View
240
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
CHAPTER-3
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Northeast India comprises the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Assam, Tripura and Sikkim. It shares
international border with countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, China and Myanmar
which has made the region strategically important. The total land area of
Northeast India is 255168 square kilometers. The region has a unique history,
distinct demography and socio-economic features. It has been an abode of several
ethno-linguistic and cultural groups since ancient time. Since the time
immemorial, people of different races, languages and cultures have come and
settled in different parts of Northeast. Hypothetically, the earliest settlers of this
part of the country is believed to be of Austro-Asiatic stock of human races
(currently identified with Khasis) who came from eastern Mediterranean and had
been settling in the region since 2500 BC (Raatan 2011: 10). They were followed
by Indo-Mongoloid group of people migrating from central Asia such as China,
Mongolia, Tibet and Siberia at about 1000 BC (Chatterjee 2007: 26). They settled
down in different parts of Northeast India and ruled over the region for many
centuries. Indo-Aryan people came to Northeast during the epic period i.e. at the
time of compiling Ramayana, Mahabharata and other Vedic literature. Coming of
Muslims (1205) and Ahoms (1228) during the first half of the 13th century and of
British in the 19th century had added to the diversity of this region.
Chapter-3
62
Writing a history of ancient Assam which comprised almost the whole of present
Northeast India except Manipur, Tripura and Sikkim has not been an easy task.
Any historian who wrote about the history of ancient Assam had to face the
difficulties of having insufficient evidence and information. In this regard,
Edward Gait observed, “The science of history was unknown to the early
inhabitants of Assam, and it is not till the Ahom invasion in 1228 AD that we
obtain anything at all approaching a connected account of the people and their
rulers. Some scattered facts may be gleaned from a few ancient inscriptions and
from the observations of a Chinese traveler. But before that, nothing definite is
known, and our only information consists of some dubious and fragmentary
references in the Mahabharata, and in the Puranas and Tantras and other similar
records” (Gait 2005: 1). However, for the convenience of presentation, an attempt
has been made to present things chronologically and systematically and
accordingly the chapter is divided into three sections. Section I covers the
mythological period the historical account of which is relatively vague but gives a
glimpse of the background of Bodos in Northeast India, Section II covers the
historical period including pre-colonial and colonial time and Section III deals
with the post-colonial modern period in which the identity movement of the
Bodos is initiated.
I
Mythological period
During mythological era, Assam was known as Pragjyotisha (Barua 2008: 1).
Gradually, by 4th century AD, it came to be known as Kamrupa. At the time of
Mahabharata, Pragjyotisha included “the greater part of modern Assam together
with the districts of Jalpaiguri, Coochbehar, Rangpur, part of Pabna and also
probably part of East Nepal” (2008: 2). The earliest mentioned King of Kamrupa
or Pragjyotisha, was a non-Aryan named Mahiranga Danava. According to K.L.
Chapter-3
63
Barua, the name Mahiranga has been derived from the word ‘Mairang’ (2008: 2)
In order to substantiate his argument he cited the example of a hill on the
‘Seventh Mile’ of the Gauhati-Shillong road which is still known as ‘Mairang
Parbat’. In Bodo language, Mairong means paddy or rice. Therefore, it can be
assumed that the inhabitants of Kamrupa or Pragjyotisha of the then time were
the Bodos of Mongoloid origin who was then known as Kiratas, Asuras, Danavas
and Mlechhas. Mahiranga was succeeded in turn by Hatak Asura, Sambar Asura
and Ratna Asura. They were succeeded by a powerful chief known as Gatak
Asura who was known to be extremely addicted to meat and strong drinks (Gait
2005: 12). Naraka (or Narkw) Asura defeated him and founded a new dynasty.
Naraka Asura was known to be the son of the mother earth and king Janaka of
Videha brought him up along with his princes. Since Naraka Asura is believed to
be the son of the Earth, the Bhumi, his dynasty has been identified as Bhauma
dynasty (Basumatary 2009: 67). However, many historians are of the view that
Naraka Asura was a Bodo King as during such time ‘Asuara’ appellation was
attached to Bodos. Initially, Naraka Asura was a pious and humble King and was
worshiper of Goddess Kamakhya. But under the influence of Bana Asura, another
Bodo King of Tezpur, he grew irreligious and presumptuous and asked Goddess
Kamakhya (or kamaikha) to marry him. Goddess Kamakhya agreed on the
condition that a temple would have to be erected on Nilachal in her name and
also a tank and a road to the temple to be constructed in a single night. Naraka
Asura agreed and almost completed the task, when the Goddess caused a cock to
crow to claim that it dawned and thus refused to marry him (Gait 2005: 12). This
was how Kamakhya was said to have been erected. Binay Kumar Brahma
claimed ‘Kamakhya’ as a Bodo word. He observed, “the term ‘Kamakhya’ is a
compound word and may simplify in Bodo with their meaning as: Kam or
Kham= to burn; ai= mother goddess; kha=structuring. Complete meaning reads
as ‘Mother Goddess being structured out of burned ashes’. Siva Purana says that
to escape the insult inflicted to her husband Siva by her father Dakhsva, Sati had
jumped into the burning fire of yajna and died (Brahma 2008: 14). As Naraka
grew more oppressive, Vishnu in his incarnation as Krishna, slained him and
installed Bhagadatta, the eldest son of Naraka Asura, on the throne of
Chapter-3
64
Pragjyotisha. Bhagadatta was a powerful King of epic period and described as a
warrior “not inferior to Sakra (Indra) in battle” (Barua 2008: 20). In Sabha Parva
of Mahabharata, he is called “the mighty King of the Mlechhas” (Baruah 1985:
82). Mlechhas were believed to be the progenitors of the present day Bodos.
