Assam’s Unending Battle : Illegal Immigration, Betrayal, and Burden

Assam’s Unending Battle: Illegal Immigration, Betrayal, and Burden

ANJAN SARMA

In Assam, a land where the Brahmaputra River nurtures a vibrant mosaic of cultures, the struggle against illegal immigration has defined decades of conflict, sacrifice, and betrayal.

The Assam Movement (1979–1985), a six-year uprising that claimed countless lives, sought to protect the indigenous identity from the tide of undocumented migrants, primarily from Bangladesh and Nepal.

Yet, 46 years later, the Assam Accord of 1985, meant to resolve this crisis, stands as a symbol of broken promises, accused of legalizing illegal immigrants and abandoning the martyrs’ sacrifices.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the Government of India’s 2025 directive to states and Union Territories (UTs) to compile lists of illegal immigrants, coupled with Supreme Court rulings, have reignited tensions, exposing Assam’s precarious place in a “crowded Earth.”

“In May 2025, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs directed states and UTs to verify suspected illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar within 30 days, with deportation for those unverified. States like Rajasthan and Gujarat have acted swiftly, with Rajasthan deporting 148 suspected Bangladeshi immigrants to West Bengal for repatriation. The directive, part of a broader push against undocumented migrants, includes establishing district-level detention centers and task forces. Union Home Minister Amit Shah emphasized that illegal immigration threatens national security, a stance echoed by the Supreme Court.”

Migration and Northeast India’s Demographic Crisis

Northeast India, a region of unparalleled ethnic diversity, has been a migration crossroads since British colonial rule. In the 19th century, Assam’s demographic landscape shifted as the British brought laborers from central India to work in tea gardens and appointed educated Hindu Bengalis to administrative roles.

After 1901, Muslim peasants from Mymensingh (now Bangladesh) settled in Assam’s floodplains, followed by Nepali dairy farmers. By 1891, one-fourth of Assam’s population was of migrant origin, fueling Assamese and as a whole Indigenous  nationalist sentiments against “alien” dominance.

The 1947 partition intensified cross-border migration from East Pakistan (later Bangladesh), with the 1951 census recording 274,000 refugees, mostly Hindu Bengalis. Estimates suggest 221,000 immigrants arrived between 1951 and 1961, and 1.8 million illegal immigrants entered from 1971 to 1981. Assam’s population grew six-fold in the 20th century, compared to India’s three-fold increase, straining resources and sparking fears of cultural erosion.

The inclusion of “foreigners” in electoral rolls, noted by the Ministry of External Affairs in 1963, became a flashpoint in 1979 when a Mangaldoi by-election revealed 26,000 non-citizens among 36,000 processed voters, triggering the Assam Movement.

“The Supreme Court has taken a firm position on deportations. In February 2025, it criticized Assam for detaining 270 foreigners indefinitely without deportation steps, summoning the Chief Secretary and directing surprise inspections at detention centers. In May 2025, the court rejected a Sri Lankan Tamil’s plea to stay in India post-sentence, stating that India, with its 140 crore population, is not a “Dharamshala” for foreigners.”

The Assam Movement: A Sacrifice Betrayed

Led by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP), the Assam Movement was a desperate cry to preserve Assamese identity. From 1979 to 1985, millions joined protests, economic blockades, and civil disobedience, demanding the detection, disenfranchisement, and deportation of illegal immigrants. The movement’s secular stance, rooted in constitutional principles, rejected communal divisions, focusing on demographic data.

The movement culminated in the Assam Accord of 1985, signed under Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. It set January 1, 1966, as the base date for detecting foreigners, with those arriving between 1966 and March 24, 1971, eligible for regularization after a 10-year disenfranchisement period. Post-March 25, 1971, immigrants were to be deported.

For the indigenous people of Assam, the Accord was a betrayal, legalizing pre-1971 migrants from Bangladesh and Nepal and failing to deliver on deportation promises. The Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act), which placed the burden of proof on the accuser, further hindered deportations until its repeal in 2005, deepening the sense of abandonment.

The Assam Accord and Section 6A

Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, was enacted to implement the Assam Accord, granting citizenship to pre-1971 migrants from East Pakistan. On October 17, 2024, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud upheld its constitutional validity, affirming March 25, 1971, as a rational cut-off tied to the Bangladesh Liberation War’s Operation Searchlight.

The court declared post-1971 entrants illegal, reinforcing the Accord’s legal framework. However, groups like the Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, advocating for a 1951 cut-off, called the ruling “unfortunate,” arguing it turns Assam into a “dumping ground” for foreigners.

Critics view the Accord as eyewash, legalizing decades of illegal migration while failing to enforce deportations. Clause 6, meant to protect Assamese cultural and linguistic identity, remains unimplemented, fueling accusations of betrayal by the Government of India and the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP), formed by movement leaders. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling, while validating the Accord, does little to address the ground reality: Assam continues to grapple with the demographic and cultural fallout of migration.

