Since 20 July 2012, the riots in the Bodoland Territorial Autonomous Districts (BTAD) consisting of Baksa, Chirang, Kokrajhar and Udalgiri districts, and neighbouring Dhubri district of Assam have claimed about 90 lives as on 31 August 2012 and displaced over 400,000 people. This internal displacement has been variedly described as the largest one since India’s partition and the affected areas have been visited by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, then Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, the current Union Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, Congress President Sonia Gandhi and leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) LK Advani.
Some of the affected areas were also visited by Asaduddin Owaisi, a Lok Sabha Member of Parliament from Hyderabad and president of All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen on 28 July 2012 and in the first week of August 2012, and by the International Working President of the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Pravin Togadia on 4 August 2012.
It did not take long to paint the riots in Assam as a “communal” one along the lines (Hindus vs Muslims) witnessed in mainland India for centuries. As a violent demonstration was held at Azad Maidan in Mumbai on 11 August 2012 to protest against the attacks on the Muslims in Myanmar and Assam (both unrelated) and over 50,000 people hailing from North East India fled from various States of mainland India due to the physical attacks and threats from religious fundamentalists, a riot that started over local disputes and extortion by the insurgents in Assam became the national issue. Illegal immigration of Bangladeshi Muslims became the hot potato though there is no evidence to suggest that illegal immigration was the immediate raison d’être for the riots.
The truth is: had the four Bodo tribal youths not been lynched by a mob belonging to the Muslims after being snatched from the custody of a police party led by Officer In-Charge of Kokrajhar Police Station and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anjan Pandit on 20 July 2012, the riots would not have started in the first place. Even the killing of two Muslims on 6 July 2012 was attributed to the Kamtapuri Liberation Organisation by none other than Home Minister of India before the Rajya Sabha, Upper House of the Parliament.
Yet, the Bodo tribals (about 1.5 million in total in Assam), who are also religious minorities, were disturbingly demonised as some media and secular activists suggested that Assam riots were another Gujarat riots. The Bodos were accused of “ethnic cleansing” of the Muslims (about 10 million in Assam) – a war crime under the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court and the Geneva Conventions while
Assam Government was accused of “incentivising ethnic cleansing”. If indeed the Bodo insurgents were not involved in the killing of two Muslims on 6 July 2012 and the riots sparked off following the killing of four Bodo youths, can the riots be described as ethnic cleansing by the Bodo tribals? It is true that in the riots that lasted over a month, both communities got involved and affected.
A number of secular activists, who otherwise never covered other inter-tribal riots, descended to Assam, and interpreted the riots to public through narrow prism of mainstream India’s narrative on majority and minority (Hindus and Muslims) and the 2002 Gujarat riots. Many described the Nellie massacre of 1983 as the handiwork of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) while the All Assam Students Union (AASU) was clubbed with the BJP and the RSS. That the Bodos started their movement against the Assamese domination was conveniently missed and all those who raised illegal immigration issue were vilified as “anti-Muslims”. This is despite fact that the decadal growth rate of population in Kokrajhar district was 76.75% against 53.25% in Assam during 1971-1991. Irrespective of whether the high decadal growth rate in Kokrajhar was a consequence of migration or illegal immigration, its impact was clear: it caused massive land alienation amongst the Bodo tribals in clear violation of the Chapter X of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation (ALRR), 1886 that prohibits acquiring or possessing “by transfer, exchange, lease, agreement or settlement any land in any area or areas constituted into belts or blocks” by non-tribals.
Even the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) erred on judgements and propriety while addressing the riots in Assam. Apart from the report being biased and self-contradictory, it inexplicably failed to include its member from the North East, Mr H T Sangliana in the team that visited affected areas on 11-12 August 2012 but had included Dr Syeeda Hameed and G B Panda from the Planning Commission.
The North East, because of its history, tribalism and contesting territorial claims together with the fear of losing identities with the loss of land, remains complex. But the illiteracy on the North East continues to plague mainland India. That the otherwise enlightened civil society is not an exception has come to the fore. In this extremely caste conscious society (identified through surnames) of mainland India, “Narzary” (a Bodo surname) and “Nazrul” (a Muslim name) are mistaken to be from the same community.
The riots in Assam were absolutely preventable but not prevented because of the criminal dereliction of duty by officials from the Officer-in-Charge of Kokrajhar Police Station to the highest authorities of India’s military establishment i.e. Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, Chief of the Army Staff, Director General Military Operations and the Commander of the Eastern Command.
Obviously, there is a serious problem when a few secular activists actually laud the Mumbai Police for inadequate action against violent criminal acts unleashed at the Azad Maidan protest rally on 11 August 2012 where policemen were beaten, policewomen molested and their rifles snatched away. It is problematic because it is the same inaction that made the Bodoland an inferno – after all, it is the lynching of the four Bodo tribal youths after snatching them from police custody that sparked the riots. And none has reportedly been arrested so far for the murder of those four Bodo youths.
The inaction did not stop there. The Army stationed in the BTAD areas under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958 and bound to act under the command of the Unified Command headed by Chief Minister of Assam refused to intervene until the second request was made by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 24 July 2012. By the time the Army started deployment on 25 July 2012, about 44 persons were killed and over 200,000 persons were displaced, and the damage was done.
Assam now faces threats of religious fundamentalism as never seen before. The unwillingness of the Government of India to rehabilitate the displaced Indian citizens at per with what is being provided to Sri Lankan Tamil displaced persons is being replaced by the charities of the religious fundamentalists. The misery of the displaced persons is being used to solidify political support base.
Ironically, a number of secular activists of mainland India blinded by their tunnel vision on secularism have also been contributing to communalisation of the riots in Assam; and they echoed the Muslim fundamentalists’ mis-propaganda about ethnic cleansing in Assam. Many of these secularists have conveniently forgotten that the Bodos are tribals and that non-tribals irrespective of whether Hindus, Muslims or Christians and whether Assamese, Bengalees or Haryanvis cannot purchase or become beneficiaries of transfer of lands as per Chapter X of the ALRR, 1886. Essentially many of these secular activists have turned out to be anti-tribal, not only for undermining their land rights recognised since the British period and the constitution of India but also by terming creation of the autonomous councils as “incentivising ethnic cleansing”.
Is the discourse on the rights of religious minorities vs the rights of the scheduled tribes in the context of North East India the new challenge of India’s human rights movement? Or is it a more fundamental problem – those blinded by groups’ interests do not follow the key principles of human rights activism: independence, impartiality and objectivity.
