‘Two definitions of Assamese would be a death knell for state’s people’
Guwahati Sept 26: The United Opposition Forum (UoF) has expressed strong opposition to the Assam government’s decision to implement the recommendations of the Justice (retired) Biplab Kumar Sarma-led High Power Committee on Clause 6 of the Assam Accord saying that the state government lacks the legal authority to execute the recommendations, as the committee was formed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which is responsible for implementing the Assam Accord.
The opposition parties claimed that despite the report being submitted over four years ago, the MHA has not acted on it. They underscored that the report’s essence lies in providing political safeguards for the Assamese people, and without addressing this key issue, any attempt to implement the recommendations would be ineffective.
Additionally, they emphasized that the report applies to all of Assam, including the Barak Valley and Sixth Schedule areas like Karbi Anglong, Dima Hasao, and the Bodoland Territorial Region (BTR).
Addressing a press conference in Guwahati, Assam Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president and United Opposition Forum (UOF) chairman Bhupen Kumar Borah criticized Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, questioning his sincerity in implementing the recommendations of the Justice (retired) Biplab Kumar Sarma-led High Power Committee on Clause 6 of the Assam Accord.
Borah alleged that the chief minister’s actions were a diversionary tactic aimed at covering up widespread protests against the installation of smart meters and accusations of corruption involving his family.
Borah pointed out inconsistencies in Sarma’s statements regarding the implementation of the committee’s recommendations. “On September 4, Sarma stated in North Lakhimpur that 57 recommendations would be implemented by the state government. After questions were raised, Sarma revised his statement, indicating that 52 recommendations would be state subjects. Yesterday, Sarma claimed that 40 recommendations would fall under the state’s purview, 12 would be implemented by both the Centre and the state, and 15 would be central subjects,” he said.
“The report had been ignored for over four years and Sarma is now using it as a political tool in light of the BJP’s performance in the last Lok Sabha elections. Without provisions such as reservation of parliamentary and assembly constituencies for indigenous people and job reservations, any implementation of the report would be meaningless,” he also said.
He further criticized Sarma for not speaking on the real issues that, according to Borah, are beyond his legal authority. “These include the reservation of seats, job reservations for indigenous people, the deportation of Bangladeshi nationals, bilateral talks between India and Bangladesh, and the rehabilitation of post-1971 migrants,” Borah sand and noted that Sarma has failed to respond to key questions regarding the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the creation of an upper house for Assam.
During the press conference, Lurinjyoti Gogoi, president of the Assam Jatiya Parishad (AJP) and general secretary of the United Opposition Forum (UoF), criticized the Assam government’s move to implement the recommendations of the Justice (retired) Biplab Kumar Sarma-led High Power Committee on Clause 6 of the Assam Accord. He emphasized that the Assam Accord was a tripartite agreement involving the All Assam Students Union (AASU), the Sadou Asom Gana Sangram Parishad (SAGSP), and both the Central and state governments. Clause 6, he noted, is central to the Accord, while Clause 15 designates the MHA as the nodal ministry for its implementation.
Gogoi explained that the High Power Committee, constituted by the MHA, was tasked with recommending ways to implement Clause 6, which is intended to protect the cultural, social, and political rights of the Assamese people. Union Home Minister Amit Shah announced in Parliament on two occasions in 2019 that the report would be implemented fully from the day it was submitted. Despite this, after the committee submitted its report on February 10, 2020, the MHA has yet to accept it, and the state government has also refrained from acting on it.
Gogoi, who was also a member of the High Power Committee, voiced frustration over the delay, questioning the government’s sincerity in honouring the Assam Accord.
Gogoi further criticized Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, asserting that Sarma has neither the moral nor legal authority to accept the report of the Justice (retired) Biplab Kumar Sarma-led High Power Committee and highlighted that the MHA is responsible for accepting the report. He pointed out that MHA joint secretary Satyendra Garg did not sign it, indicating the lack of national recognition for the report.
“The core of the report, and indeed the Assam Accord, is the provision of political safeguards for the Assamese people. However, the chief minister is trying to break down the report’s recommendations into state and central subjects, with Sarma stating that 40 recommendations pertaining to the state, 12 involve both the state and the Centre, and 15 are central subjects,” he said.
He accused the chief minister of using the report as a political tool ahead of the 2026 assembly elections, rather than sincerely working toward its implementation. Gogoi emphasized that the report is not merely a product of a committee but represents the aspirations of all sections of Assam’s people, and he condemned Sarma for treating it as a weapon for political gain.
Gogoi continued his sharp criticism of Chief Minister Sarma, particularly regarding Sarma’s recent statement that the Justice Sarma panel’s report would not apply to Barak Valley and Sixth Schedule areas and argued that this claim is entirely false, referencing specific sections of the report—Para 97, 95, 104, and 105—that explicitly address the people and organizations in Barak Valley, Karbi Anglong, and Dima Hasao.
He further accused the chief minister of being an “enemy” of both Barak Valley and the Sixth Schedule areas, suggesting that Sarma’s actions undermine these regions and their interests.
Gogoi also aimed Sarma’s political past, stating that from 1971 to 2014, Sarma acted as a “saviour of Bangladeshis,” while now positioning himself as a protector of land rights for the Assamese people.
Rajya Sabha MP Ajit Kumar Bhuyan strongly criticized Sarma, accusing him of creating confusion and vitiating the atmosphere under the guise of implementing Clause 6 of the Assam Accord. Bhuyan referred to the chief minister’s actions as part of a vague agenda and a conspiracy by the BJP-led government.
He argued that Sarma’s approach would be detrimental to the people of Assam, particularly highlighting the potential harm caused by two competing definitions of “Assamese people.” Bhuyan emphasized that the Justice (retired) Biplab Kumar Sarma panel had clearly defined who qualifies as Assamese in its report.
Bhuyan also expressed disappointment at prominent figures like Samujjal Kumar Bhattacharyya, questioning how they could be involved in the chief minister’s “conspiracy.” He criticized Bhattacharyya for not recognizing the alleged political game being played, calling it a sad development.
Furthermore, Bhuyan questioned Sarma’s track record, particularly during his 12-year tenure as the minister in charge of implementing the Assam Accord. He raised concerns about why no Bangladeshi nationals had been deported during that time and why the state government had failed to submit an affidavit regarding the National Register of Citizens (NRC), indicating a lack of genuine action.
