part of either Hindu or Muslim dominion of India. Assam’s history, ethnicity and social system is distinct and different from that of mainland India. On the same grounds, Myanmar which was a dominion of the British Empire and a border neighbor of India had been considered to be a sovereign nation. Moreover, the Muslim League had propounded the two nation theory which meant that India could in fact be divided on the basis of language, culture and ethnicity if claims for such a division could be justified.

ALSO READ: Explained: NSCN (IM)’s Enduring Love for ‘Father of the Nation’ Mahatma Gandhi

The drafting of the constitution was supposed to be done by a constituent assembly which would be formed by equal representation from all provinces. But instead 80 nominated members were added to the central assembly of that time and drafted the constitution of India. The document which was presented was hollow at the core because the concept of federalism put forward in it was flawed with mere traces of true federalism thrown in here and there. The fact is that India is too large and self-determination can only be exercised with a proper system of self-governance.

But the Indian constitution leaves no scope for self-government. For that matter, at the time of independence the Assam State Legislature had adopted a resolution rejecting the formation of the constituent assembly saying that the future constitution of Assam can be worked out by the state of Assam alone. But the issue of Assam’s affiliation to India and any questions raised therein were sidelined by communal clashes during partition.  Mountbatten’s plan of deciding most of Assam to be retained in India proper is thus considered a Fait Acompli to reluctantly join the union of India. The Indian National Congress had not included the parts east of the river Ganges i.e. the North Eastern region in the map of Nationalist India. As a matter of fact, Mahatma Gandhi in his book Hind Swaraj had unhesitatingly written that the territory east of the river Ganges cannot be considered a part of nationalist India.

Geographically Assam and the NER was only bridged with the mainland India by a narrow strip called the Chicken Neck and post-independence there was no surface communication between the two regions through roads, railways or waterways up till as late as 25^th of January 1950. Historically influx of people to mainland India had been from the north-west whereas the influx of the permanent population of Assam was from the east; Mongoloid, Tibeto-Mongoloid, Austrics and Negroes.

Britishers later during their colonial rule forced the influx of millions of people from India to undo the distinct ethnicity of the permanent population of Assam. In 1962, the Indian army had lost all claims over Assam and North Eastern regions when they had to retreat from the region and the Chinese had taken control. Upon the retreat of the Chinese army, Assam should have been left for self-governance but the Indian Army took control without any right or title to rule Assam. Even after independence, illegal immigrants were allowed to be admitted into India and since the entry point was Assam, it became the settling point for them. In certain regions they outnumbered the native and threatened to destroy the native ethnicity. To support this act the power to detect and deport immigrants was made a judicial one governed by the Foreigners Tribunal Order of 1964 whereas in the rest of India it is an executive and administrative power governed by the Foreigners Act of 1946.

Assam is a region rich in resources, at that time producing 60% of the tea, crude oil, plywood and 20% Jute of the country. Still the region was lagging behind in infrastructure like underdeveloped roads, industries, power as well as the oil and gas sector. At the time of independence, Assam was among the highest per capita income states but was the near lowest by the 80s. This was mainly due to the outflow of the capital from the state owing to complete control in the hands of Indian big business houses. The ‘Metropolitan Centre’ had been responsible for this economic exploitation of Assam and its resources. It is more like a conglomerate that owned companies like ONGC and tea companies who earned major profit by the produce of Assam but refused to work for the welfare of the region but continued to exploit its labour force instead.

They are unwilling to build infrastructure to support the natural bounty of hydel, thermal and gas resources for generation of power and fuel despite securing World Bank assistance for the same. The resulting economic sub-ordination by the nationalist Metropolitan Centre has brought major misery for the native people of the region. The only avenue left for them to exercise their initiatives is agriculture. Even here they face hurdles in the form of annual floods and unprecedented influx from Bangladesh and Nepal reducing the land to man ratio. Thus, colonialism subsisted even after independence with a continuous outflow of money from the state which might eventually lead to state bankruptcy.

As a matter of fact illegal migration has continued to override the native population with a massive increase in population between consequent censuses. Even after passing several constitutional and municipal laws like the Citizenship Act (1956), the 1951 NRC, Foreigner Act (1946), Foreigners Tribunals etc. the immigration problem remains unsolved. The only referendum against the sovereignty was determined to be participation in elections but even the elections were conducted at gun point in 1983 by using help from BSF and CRPF, registering electors participation as low as 2.5% to 17%. Even the 1985 Assam Accord was a sham pulled upon the eyes of the general public. The relevant date for entry of illegal migrants is 26 January 1950 and not 24 March 1971. This date does not appear in the Indian constitution but does in that of Bangladesh as the qualifying date for acquisition of citizenship. The Metropolitan Centre controls corporations and companies as well as the Government of Assam viz Indian Railways, Posts and Telegraph, Telephones, Hindusthan Paper Corporation, Coal India Limited, ONGC, refineries like AOC, Noonmati and BRPL. But still the Assamese youth stay unemployed.

The total 3 million unemployed youth (at that time) made up 50% of the available workforce. Assamese youth lagged behind in induction into central armed forces like Indian Army, CRPF, BSF, Assam Rifles as well in terms of technical education like engineering. Apart from this the Metropolitan Centre had failed to prevent or mitigate the annual floods even after setting up flood control board and commission. This was primarily due to lack of sanctions for schemes drawn from Delhi and the consequent lack of funds.

The territorial sovereignty of the state does not grant ownership but governing power only. While the authority of the Government is to be established by a general election by the genuine adults of the state but Assam is infested with immigrants. This problem has not been heeded by the Government. In 1979 elections were stalled in 12 out of 14 constituencies. In 1983, military power was used and 126 people died to stage the election at gunpoint. No genuine nationals participated but the foreigners did due to which the voter turnout was very low. Since people are not ready to vote, Metropolitan India loses its right to exercise territorial sovereignty in view of the fact that it failed to obtain the right and title to rule the state of Assam. In the meantime the people of Assam have lost their right to self-determination.

In the end, it was requested to the General Assembly of the United Nations that by their convenience they may hear the prayer submitted by ULFA for and on behalf of the territory and permanent populations of Assam to restore the rights of self-determination, enable the creation of a separate state of Assam and allow a delegation of the organization to plead their case before the United Nations.

Support Inside Northeast (InsideNE), an independent media platform that focuses on Citizen-centric stories from Northeast India that are surprising, inspiring, cinematic and emotionally relevant.