Bhagadatta took part in the famous battle of Kurukshetra on the side of Kauravas.
He fought valiantly and suffered death at the hands of Arjuna. Bhagadatta was
succeeded by his son Vajradatta and his descendents continued to rule for
nineteenth generations. The last king of this Bodo/Asura kingdom of Pragjyotisha
was Suparna. Suparna was killed by his minister (Gait 2005: 13).
Another Bodo/Asura kingdom which found mentioned in Bhagabat Gita and
Vishnu Purana was the Asura Kingdom of Tezpur. Bana Asura of Tezpur was the
contemporary of Naraka Asura and worshipper of Lord Siva. He had many sons
and one daughter. The name of his daughter was Usha. Usha was very beautiful
and, therefore, could attract the attention of Anirudda, the grandson of Krishna.
With the help of Chitralekha, Anirudda entered the castle of Usha in the palace
and married her secretly. But he was caught. However, he was rescued by
Krishna after defeating Bana Asura (Gait 2005: 15-16). Remains of this dynasty
are still in existence in Tezpur town (Sonitpur district of Assam) in the form of
Agnigarh. According to Hindu mythology, Agnigarh is the site of the fortress
which was built by Bana Asura to keep his daughter in isolation. The all sites of
the fortress used to remain surrounded by fire day and night so that nobody could
go in or out without permission. Today, it is an important historical place in the
state and also bears the reminiscence of Bodo/Asura rule in Assam.
Generically, Bodos belong to Indo-Mongoloid group of people and spoke Tibeto-
Burman language. They migrated to the northeastern part of India at about 1000
BC from central Asia such as China, Mongolia, Tibet and Siberia (Chatterjee
2007: 26). However, it was not a onetime migration. The process of migration
went on successive waves. Sydney Endle observed that there were at least two
great phases of immigration from the north and northeast to the river valley of the
Brahmaputra, i.e. one refers to immigration to Northeast Bengal and western
Chapter-3
65
Assam through the valley of Tista, Dharla, Sankosh etc and the other making its
way through the Subansiri, Dibong and Dihong valley into eastern Assam (Endle
1990: 4). Gradually, Bodos spread into different parts of Assam, Bengal,
Meghalaya, Tripura Bangladesh and some pockets of Nepal and Burma. They
settled in and ruled over the northeastern part of India, particularly Assam for a
long time and left their marks of identity on the toponymy of entire Northeast
India. Sydney Endle observed, “It is indeed not at all unlikely that the people
known to us as Kacharis and to themselves as Bada (Bara), were in earlier days
the dominant race in Assam, and as such they would seem to have left traces of
their domination in the nomenclature of the physical features of the country, e.g.
the Kachari word for water (di or doi) apparently forms the first syllable of the
names of many of the chief rivers of the province, such as Diputa, Dihong,
Dibong, Dibru, Dihing, Dimu, Disang, Diku (cf. khu Tista) &c.,and to these may
be added Dikrang, Diphu, Digaru, &c., all near Sadiya, the earliest known centre
of Chutiya (Khachari) power and civilization” (1990: 4). The Ahoms ruled over
Assam for about six hundred years, but their word for river (i.e. nam) occurs only
in a few instances in the extreme east, e.g. Namrup, Namstik and Namsang. From
this fact, it can be assumed that the span of Bodo/Kachari rule in Assam is of
longer duration than that of the Ahoms (Gait 2005: 6).
Edward Gait described the Kacharis as aborigines or the earliest known
inhabitants of the Brahmaputra Valley. They are identical with the people called
Mech in the Goalpara and North Bengal. The Kacharis call themselves as Bodo
or Bodo-fisa (son of the Bodo). In the North Cachar Hills, they call themselves as
Dimasa, meaning ‘son of the great river’. They were known to the Ahoms as
Timisa (2005: 6). The Bodos were earlier not known by the name of Bodos.
During the time of the compilation of Ramayana, Mahabharata and Vedic
literature they were known as Kiratas, Asuras or Mlechhas. In Sanskrit, the term
‘Kirata’ refers to the wild non-Aryan tribes living in the mountain, particularly
the Himalayas and the northeastern parts of India, who were mongoloid in origin
(Chatterjee 2007: 26). Thus, the term ‘Kirata’ is a generic name referred to
different sections of the people belonging to the mongoloid origin. The Bodos are
Chapter-3
66
only a part of greater Kirata group of people. Ahom Buranjis refer them as
Kacharis.
The above account suggests that the Bodos who were then known as Asuras,
Kiratas, Mlechhas and Danavas ruled over Pragjyotisha or Kamrupa for many
centuries. They also ruled the Kachari kingdoms of Dimapur, Maibang and
Kashpur for many generations. However, it is often a matter of dispute that the
traces of Bodo rule which lasted for such a long duration and was spread
throughout the length and breadth of the then Assam are not enough and are
found mainly in the form of memorials and monuments. One explanation of that
may be, as Edward Gait suggests, the destruction of Nature (Gait 2005: 20).
Natural calamities like earthquake and flood (in the Brahmaputra valley) might
have washed away the traces of Bodo rule in Assam. (2005: 20). Some also think
that lack of understanding of people about the importance of historical evidences
is also responsible as adequate care to preserve and maintain them was not given.
