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) _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