The Rise and Fall of AGP: A Regional Dream Shattered

The AGP, born in 1985 from the Assam Movement’s leadership, promised to uphold the Accord and protect indigenous interests. Its landslide victory in the 1985 elections, led by Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, marked a new era. However, governance failures eroded public trust. A 1991 split and electoral defeats diminished its influence.

The AGP’s 2016 alliance with the BJP-led North-East Democratic Alliance (NEDA) and its support for the CAA was seen as a betrayal of its regionalist roots, aligning with a national party whose Hindutva agenda clashed with Assam’s secular aspirations.

The CAA

The Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, granting citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014, sparked outrage in Assam. Critics, including AASU, argue it undermines the Assam Accord by extending the citizenship cut-off to 2014, contradicting Section 6A’s 1971 benchmark.

The Act’s religious criteria violate India’s secular principles, favoring Hindu migrants while marginalizing Muslims, many of whom face statelessness. AASU’s 2024 Supreme Court challenge and protests highlight fears that the CAA encourages further migration, threatening Assam’s demographic balance.

‘National Policy’ and Supreme Court Stance: A Hardening Line

In May 2025, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs directed states and UTs to verify suspected illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar within 30 days, with deportation for those unverified. States like Rajasthan and Gujarat have acted swiftly, with Rajasthan deporting 148 suspected Bangladeshi immigrants to West Bengal for repatriation.

The directive, part of a broader push against undocumented migrants, includes establishing district-level detention centers and task forces. Union Home Minister Amit Shah emphasized that illegal immigration threatens national security, a stance echoed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has taken a firm position on deportations. In February 2025, it criticized Assam for detaining 270 foreigners indefinitely without deportation steps, summoning the Chief Secretary and directing surprise inspections at detention centers. In May 2025, the court rejected a Sri Lankan Tamil’s plea to stay in India post-sentence, stating that India, with its 140 crore population, is not a “dharamshala” for foreigners. The court’s consistent rulings, including refusing to stay Rohingya deportations, prioritize national laws over humanitarian claims, aligning with the government’s hardened stance.

The NRC: A Flawed Promise

The NRC, updated in 2019 under Supreme Court supervision, aimed to identify citizens based on residency before March 24, 1971. Excluding 19.06 lakh applicants, it left many in limbo, with appeals before Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) stalled. Allegations of errors—excluding genuine citizens while including ineligible immigrants—highlight its flawed execution.

The BJP’s reluctance to accept the NRC draft, citing the exclusion of Hindu Bengalis, and its push for the CAA reveals a politicized approach prioritizing electoral gains over indigenous interests. The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling paves the way for finalizing the NRC, but bureaucratic delays and the CAA’s contradictions complicate implementation.

Northeast in a Crowded World

Assam’s struggle reflects Northeast’s broader crisis in a “crowded Earth.” The region’s porous borders with Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Nepal make it a migration hotspot, straining resources and threatening indigenous cultures. The Government of India’s admission to the Supreme Court in 2023 that it lacks accurate data on illegal immigrants underscores the challenge’s scale.

In Assam, the fear of becoming a minority in their own land, echoed in Manipur’s recent ethnic unrest, highlights a regional crisis. The Supreme Court’s call for deportations and the MHA’s 30-day verification deadline signal a shift toward stricter enforcement, but Assam’s unique history demands nuanced solutions.

A Legacy of Betrayal

The Assam Accord’s failure to enforce deportations and implement Clause 6, combined with the CAA’s divisive framework, represents a profound betrayal of the Assam Movement’s sacrifices. The movement’s martyrs, who died to protect Assamese identity, are overshadowed by policies prioritizing political expediency.

The Government of India’s 2025 directive to identify illegal immigrants, while a step toward enforcement, comes 46 years too late for many in Assam, who view the Accord as a tool to legitimize pre-1971 migrants. The AGP’s alignment with the BJP and the CAA’s imposition without Assam’s consultation deepen this betrayal, turning the state into a perceived “dumping ground.”

Northeast’s history of colonial exploitation and post-partition migration has left it vulnerable to demographic shifts. The Assamese fear of marginalization, rooted in a six-fold population growth, is compounded by the CAA’s religious bias, which pits communities against each other. The Supreme Court’s rulings, while legally sound, fail to address the human cost: statelessness for NRC-excluded individuals and the erosion of indigenous rights.

The government’s inconsistent approach—legalizing migrants in 1985 while now demanding their identification—lacks coherence, leaving Assam to bear the burden of a crowded nation.

Assam’s battle against illegal immigration is a microcosm of a crowded world grappling with migration, identity, and resource constraints. The Assam Accord, meant to shield the Assamese, has become a symbol of betrayal; its promises unfulfilled 46 years after the movement’s sacrifices. The CAA’s imposition exacerbates this wound, prioritizing national political agendas over regional aspirations.

As Northeast stands at a crossroads, the Government of India must honor the Accord’s spirit, implement Clause 6, and resolve the NRC’s ambiguities. The Supreme Court’s oversight and the MHA’s directives offer a chance for redemption, but only through justice, equality, and respect for Assam’s unique history can the region reclaim its identity in a crowded Earth.

20-05-2025

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking.  You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com(For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.