ULFA Accord: Clauses on Delimitation exercise not binding on government, Election Commission without constitutional amendment

The tripartite Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) signed by the insurgent United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) with the Government of India and Assam Government on December 29, 2023 has brought the issue of political safeguard for “indigenous people” to the centre stage of political discourse in the state. A closer look at the MoS clauses reveals that the settlement was primarily a seal of approval to the exercise of delimitation of assembly and parliamentary constituencies in Assam. The delimitation led to marginalisation of Muslim voters of erstwhile East Bengal origin to reduced number of assembly constituencies.

Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and ULFA leaders are harping on two key clauses of the tripartite MoS, which, they claim will provide the safeguard to indigenous people from demographic change triggered by unabated migration of people from erstwhile East Bengal erstwhile East Pakistan and later from Bangladesh. The two clauses relate to delimitation of constituencies of Assam Assembly and restricting voters from shifting to a new constituency.

Photo- Press Information Bureau

ULFA leaders and the Chief Minister asserted that these two clauses will ensure political supremacy of indigenous people in Assam Assembly. The delimitation exercise has ensured indigenous people will be playing the deciding role in 94 constituencies of the total 126 assembly constituencies in the state for the next 30 years, claims Chief Negotiator and self-styled Foreign Secretary of the insurgent outfit Sashadhar Choudhury.

The clause in the MoS with ULFA accord reads: “The Government of India will consider recommending to the Election Commission of India to follow, as far as possible, the broad guidelines and methodology which was adopted in the Delimitation Exercise held in Assam in 2023, in future delimitations as well. Some of these parameters are rate of growth of population, density of population, principles of historicity of areas and communities, geographical continuity, physical features, facilities of communication and public convenience.”

The phrases “Govt of India will consider”, “as far as possible” make it clear, neither the Government of India will be bound to recommend to the EC, nor the EC will be will be bound by the provision of this clause to follow the same principles in future delimitations. Any deviation from the principle will make the clause of the MoS redundant for the purpose of safeguarding “political supremacy” of indigenous people in 94 assembly constituencies. The MoS does not include any clause that will ensure any constitutional amendment to make the provisions of the clause binding on the central government and the EC.

Opposition parties in the state alleged that the Election Commission had carried out the delimitation exercise at the behest of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Claims made by ULFA leaders about the delimitation exercise after signing of the MoS corroborates the opposition allegation. The opposition parties also objected to taking 2001 Census figures as basis for the delimitation exercise when 2011 Census figures were already available.

ULFA leaders went on record claiming that they had initially explored expanding the areas under the Sixth Schedule and granting of Scheduled Tribe status to six communities- Koch Rajbongshis, Tai-Ahoms, Morans, Mataks, Chutias and Tea-Tribes/Advivasis- to increase the number of reserved seats in the state assembly for indigenous people. The ST demand could not be pushed due to opposition by the organisations of existing ST communities while Central Government did not accept the recommendations of the Clause 6 committee, they said.

Choudhury told media persons in Delhi that Chief Minister Sarma and Home Ministry officials then came up with the proposal to undertake the delimitation exercise in the state as the only viable political safeguard for indigenous people. ULFA leaders agreed to wait for the exercise to be completed and assured the government they would be happy if 60% seats are protected for indigenous/originally inhabitant people.

After examining maps of delimited constituencies, population data the ULFA agreed that the exercise ensured “political supremacy” of indigenous people/originally inhabitant people in Assam in at least 75% assembly seats (94 seats) while in 11 seats Bengali and Hindi speakers who came and settled from other parts of India are majority and in 21 seats immigrant Muslim settlers are majority.

Muslims account for 34.22% in the state (2011 Census), which include 30% Muslims of East Bengal and 4% Assamese Muslims. “The Muslim community as a whole is an important player in Assam’s politics, more particularly at the time of every election. The Muslim electorate could be regarded as a decisive factor in the victory or defeat of candidates in as many as 23 out of 126 constituencies, where they constitute the majority of voters. There are seven more constituencies where Muslims constitute 40-49 per cent of the total electorate,” writes noted social scientist Dr Abu Nasar Saied Ahmed in Assam Assembly: 2016, Understanding the Choices of Two Communities published by Akansha Publishing House, New Delhi.

