Forty-two years after Assam was ravaged by violence amidst the contentious 1983 state elections – most prominently, the Nellie massacre, which was one of the worst incidents of mass violence in post-Independence India – two inquiry reports, one official and another unofficial, offering differing perspectives on what unfolded, were tabled in the Assam legislative assembly on Tuesday.
The two reports – the official ‘Commission of Enquiry on Assam Disturbances’, led by IAS officer Tribhuvan Prasad Tewary, and the ‘Report of the Non-Official Judicial Inquiry Commission on the Holocaust of Assam Before, During and After Election 1983’, led by the former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh T U Mehta – were both tabled on the first day of the winter session.
The Nellie massacre is one of the darkest and most sensitive chapters of Assam’s history, and the lack of accountability and prosecution of perpetrators – no one was ever arrested for it – means that it remains an open wound. A key point of difference between the reports and their analysis of the incidents that unfolded is their stand on the decision to hold elections in Assam in 1983, while the Assam Agitation was at its peak. While the official Tewari commission report states that “the decision to hold the elections cannot be blamed for the outbreak of the violence of 1983”, the unofficial Mehta commission report states that “the elections were the main and immediate cause of the violence”.
The background
The violence took place in the midst of Assembly elections in the state, which was under President’s Rule at the time due to the Assam Agitation. The agitation, which began in 1979, sought the detection and deportation of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, and was at its peak when polls were held.
The lack of accountability and prosecution of the perpetrators – no one was ever arrested for it – means that it remains an open wound.
The All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP), who led the agitation, had announced a boycott of the elections. In July 1983, the Congress government led by Hiteshwar Saikia, which came to power after the contentious polls, constituted the Tewari commission to “look into the circumstances leading to the disturbances which took place in the State of Assam during January to April 1983”; “to examine the measures taken by the concerned authorities to anticipate, prevent and deal with these disturbances and to assess adequacy whereof and indicate whether there were any deficiency or failures on the part of any authority or individuals”; and “to suggest measures to prevent recurrence of such incidence in future and to make such other recommendations as the commission may deem fit to make”.
This commission was decried by the “agitationists”, and in 1984, the Assam Freedom Fighters’ Association constituted the Mehta commission as a “non-official judicial enquiry”, saying that the Tewary commission was a “belated administrative inquiry by a retired Chief Secretary of the UP Government” while the popular demand had been for a judicial inquiry.
Also Read | The Killing Fields: A filmmaker explores the 1983 Nellie massacre in Assam
Story continues below this ad
The two reports
The first conclusion of the Tewary commission report is that the decision to uphold elections “cannot be blamed”.
“In our considered view, the decision to hold the elections cannot be blamed for the outbreak of the violence of 1983. The evidence produced before the commission clearly brings out that the issues of foreigners, language, etc, have been agitating the minds of the people for the last several decades, exploding into violence on several previous occasions… Most of these disturbances were not related to elections. Moreover, if the proposition is accepted that no election should be held if there is a threat of violence, then it will be accepting the worst form of political outrage, brigandage and blackmail, which will have the most serious implications,” it states.
It goes on to pin responsibility on the “agitationists”. “AASU and the AAGSP are primarily responsible for launching the agitation and for its consequences. There is overwhelming evidence that, with a view to preventing the holding of elections, arson, riots, destruction of public properties like buildings, roads and bridges, sabotage of railway tracks, intimidation, picketing, ‘bandhs’, etc, were organised in a pre-planned and extensive scale. The whole situation got out of their control, and the violence resulted in enormous loss of life and property,” it states.
Memorial erected for the martyrs in Nellie massacre. (Express Archive)
However, earlier on in the report, in its chapter on the ‘Handling of Disturbances’, the commission acknowledged that the state machinery was cognizant of the magnitude of the challenge of conducting elections in the prevailing atmosphere and had “anticipated difficulties.” A written submission by the then IGP (Special Branch) S K Das to the commission mentions the difficulties faced by the law and order machinery in handling both the elections and the law and order situation.
Story continues below this ad
“As these villages were under mob attack, the police, already totally pre-occupied with the election work since the first week of February 1983, found its mobility seriously affected by the large scale destruction of road bridges rendering many areas totally inaccessible except by foot,” it states, adding that this was “further compounded by by several instances of timid handling of situation by some local formations of police surrendering their authority to the mob rule”.
The report also states that because of the mass support for the agitation, including among government employees, the intelligence machinery, particularly at the grassroots level, was compromised, with traditional channels drying up.
The unofficial Mehta commission, pointing to these constraints and the popular mood, states that the “situation was not at all congenial for holding a truly free and fair election, and that the governments – state as well as central – knew it and the Election Commission ought to have known it”.
“The excuse of constitutional compulsion was an eyewash, as there was no unsurpassable compulsion. The fact of the matter was that the party in power at the centre wanted to take advantage of capturing the government as the poll was to be boycotted by the movement leaders,” it states. The Congress, led by Indira Gandhi, was in power at the Centre at the time.
Story continues below this ad
While the official report puts the toll of the Nellie massacre at around 1,800, the unofficial one pegs it at 3,000, mostly Bengali-speaking Muslims. The reports also point to other incidents of violence that had taken place across the state during this period, among different groups such as the Assamese, tribals from Assam, Bengali-speaking Muslims, and Bengali Hindus.
Both reports focus on the demographic anxieties in the state, with the Mehta report stating, “The foreigners problem is the real problem hanging for its solution since last many years.” The Tewari report highlights “the fear of the Assamese of being overwhelmed by numbers” as a real concern, along with “land problems and deteriorating land-man ratio” and “occupation of land by the migrants”.
“The question of detection of infiltrators and the ejectment of encroachers are inter-linked in certain areas. These two problems should be tackled together in the vulnerable areas through a multi-disciplinary task force, adequately supported by the Armed Police,” the Tewari report states in its recommendations, which also includes a suggestion for “special protection” to prevent the acquisition of land in the state by “outsiders.”