II
Pre-Colonial Period
History of Bodos became relatively clearer from the 4th century AD. During this
period, some authentic sources like Harshacharita, Bargaon Grants of
Balavarman III, Nidhanpur Copperplate Grant and Doobi Copperplate Grant of
Bhaskar Varman came to light and attracted the attention of the historians. In the
famous Allahabad rock inscription of King Samudragupta Kamrupa was
described as frontier Kingdom of Gupta dynasty of Magdha (now Eastern Uttar
Pradesh). Doobi Copperplate Grant states Pushya Varman as the first King of
Pragjyotisha and Kamrupnagar as his capital (Narzinary 2000: 7). He was
contemporary of King Samudragupta and claimed his lineage from Bhagadatta,
the famous non-Aryan Asura/Bodo King of epic period (Roy 1995: 8). As regards
the authenticity of his claim for lineage, it may be said that there cannot be any
Chapter-3
67
doubt that he was a Bodo King, as no Aryan would like to claim his lineage from
a non Aryan Mlechha, Asura or a Bodo King (1995: 8).
Varman dynasty, the first historically recorded Bodo kingdom of Pragjyotisha
lasted for three centuries and Kumar Bhaskar Varman was one of the most
powerful Kings of this dynasty. Suniti Kumar Chatterji described him as the
Hinduised Mlechha king (Chatterji 2007: 91). A chronological presentation of the
heirs of Varman dynasty who preceded Pushya Varman is as below:
Chart-3.01: Chronological Presentation of Kings of Varman Dynasty
Name of King Period of Reign
1. Samudra Varman 380-405 AD
2. Bala Varman 405-420 AD
3. Kalyan Varman 420-440 AD
4. Ganapati Varman 440-450 AD
5. Mahendra Varman 450-485 AD
6. Narayan Varman 485-490 AD
7. Mahabhuta Varman 490-555 AD
8. Chandramukha Varman 555-565 AD
9. Sthita Varman 565-585 AD
10. Sisthit Varman 585-593 AD
11. Supratisthit Varman 593-594 AD
12. Bhaskar Varman 594-650 AD
13. Avantivarman 650-655 AD
Source: Basumatary, B. C. (2009). Bodo Civilization in India. Kokrajhar: Ganda Offset.
Varman dynasty lasted up to 655 AD and was succeeded by Salastamba dynasty.
In Bargaon Copperplate inscription of Ratnapala, Salastamba, the founder of the
Salstamba dynasty, was described as the governor of a Mlechha Country (Barua
2008: 67). Hence, it is apparent that Salastamba belonged to Bodo race who were
Chapter-3
68
then known as Mlechhas, Asuras and Kiratas. Salastamba founded his dynasty in
655 AD and ruled up to 675 AD. After 20 years of rule, Salastamba was
succeeded by his son Vijaya in 675 AD. Subsequently, Vijaya was succeeded by
Palaka, Kumara and Vajradeva in turn. Salastamba dynasty of Kamrupa lasted for
more than three centuries and came to an end in 985 AD. The last King of the
Salastamba dynasty was Tyaga Simha and he died heirless. A chronological
presentation of the heirs Salastamba dynasty is as under.
Chart-3.02: Chronological Presentation of Kings of Varman Dynasty
Name of King Period of Reign (Approx)
1. Salastamba 655-675AD
2. Vijaya 675-685AD
3. Palaka 685-700AD
4. Kumara 700-715AD
5. Vajradeva 715-730AD
6. Shri Harsha Deva 730-750AD
7. Balavarman II 750-765AD
No authentic information could be unearthed about 35 year of
historical vacuum that follows the rule of Balavarman.
8. Pralambha 800-820AD
9. Harjaravarman 820-835AD
10. Banamalavarman 835-860AD
11. Jaymalavarman 860-875AD
12. Balavarman III 875-890AD
No authentic information could be revealed about nearly hundred years
of missing link that follows the rule of Balavarman III.
13. Tyaga Singha 970-985AD
Source: Barua, K. L. (2008). Early History of Kamrupa: From the Earliest Time to the
End of the Sixteenth Century. Guwahati: LBS Publications.
Chapter-3
69
Salastamba dynasty was succeeded by Pala dynasty. Rulers of this dynasty (like
Varman and Salastamba dynasty) were also believed to be the Hinduised
Mlechhas. During ancient period there was a prevalent practice of giving
Kshatriya status to the ruling non-Aryan families and also giving them Hindu
names (Baruah 1985:112). The first King of this lineage, Brahma Pala, was of
Indo-mongoloid origin and he was described in an inscription of his son Ratna
Pala as being the relative of Tyaga Simha, the last Bodo/Mlechha King of
Salastamba dynasty.(Chatterjee 2007: 98). This Pala dynasty lasted for one and a
half century and came to an end in 1125 AD when the last King Jaya Pala was
overthrown by Rama Pala of Gaur (Barua 2008: 95). The chronological
presentation of Pala dynasty of Kamrupa is as below.
Chart-3.03: Chronological Presentation of Kings of Varman Dynasty
Name of King Period of Reign (Approx)
1. Brahmapala 985-1000AD
2. Ratnapala 1000-1030AD
3. Indrapala 1030-1055AD
4. Gopala 1055-1075AD
5. Harshapala 1075-1090AD
6. Dharmapala 1090-1115AD
7. Jaya Pala 1115-1125AD
Source: Barua, K. L. (2008). Early History of Kamrupa: From the Earliest Time to the End of
the Sixteenth Century. Guwahati: LBS Publications.