While in these 94 seats, “indigenous people”, as claimed by ULFA and Sarma, will play the deciding role, the unreserved seats will be open non-indigenous citizens to contest. Besides, in the event of a fractured mandate, 21 seats in which voters of East Bengal origin will play crucial role in government formation and also in policy making which makes the claim of “political supremacy of indigenous people” in the state without constitutional reservation like reservation for Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste through delimitation exercise illusory.

The High-Level Committee on Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, on the other hand, recommended reservation of 80% of assembly and parliamentary seats for “Assamese people” and taking 1951 as the cut-off year for the purpose of defining “Assamese people.” The Union Home Minister Amit Shah had announced on the floor of the Lok Sabha that recommendations of the High-Level Committee on Clause 6 will be implemented in toto including commas and full stops.

The Modi government went back on its promise and did not accept the committee’s report which compelled the Committee to handover the report to then Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal. The report also contains draft constitutional amendments that will be required to give effect to their recommendations.

The provision in the clause 2.5 of the MoS states: “A citizen of the country who is ordinarily resident of an assembly constituency shall only be entitled to be registered as voter of that constituency No persons shall be registered in the voter list for more than one constituency.”

There is no clarity as to how the publication of the final updated National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam and implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in the state will impact the MoS clauses, more particularly those related to future delimitation exercises. Now, if CAA is implemented in Assam, Hindu Bengalis from Bangladesh who can establish their arrival in the state prior to 2014 will be entitled to get citizenship and also become voters. How is it going to impact the demography in 94 seats is not clear. Publication of the final National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam would have given a definite picture regarding presence of citizens and non-citizens in the state.

Of over 19 lakh NRC applicants whose names have been excluded from the final draft, about 12 lakhs are believed to be belonging to Hindu Bengalis. Implementation of CAA will make those post 1971 migrants eligible to become Indian citizens, but their names may still not be included in NRC due to different cut-off dates for determination of citizenship for NRC and CAA.

ULFA leaders made candid admission that they had “lost the political battle” after they were arrested in Bangladesh in 2009 and handed over to India and had little scope in the 12 years of negotiations with the Government of India under the framework of Indian Constitution. The outfit is soon going to be disbanded and there will be no legacy of ULFA except two members in the Monitoring Committee on the accord to be constituted by the Government.

In case of Assam Accord, the key signatory All Assam Students Union (AASU) being a permanent organisation, the student body has been pushing for implementation of the tripartite Accord signed in 1985. Hard reality is that even after nearly 38 years of signing of the Assam Accord, the principal clauses of detection of illegal migrants, deletion of their name from electoral rolls and their expulsion from India as well as providing constitutional safeguard for Assamese people remain unimplemented.

Similarly, in respect of three Bodo Accords, signatory armed organisations were disbanded but political parties were either formed by them or the former rebel leaders joined other political parties that backed the accords. This created a political situation for mounting sustained pressure on Delhi and Dispur for implementation of their Accords. Besides, both the Assam Accords and Bodo Accords led to constitutional and legal amendments in accordance with accord provisions.

The ULFA accord has no provision for any constitutional amendment which puts a question mark over implementation of the clauses relating to the political issues settled in the MoS eventually. This also explains why the ULFA leaders echoed Chief Minister Sarma that the delimitation exercise would ensure “political supremacy” of indigenous people for 30 years. This has been achieved after 44 years of armed conflict which, according to Sarma, claimed more than 10,000 lives.

The MoS is no closure to armed conflict in Assam as Paresh Barua-led ULFA (Independent) is yet to join the peace process and continues to insist on “sovereignty of Assam” to be one of the substantive issues to be put on the negotiation table.

Sushanta Talukdar