Abstract
The author, Uddipana Goswami, alumni of the University of Delhi and also the Indian Institution of Mass Communication, has been a researcher and media person, writing extensively on critical issues facing India’s north-east. She has produced a timely and readable book on the ethnic conflicts and efforts towards reconciliation among the contesting and competing ethnic groups in Assam. Her basic premises are built on the multifaceted dimensions of ethnic politics in this trouble-torn state. There have been a considerable number of publications, over the years, on the issues of ethnicity, ethnic assertion of various communities and conflicts of grave import among them. The book under review is an important addition to these areas of knowledge, mainly because of the fact that she has taken an empirical approach, combined with a refreshing journalistic taste, to bring out a scholarly work. It was indeed a daunting task to embark upon a critical study on the area (p. 33). In addition to marshalling huge stockpile of secondary data, she has generated primary ones through field research, which makes the work not only interesting but also academically stimulating.
In order to place the community speaking the language popularly known as ‘Assamese’ as mother tongue, in the proper perspective, the author, at the beginning of the book, uses the term ‘Axamiyā’ to differentiate the people speaking the language as mother tongue from others who are living in the geographic territory of Assam but not speaking the aforementioned language. Assam is a multilingual state, and it is understandable that no one can expect all the people to speak the language of the majority. The aforesaid distinction had been taken up for debate at the turn of the twenty-first century, when the Government of Assam wanted to use the term ‘Axamiyā’ in place of Assamese in all official works. A strong opposition to the idea compelled the government to retreat to the original position. Those who opposed it argued that the word ‘Assamese’ has an inclusive connotation. There are many people who speak languages other than Assamese, at the same time identifying themselves as Assamese, and therefore, the older inclusive terminology has remained intact. Leaving aside the debate, it would be relevant to concentrate on the content and substance of the book from academic points of view. I, however, prefer to use the inclusive version, that is, Assamese, as I find myself comfortable with it.
Ethnicity has been the core of the conflicts in India’s north-east. The Naga insurgency was the forerunner of ethnic-based conflicts, most of which are armed ones. It started churning even before 1947, when A.Z. Phizo fired the first salvo by proclaiming independence of the land inhabited by his community. Naga Hill District, now known as Nagaland, was one of the districts of Assam. It was followed by another massive armed rebellion by the Mizos seeking independence, which, however, died down with the signing of a peace agreement between the Government of India and the Mizo rebels and the proclamation of Mizoram as a full-fledged state in 1987. Now, it has earned the reputation of being one of most peaceful states in the region. Eventually, as years passed, countless number of insurgencies became the order of the day in the region. Assam is one of the focal zones of conflicts. All these have been meticulously placed for proper understanding of readers.
It has been well recorded in the book under review, and also in a number of writings, both in Assamese and English, that the ethnic aspirations of various ethno-nationalist communities in Assam, such as the Bodos, the Dimasas, the Karbis, the Koch-Rajbanshis and so on, have been the root of inter-ethnic conflicts, in addition to the their clash of interests with the largest community, that is, the Assamese, despite the fact that all these communities have shared history, territorial identities and socio-economic interactions. It is not easy to make rigid demarcations among these communities, notwithstanding their respective specialty in terms of languages, culture, dress and social practices. That is why the people living in the Brahmaputra Valley had, more or less, a ‘broad synergic identity’ (p. 63), encompassing and transcending all shades of the population living in this area. They lived together for centuries without any conflict of interests till the last phase of the colonial rule, when the common identity was interrupted and a sense of separate identity took a political dimension with assertive articulation of aspirational elite for better deals in the post-colonial dispensation in the wake of emergence of ‘Hindu Axamiyā big brother’ attitude. The fear of domination swept in the minds of the communities whose mother tongue was not Assamese. The author attributes the development of a sense of particularism among these communities, more particularly the Bodos, to the disdainful treatment to them (p. 109).
It is clearly mentioned in the book that two major developments in post-colonial Assam became the source of inter-ethnic conflicts, having far-reaching consequences. The first is the language movement, which eventually led to the passing of Official Languages Act of 1960 (p. 7), seeking the imposition of Assamese language on all the inhabitants of the state. It was seen as an act of domination of the Assamese on others, a definite threat to the existence of the latter’s languages. Thereafter, the six-year Assam movement took place, unleashing unprecedented excesses and violence committed not only on the Muslims of East Bengal origins but also on the Bodos, one of the prominent indigenous communities in the state. A strong sense of distrust prevailed among the communities whose mother tongues were different from the dominant Assamese language.
In the backdrop of these historic developments, several movements took place in a parallel way. The Bodoland movement, a long and protracted one, assumed a violent character. It was followed by the demand for an autonomous state by the Karbis and the Dimasas, covering the geographical territory of the two hill districts of Karbi Anglong and North Cachar (now renamed as Dima Hasao). Close on the heels of these developments, the Koch-Rajbanshis demanded a separate homeland, Kamatapur. None of the agitating communities has a clear demographic majority in the area demanded. Further, the territory demanded by the Bodos for Bodoland overlaps the one claimed by the Koch-Rajbanshis for Kamatapur. In addition to the conflicting claims, there are internal contradictions too. There are separates shades among the Bodos on the basis of religion, which finds expression in unmistakable terms and dimension in the formations of two militant groups—the Bodo liberation Tigers (BLT) and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB). Similarly, there is virtually no unity of thought and action between the Karbis and the Dimasas, for which there was serious killing and bloodshed between them in 2005. In the present Bodoland Territorial Area Districts (BTAD) area, violence against non-Bodos, more particularly the adivasis (tribals) and the East Bengal-origin Muslims, has been going on since 1994. There are other smaller communities, namely, Sarania Kachari, Rabhas and Assamese, within the territorial geography of the present BTAD. There is no attempt towards resolution of mutually antagonistic contractions between and among the people living the areas. The same story with different actors can be found in the Karbi and Dimasa-inhabited areas, where there are other small communities, namely, the Assamese, the Bengalis, the Biharis, the Hmar and the Zemi Nagas.
In an attempt to focus on the assertion of separate identity of the Bodos as a case study, the author has argued that the community remained steadfast in projecting their identity, different from the Assamese and for that matter, other communities. It got a separate script, imposed separate dress (dakahana) on women and some of them asserted their religious identity with Christianity. Similarly, the Koch-Rajbanshis, a Hinduised tribal population, as noted by the colonial scholars and administrators, started the process of de-tribalisation on the basis of their past pre-historical narratives and recorded evidences, and at the same time, putting themselves within the frame of separate identity, clamoured for Kamatapur comprising the areas once claimed to be ruled by the Koch kings.
In a multicultural state like Assam, where no community overwhelms others, it is natural to have inherent differences and contradictions among them. As the author spells out the ground for reconciliation among them on larger and common issues and problems, there is hardly any effort towards its initiation in a meaningful way by the government agencies and civil society organisations. The Asam Sahitya Sabha, which has branches in the length and breadth of the state, more particularly in the Brahmaputra Valley, could have played an effective role towards reconciliation of differences between and among contesting and competing groups.
To put it precisely, the author writes with flair and imagination and carries out a scholarly analysis of a serious problem confronting the state for long. At the same time, she has not lost the objectivity in placing critical issues in proper and objective perspectives. What is worrying in the state is that almost all the movements in Assam are accompanied by violence and killing, accompanied by a sense of impunity, which eventually encourages both state and non-state actors to commit crimes against humanity, a serious issue, which has remained untouched. This book is, undoubtedly, a must for anyone keen to understand the conflict-ridden society in Assam.