Another important dynasty of Bodos of the pre-colonial period was Kachari
dynasty of Dimapur which included vast areas of present Assam and Dimapur
district of present Nagaland. The capital of this dynasty was at Dimapur
(presently situated in Nagaland). The term ‘Dimapur’ is composed of two words
i.e. ‘Dima’ and ‘pur’. In Bodo language ‘Dima’ means ‘big river’ and ‘pur’
Chapter-3
70
means ‘a place or an area or a land’. Together, ‘Dimapur’ means the ‘land of the
big river’. However, there is no authentic information when this Kachari dynasty
came to power in Dimapur. But there is evidence to suggest that by the 13th
century, when the Ahom Kings were carving out an Ahom kingdom in upper
Assam, the Kachari kingdom was quite powerful, and for about two hundred
years the Ahom Kings refrained from launching any major attack against them
(Roy 1995: 11). The kingdom was extended along the South bank of the
Brahmaputra valley and also included the Dhansiri valley and North Cachar hills.
In 1490 AD the Ahom King Suhenpha attacked the Kachari kingdom of Dimapur
but did not succeed. The Ahom King Suhumung also tried to capture Kachari
kingdom in 1526 but failed. However, a major defeat of the Kachari kingdom of
Dimapur came in 1531 when Suhumung attacked it with renewed preparation and
killed Detcha, the brother of Kachari King Khungkhara. Detsung (relative of
Khungkhara) was installed as a puppet King at Dimapur as Khungkhara fled
away to escape execution. However, the relationship deteriorated and Detsung
revolted against Suhumung in1536 and a fierce struggle occurred between the
two in which Detsung was defeated and put to death. After his death, the
Kacharis left Dimapur and Dhansiri valley and marched towards the South. They
established their new capital at Maibong (Gait 2005, 238). But at the face of
expansionist Ahom rule, the Kacharis could not rule Maibong peacefully. The
Ahom King Rudra Singha attacked this Kachari kingdom in 1706 and annexed it
to his Kingdom. The Kachari King Tamradhaj fled to Kashpur in Cachar district
and established a new Kachari Kingdom there. But in 1818, the Manipuri prince
and Burmese attacked the Kingdom of Kashpur which forced Kachari King
Gabinda Chandra to seek help from the British East India Company. The British
East India Company helped Gabinda Chandra and restored him to the throne. But
the King did not live long. In 1832, King Gabinda Chandra died heirless and as a
result, the kingdom was transferred to the East India Company under the policy
of Doctrine of Lapse. However, some parts of the kingdom remained under
Tularam, Commander-in-Chief of King Gabinda Chandra, and his two sons till
1854 (Roy 1995: 11-12). After that, the entire Bodo kingdom of Kashpur has
gone to the East India Company.
Chapter-3
71
Colonial period
Consolidation of colonial rule in Assam, however, took long period and different
units were brought under the fold of colonial rule at different periods of time. For
instance Plains Assam in 1826, Cachar Plains in 1832, Khasi Hills in 1833,
Jaintia Plains in 1835, Karbi Anglong ( Mikir Hills ) in 1838, North Cachar Hills
in 1854, Garo Hills in 1872-73 and Lushai Hills in 1890 (Datta 1993: 5-6). After
bringing almost the whole of Assam under its fold, the British East India
Company started tea plantation over a vast area of land. Tea plantation in Assam
began its journey in the year 1836 and expanded at much faster rate between
1850 and 1900. The expansion of the tea industry in Assam led to the import of
labourers from the neighbouring states of Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra
Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The important tribes recruited by the British tea
planters were Santals, Oraons, Mundas, Khaharias, Gonds, Khonds and Nagesia
(Narzinary 2000: 13). The import of the Santhals served two important purposes
of colonial rule-first, it met the scarcity of labourers in Assam and the second, it
helped in suppressing the Santhal uprising (Jharkand Movement) under the
leadership of Birsa Munda in Bihar (now Jharkhand). Besides, a large number of
people from the then East Bengal also migrated to the region in search of land
and better livelihood.
Superintendent of Census Report of India 1931, C. S. Mullan, remarked that
probably the most important event in the last twenty five years that seemed to
have altered the whole future of Assam and destroyed the whole structure of
Assamese culture and civilization - had been the invasion of a vast horde of land
hungry Bengali immigrants, mostly Muslims, from the districts of Eastern Bengal
particularly from Mymensingh (Bordoloi 1986: 28). This invasion began
sometime before 1911 and continued for many years. By 1921, the first group of
migrants had conquered Goalpara. The second group of migrants which followed
them in the years 1921-31 had consolidated their position in that district and had
also completed the conquest of Nowgong. Subsequently, they also spread to
Chapter-3
72
Barpeta and Darrang districts of Assam. Sibsagar was so far untouched from the
trouble of illegal migration (1986: 29). “It is sad but by no means improbable”,
Mullan observed, “that in another thirty years Sibsagar district will be the only
part of Assam in which an Assamese will find himself at home” (1986: 30).
