Tawhid Alam Lashkar, Student at NLU, Assam
After the Assam state elections in December 1985, the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) came to power. The AGP was formed after the historic Assam Accord of 1985, and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta who was elected as the youngest chief minister of the state assured that the Assam Accord will uphold the highest priority for all under any circumstances, but soon the party leadership lost the confidence of the Assamese. In the meantime, ULFA declared that the ‘Assam Accord’ and the AGP government were of no consequence to their goal of a separate and ‘sovereign Assam’ state. Thus, it created a huge impact in the minds of the Assamese. ULFA gained serious support from the ground over the state government, and hope was seen that this revolutionary organization would harvest the Assamese aspiration and identity to its logical uprising. ULFA started to mobilize recruits from different parts of Assam and kept sending fresh batches of trainees to the camps for rigorous training. The AGP government having failed to discharge its promises made it easier for the ULFA to convince people for their secessionist agendas and created an environment for rising a new political and armed movement.
By 1988, the popularity of ULFA witnessed a spectacular rise amongst the Assamese functioning as a parallel organization to the government. The state police and the para-military forces were surprised to notice the zeal and enthusiasm with which youth were joining the military outfit aggressively and committed to dedicate their lives for the movement. ULFA continued their activities of political uproar; they were also ‘implementing social reforms’, such as the ban on consumption of alcohol, which made them popular amongst women folks. It was able to show that they have created a balance in the society, and won the status to be seen as one of the ‘able-organizations’ to deliver on its promises. Fast forward, about two decades later, ULFA completely lost its charm amongst the Assamese. The rise and the fall of the organization was labeled on account of massive bloodshed, civilian unrest and violence caused by it. However, tacit sympathy for the “local-rebel” young men did not vanish completely. A very few native Assamese supported the use of terror tactics by the ULFA. The organization tried to create a statement justifying that ULFA’s demand for sovereignty is understandable given the unacceptable attitude of the Union government towards Assam. Hence, instating that ‘terror’ as part of the process in that route to pierce through the deaf ears was justified. However, many of them were not in favor of non-violence, as Assam was ranked amongst one of the most disturbed states of India with unprecedented civilian unrest, bomb-blasts and curfew in early 2000s.
The activities of obstructions were continuous, ULFA created economic hurdles for industries and development projects under the pretext of compulsory jobs for the Assamese youth, and other objections with regards to the use of natural resources and so on. The demands of ULFA for many seemed a double standard stance; where even on agreeing to their terms, it led to nowhere in resolving their demands, as new demands kept piling up and no actual grievances were redressed. It became a mockery and the usual trivial situation. It became more about asserting their power and creating obstructions in every matter more on the worse sides. On the other end, the resultant stagnation in economic development has in turn created a vast horde of unemployed youth, which is a potential source of fresh recruits into the insurgent ranks for ULFA. There was once a tradition for fresh recruits to provide voluntary support to villages for various works at times of drought; but later it turned into coerced advantages for the ULFAs to take shelter in these villages for extortions and hideouts. Assam families once were proud about sending their children to ULFA; but now they’re desperately protecting their children to walk the path of an uncertain future where only destruction and bloodshed awaits their destiny. This is how ULFA is perceived as a failed movement. It has failed in maintaining peace and prosperity for what it was set out for, and today it is a major obstacle for the peace process and maintaining internal security in the state. ULFA used all means to change the demographic and political scenario in their favor, but that did not last long when ULFA resonated to using terror activities, and eventually the niche died out for ULFA forever. ULFA holds no credentials or relevant to Assamese anymore; Assamese youth want jobs, education and healthcare services that the government can give them. It is time to amend ways and work towards accountability for the welfare of future generations.
The Anup Chetia led ULFA pro-talk faction is an effort of the Assamese people to negate the past and rework on the peace path that current scenarios demand. The Assamese want to amend the mistake, but Paresh Baruah led ULFA (I) anti-talk faction is another bottleneck to those years of mistakes unfolded in Assam. There’s no iota of truth remaining in the recent split of the outfit’s anti faction or whether they hold any credential to defend the ‘Assam Accord’ stand. If non-violence is their only form and strength to continue the struggle, then certainly ULFA (I) stands on the wrong side of Assam's history. The truth is ULFA (I) led Paresh Baruah is fighting a hollow battle only fuelled by his personal obsession at the cost of Assam, and its native’s identity where youth’s future is being slaughtered. It is time to realize, the real Assamese aspiration is to remove that flame of darkness, and light a new path of peaceful and prosperous Assam, where there’s no mention of ULFA existence anymore. How ULFA influenced in the 1980’s is a tale, and ULFA (I) cannot replicate that trust, and that is why the Assamese have failed this movement.
Disclaimer: Tawhid Alam Lashkar, the contributor of this article is a student at National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam. Views expressed in this article is a work of personal opinion and research. It is not part of any organizational endorsement.
0 Comments