Table- 3:01 Number of Migrants from East Bengal in Assam during 1911-31 (In thousands)
District 1911 1921 1931 Total Goalpara 77 (MS 34) 151 (MS 78) 170 (MS 80) 398 (MS 192) Kamrup 4 (MS 1) 44 (MS 30) 134 (MS 91) 182 (MS 122) Darrang 7 (MS 1) 20 (MS 12) 41 (MS 30) 68 (MS 43)
Nowgong 4 (MS 1) 58 (MS 52) 120 (MS 108) 182 (MS 161) Sibsagar 14 (MS Nil) 14 (MS Nil) 12 (MS Nil) 40 (MS Nil)
Lakhimpur 14 (MS Nil) 14 (MS Nil) 19 (MS 2) 47 (MS 2) Total 120 (MS 37) 301 (MS 172) 496 (MS 311) 917 (MS 520)
Source: Bordoloi, B.N. (1986). Alienation of Tribal Land and Indebtedness. Guwahati: Tribal Research Institute, Assam. Note: MS= Mymensinghias.
The above table reveals that as much as 917000 migrants from East Bengal
entered Assam during 1911 to 1931. Of them, 520000 were identified to be the
people of Mymensingh district. In Nowgong district alone, Mymensinghias
occupied 102363 acres of land in 1929-30. Majority of Mymensinghias was
Muslin, although a small percentage of Hindu was also there. Muslims occupied
89078 acres of land and Hindus occupied 13285 acres. In their venture to grab
land, they also resorted to anti-social activities like grabbing of government
reserves and forceful occupation of the land of local inhabitants (1986: 30).
The continuous flow of illegal migrants in Assam was primarily motivated by
economic factors (Sinha 1998: 4). On the one hand, Assam had vast area of
unutilized cultivable land but limited population and on the other, the
neighbouring state of Bangladesh was very thickly populated characterized by
scarcity of land and communal riots. With an intention to collect revenue from
the unutilized land in Assam, colonial rule promoted the migration process. As a
result, a large number of peasants from Bangladesh mostly the Muslims migrated
to Assam. In his report on illegal migration to Assam, (1998) submitted to the
Chapter-3
73
President of India, Lieutenant General (Retd.) S K Sinha, the then Governor of
Assam remarked,
“Bangladesh is the world's most densely populated country with a population
density of 969 per square kilometer. The growth rate of population in that country
is 2.2 per cent and its population is growing at the rate of 2.8 million per year.
Each year nearly one third of Bangladesh gets inundated by floods, displacing 19
million people. 70 million people constituting 60 per cent of the population live
below the poverty line. The per capita income in Bangladesh is 170 dollar per
year, which is much lower than the per capita income in India. The border
between India and Bangladesh is very porous. In these circumstances, the
continued large scale population movement from Bangladesh to India is
inevitable, unless effective measures are taken to counter it” (1998: 6).
Ethno-linguistic and religious commonalities between the illegal migrants and
their counterparts on Indian side enabled migrants to find shelter and also to
suppress their foreigner identity. Some political parties had also been
encouraging and even helping illegal migrants, with a view to build vote banks.
These immigrants are hard-working and prepared to work at cheaper
remuneration than the local people which made them acceptable. Moreover, with
corruption being all pervasive, government officials are bribed to provide them
help (Sinha 1998: 6). In the long run, the unauthorized flow of immigrants in
Assam created a ‘law and order’ problem in the region. As the problem occurred
out of illegal occupation of land by immigrants, the British administration
devised a means to bring the situation under control. Initially, they applied this
devise in Nowgong district and Barpeta sub-division of Kamrup district in 1920
(Bordoloi 1999: 5). Gradually, this system was extended to other districts of
lower Assam. The system later on came to be known as ‘Line-System’. Under
this system, villages were divided into three different categories namely, ‘Open
Villages’, ‘Closed Villages’ and ‘Mixed Villages’. In the ‘Open Villages’,
immigrants were allowed to settle freely. But in ‘Closed Villages’ they
(immigrants) were restricted. Similarly, in ‘Mixed Villages’, immigrants were
allowed to settle on the one side of the line drawn in the map whereas they were
Chapter-3
74
restricted from settling down on the other side. But the line system introduced by
the British administration could not serve the purpose for which it was created.
This could not resolve the problem of unauthorized occupation and encroachment
on the land of indigenous population. Even the ‘closed villages’ were found to
have been encroached. For instance, in Barpeta sub-division alone, 50 villages
were encroached by the immigrants (1999: 5).
In order to ease the tensions arising out of continuous flow of migrants and
review the working of the Line System in the region, the Government of Assam
constituted a committee which was known as Line System Committee. The
Committee was headed by F. W. Hockenhull. Other members of the committee
were Abdul Matin Choudury, Syed Abdur Rouf, Sayidur Rahman, Rabi Chandra
Kachari, Mahendra Nath Saikia, Sarbeswar Baruah, Kameswar Das and A G
Patton (1999: 6). The committee submitted its report in 1938. In its report, the
committee recommended a middle course between the two conflicting opinions
prevailing at that time- one demanding the total abolition of the Line System and
the other total retention of it. The committee recommended that (1) Instead of a
line dividing the area of a village, a large unit of restriction should be adopted
such as Mouza or block of Mouzas, which were to be protected from encroachers
(2) that, Line System should be continued, extended or introduced with a view to
regulate settlement of land with immigrants and contain them in specified
localities (Das 1986: 31). In November, 1939 the state government of Assam
adopted a resolution based on the report of the Line System Committee and the
idea of constituting ‘prohibited areas’ was visualized. The 4th paragraph of the
resolution runs as follows:
“The restrictions constituting the so-called Line System which have been in
existence for over 10 years past were primarily intended against the unending
flow of Bengal immigrant cultivators and took the form of constituting certain
areas in which settlement of land with such immigrant was prohibited.
Government agrees with the committee that in future the unit for such restriction
or prohibition should, where possible, be larger. They consider that in the sub-
montane (the lower slopes of mountains) areas it should be possible to constitute
Chapter-3
75
whole Mouzas or compact parts of Mouzas inhabited predominantly by backward
and tribal classes of ‘prohibited areas’. Elsewhere where the whole village or a
larger compact area is predominantly peopled by backward or tribal classes, such
village or areas may be constituted prohibited area. Within the prohibited areas as
constituted, immigrant cultivators shall not be allowed land either by settlement
or by transfer of annual pattas” (Bordoloi 1999: 7).
Thus, a decision was arrived at for creation of prohibited areas in tribal and
backward people dominant areas where immigrant cultivators would not be
allowed to possess land either by settlement or by transfer of annual pattas.
However, the decision of the Government of Assam to create prohibited areas
could not take a practical shape as Gopinath Bordoloi Ministry resigned in 1939
at the direction of the Central Congress Working Committee. On the other hand,
a reverse trend developed in the state with the formation of a coalition
government under the leadership of Mohammad Sadullah on 17th April, 1939.
Sadullah Ministry passed a resolution in June 1940 whereby all wastelands were
to be divided into blocks and allotted to different communities including the
immigrants on payment of a premium of Rs-5/ per bigha of land (1999: 7).
Similarly in 1943, Sadullah Ministry made a ‘grow more food’ campaign which
encouraged large scale migration in the state. This policy of Mohammad Sadullah
brought a large number of Bangladeshi Muslims and drastically changed the
demographic pattern of the Brahmaputra valley reducing the indigenous tribal
people into minority in their own land.
Table-3.02: Population Growth in Assam during 1901-1951 Year Growth rate, Assam Growth rate, All India Variation
1901-1911 16.99 5.73 11.26
1911-1921 20.48 -0.31 20.78
1921-1931 19.91 11.0 8.91
1931-1941 20.40 14.22 6.62
1941-1951 19.93 13.31 6.62
Source: Census Report of India, 1971.
Chapter-3
76
The above table reveals that the population growth rate of Assam has always
been higher than that of national average throughout the colonial rule. Even in the
decade when the population growth rate of India was -0.31, the growth rate in the
state was 20.48 percent. This reaffirms the phenomenon of migration in the state.
In 1946, the Congress returned to power in the state and Gopinath Bordoloi
became the Chief Minister of Assam. With a view of constituting tribal belt and
blocks Bordoloi Ministry appointed a special committee which visited the areas
predominantly inhabited by the tribal and backward classes, identified the
villages which have more than 50 percent of tribal and backward class population
and prepared a guide map. It was found that villages did not everywhere form a
compact area. Therefore, in order to keep the compactness of the region, many
non-tribal villages were included in the proposed tribal belt and blocks and were
treated on the same footing as the tribals with regard to the future settlement of
waste land and transfer of patta land. But from the date of creation of the tribal
belt and blocks, no one except tribal and backward class could get settlement
within the tribal belt and blocks. On the above lines, legislation was made in
1947 and Chapter X was inserted in Assam Land & Revenue Regulation
Act1886. Under the provision of Chapter X of the Act of 1886, 33 tribal belt and
blocks were created. The number of tribal belts and blocks were increased to 45
by 1964 which had covered 12546557 Bighas (1672873 Hectares) of land area.
Thus, migration was a serious problem in Assam since pre-colonial period. It
created the problem of land alienation for poor peasants and also widespread
unemployment in the region. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in his book, ‘Myths of
Independence’ wrote, “It would be wrong to think that Kashmir is the only
dispute that divides India and Pakistan, though undoubtedly the most significant.
One at least is nearly as important as the Kashmir dispute, is that of Assam and
some districts of India adjacent to East Pakistan. To that also Pakistan has a very
good claim” (Sinha1998: 5). Even a pro-India leader like Sheikh Mujibur
Rahman observed that Pakistan must include Assam to be financially and
economically strong (1998: 5). Besides, the land revenue was increased to the
Chapter-3
77
Table- 3.03: Distribution of Tribal Belts and Blocks in Assam
District Name of the Tribal Belt/Block Area in Bighas Goalpara
(Undivided) Sidli Tribal Belt 461509
Bijni Tribal Block 302545 Total 764054
Kamrup (Undivided)
South Kamrup (Chaygaon) Tribal Belt 302352 South Kamrup (Gauhati) Tribal Belt 772464
Tamulpur Tribal Belt 462637 Baska Tribal Belt 377512
Chapaguri Tribal Belt 264010 Gobardhan Tribal Block 38348 Bajegaon Tribal Block 6528
Karija Bijni Tribal Block 27542 Total 2261391
Darrang Gohpur Tribal Block 5666 Balipara Tribal Belt 1536000
Kalaigaon Tribal Belt 1208782 Tetelibanguria Tribal Block 10117
Dolgaon Tribal Block 28306 Kacharipara Tribal Block 9656
Tezial Tribal Block 8867 Bhuyankhat Tribal Block 9299
Total 3116392 Lakhimpur (Undivided)
North Lakhimpur (Sub-Mountain) Tribal Belt
600160
North Lakhimpur (Riverine) Tribal Block 493680 Abor-Michimi-Tirap Block 493680
Total 1587520 Nowgong Boro-Kacharigaon Tribal Block 22090
Bhalukjan Tribal Block 2466 Ghagua Tribal Block 27866 Tetelia Tribal Block 37751 Gobha Tribal Block 30190
Phalguri Tribal Block 28071 Amsoi Tribal Block 19926
Bagariguri Tribal Block 25759 Bardologaon Lankabhita Tribal Block 22176 Amguri Chang Phulaguri chang Tribal
Block 6851
Jamadari Tribal Block 8398 Baranguri Pathar Tribal Block 21451
Total 251085 Grand Total 7980442
Source: Narzary, H.C. (2011). Dream for Udayachal and the History of the Plains Tribals Council of Assam: PTCA, 1967-93. Guwahati: N.L. Publications.
Chapter-3
78
highest peak by the colonial rulers (especially in between 1857-1865) which
created dissatisfaction among the people of Brahmaputra valley, particularly the
plain tribals. Several new taxes like water tax for fishing in the rivers or beels
(jalkar), tax for cutting timbers (gorkhaty) and tax for grazing cattle (khusary)
were imposed. In 1894, the Bodo peasants along with their Assamese-speaking
neighbours revolted in Rangia in Kamrup district and Patharughat area in the then
Mongoldoi sub-division of Darang district of Assam protesting the imposition of
new taxes and increase in the rate of land revenue. The colonial rule had to
suppress the uprising with heavy hand and had to resort to firing to bring the
situation under control (Pegu 2004: 71).
Along with the increased rate of revenue and the import of illegal migrants from
the neighbouring states and the countries like Bangladesh and Nepal, there was
going on religious conversion of tribals including Bodos. A large number of
tribals of various communities were converting to Hinduism from their ancestral
religion while a segment of them adopted Christianity. This process of conversion
to other religion had become a serious threat to the identity and survival of the
tribals and as a result dissatisfaction arose in the mind of the educated tribal
people particularly the Bodos. In response to all these developments, a socio-
religious reform movement known as ‘Brahma Movement’ was launched by
Kalicharan Brahma, a socio-religious leader of the Bodos, in the first decade of
the 20th century. Educational institutions were opened and the business on timber
with which father of Kalicharan Brahma was associated was also boosted. A
student organization named Boro Chatra Sanmiloni was formed in 1919. With a
view to protect and preserve the distinct Bodo identity, the leaders of this student
organization created literature in Bodo language and spread the message of their
suffering and marginalization to the ignorant Bodo masses. In 1928, The Assam
Kachari Juvok Sanmiloni and Dhubri Boro Juvok Sanmiloni submitted two
memorandums to the Simon Commission in which they demanded that the Bodos
should be identified as Kacharis in the Census Report of British India and a
separate designation (Regiment) for them to be created in military service of
British India. Demands were also made for reservation of seats for the tribal
Chapter-3
79
people in the provincial as well as local political bodies of the state. All Assam
Tribal League (AATL) was formed in 1933 with a view to bring all the tribes of
mongoloid origin to a common political platform and to strengthen their voice.
The Government of India Act 1935, in the meantime, on the recommendation of
the Simon Commission, reserved 4 seats for the plains tribal in the Provincial
Legislature. Election to the Provincial Legislature of Assam was held in 1937. In
that election, AATL put their own candidates and captured all the reserved seats.
General Secretary of AATL Bhimbar Deori was nominated as the member of the
Legislative Council of Assam. The leaders of the League also signed a pre-
independence election agreement with the Assam Congress Committee, whereby
the latter, if voted to the power, agreed to make provisions for the protection of
political and socio-economic interests of the tribals through democratic means.
They further pledged to protect tribal land from outside encroachers and to secure
constitutional safeguard to prevent political marginalization of the plains tribal.
III
India got her independence on 15th August, 1947. Like others, Bodos of Assam
also hoped that there would be a change in their socio-economic and political
plight. They would secure a decent life with adequate representation in the new
political dispensation of the country. But the same did not happen. The condition
of the Bodos remained as deplorable as it was. Instead, it accentuated gradually
as migration from East Pakistan remained unabated. Initially, it was mostly
Hindu refugees, fleeing out of the fear of religious persecution during the time of
liberation of Bangladesh. This problem lasted for several years and ultimately led
to the declining of Hindu population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). For
instance, in 1947 Hindu population of East Pakistan was 27 percent by 1971 it
reduced to 14 percent and by 1991 it was down to 10 percent (Sinha 1998: 5).
Along with Hindu refugees, Muslim infiltrators continued to migrate to Assam
for economic reasons.
Chapter-3
80
There is no consensus estimation regarding the number of total migrants in
Assam. Besides, the whole of northeastern part of India with exception to
Manipur, Tripura and Sikkim had been within the fold of undivided Assam till
1963. And the process of separation from Assam had completed only in 1986
with the separation of Mizoram and Meghalaya. Therefore, lack of sufficient
information and evidences had been a major challenge in writing about migration
problem of Assam.
Anil Saikia, H Goswami and A Goswami have estimated the number of foreign
migrants in Assam at 1337015 during 1951-1991 (Saikia et al. 2003: 114). Shri
Indrajit Gupta, the then Home Minister of India, stated in the Parliament on 6
May, 1997 that there were 10 million illegal migrants residing in India (Sinha
1998: 18). During the time of Assam movement, All Assam Students Union and
Gana Sangram Parishad have estimated the number of illegal migrants at 4.5
million. Susanta K. Das believes that the population growth in Assam from 1901-
1951 “has been the second highest in the world, exceeded only by Brazil” (Das
1989: 2). Amalendu Guha, however, has stated that the number of post-1951
settlers with questionable citizenship status would in no case exceed 1.3 million
(Nasar & Ahmed 2006: 93). Lieutenant General (retd.) S K Sinha, estimated
intrusion of 7.5 million of illegal Hindu migrants during 1971-1989 in India. As
regards Assam he wrote,
“Recent enumeration of electoral list in Assam by the Election Commission
shows more than 30% increase in 17 Assembly constituencies and more than
20% increase in 40 constituencies between 1994 and 1997. Whereas the All India
average growth for a three year period intervening the two intensive revisions in
1994 and 1997 is 7%, the growth in Assam for this period is 16.4%” (Sinha 1998:
9).
In fact, the process of cultural assimilation, land alienation and imposition of
dominant language (Assamese) on the indigenous tribals continued to remain the
bone of contention even in independent India. Though 33 tribal belts and blocks
Chapter-3
81
were constituted in the year 1947 as fulfillment of the provision of the Assam
Land and Revenue Regulation Act 1886, which was extended to 45 in subsequent
year, it could not provide adequate protection to the tribals from the domination
of the non-tribals (Datta 1993, 129). The provision of tribal belt and block could
not serve the purpose for which it was created as the common people for whom it
was constituted were ignorant about it. Sixth Schedule status of the constitution
was given to the hills tribals but plains tribals were left. As a result, the problem
of land alienation became unabated. Some instances of the issues of land
alienation are given below (1993: 157).
1. The total areas within Bijni Tribal Block vide the Govt. Notification No. RD.
69/46/20 Dated 5/12/47 was 302545 B-0K-0L out of which an area
measuring 66786 B-1K-11L had been excluded from the operation.
2. An area measuring 44691 B-4K-14L was taken away from Bijni Tribal
Block for constitution of Panbari and Kuklung Reserve Forests vide Govt.
notification No AFR 73/51 Dated, 21/5/52.
3. Area measuring 3489 B-0K-14L was excluded vide Govt. Notification No
RSD, 28/51/4 dated 4/3/58 for dereservation of Agrang PGR for settlement
of local landless people, and
4. The area measuring 11253 B-0K-0L had been excluded vide Govt.
Notification No RSD, 3/59/147 dated 29/7/64 for rehabilitation of refugees
in Bisnupur colony.
On 2nd September, 1984 Binay Khungur Basumatary in his speech in Assam
Assembly stated that at about 1973673 bighas of tribal land have been taken
away from the tribal belt and blocks, specially Bijni, South Kamrup (i.e.
Chayagaon and Guwahati) and Kalaigaon tribal belt and blocks by the
Government of Assam for settlement of migrants, building of industries and the
capital city of Assam and for constitution of Reserve forests (Datta 1993: 194).
On the other hand, under the pressure of the Assam Sahitya Sabha and All Assam
Students Union the Government of Assam passed the Assam Official Language
Act in the year 1960 and Assamese was imposed as official language in Assam.
Chapter-3
82
The tribals of Assam strongly resented this initiative of the government and the
hill tribes’ leaders like Williamson Sangma, B. M. Peu and A. Thonglura strongly
criticized the declaration of the bill. In Assam Legislative Assembly debate
regarding the Official Language Bill, 1960 A. Thonglura said,
“….now the Assamese brethrens are speaking about their apprehension that they
might be wiped off by the Bengalese. If the Assamese people who are quite
advanced and who have got facilities and security entertain such apprehension,
then what about the tribes who have less security and facility. At least in the
constitution, there is provision for the Assamese language, but so far as the tribals
are concerned there are no such provisions. There is no security for their language
like the Assamese language…….. But if Assamese people insist by dint of their
majority then Assamese should be the official language…... Personally I am not
fascinated with the terms of separation. But if the aspiration of the Assamese
people cannot stop, then we shall have to move for separation” (Assam
Legislative Assembly Debate 1960: 42-43).
Thus, the declaration of Assamese as an official language has widened the gap
between the tribals and the non-tribals in Assam. It gave a serious blow to the
unity and the integrity of the then Assam which included the entire Northeast
except Manipur, Tripura and Sikkim. Within a short span of time, movements for
the separate identities of the tribal people gained momentum. In the year 1963,
Nagaland was created as a separate state and it was followed by the creation of
Meghalaya in 1972. Similarly, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram were created in
1986. This was how entire Assam got fragmented and the Assamese people had
lost their hill tribe brothers. The Assamese-Bengali rivalry during 1960s and
1970s was also the result of this language problem. The plains tribals of Assam,
particularly the Bodos also expressed their grave concern over the issue of Assam
Official Language Act 1960. The issue became more serious when the language
movement for Medium of Instruction was launched by the All Assam Students
Union and a decision was made by Gauhati University and Dibrugarh University
(1972) to introduce Assamese as the medium of instruction in all colleges under
Chapter-3
83
its jurisdiction (ABSU 1987: 38). This decision was to come into effect from the
academic year 1972-73. Several tribal Organizations like Bodo Sahitya Sobha,
All Bodo Students’ Union and Plains Tribal council of Assam strongly criticized
this initiative.
Thus, it may be said that while on the one hand the unabated migration had
complicated the situation in Assam, on the other hand, the chauvinistic attitude of
the majority Assamese people further perpetuated the crisis and marginalization
of indigenous population in the state. The misleading policies of the Government
of India in the post-independent phase could not deal with the situation
effectively. A policy of granting concessions was not enough to tackle the
problem. As a result, several separatist movements broke out, some of which
fragmented the state in various parts and some persisted with utter strain in the
law and order situation of the state. The movement of the Bodos is one such
example which continues since the early part of the 20th century with its
unhindered demand for separation from Assam.
Recommended