CHAPTER-3

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Northeast India comprises the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland,

Meghalaya, Mizoram, Manipur, Assam, Tripura and Sikkim. It shares

international border with countries like Bangladesh, Bhutan, China and Myanmar

which has made the region strategically important. The total land area of

Northeast India is 255168 square kilometers. The region has a unique history,

distinct demography and socio-economic features. It has been an abode of several

ethno-linguistic and cultural groups since ancient time. Since the time

immemorial, people of different races, languages and cultures have come and

settled in different parts of Northeast. Hypothetically, the earliest settlers of this

part of the country is believed to be of Austro-Asiatic stock of human races

(currently identified with Khasis) who came from eastern Mediterranean and had

been settling in the region since 2500 BC (Raatan 2011: 10). They were followed

by Indo-Mongoloid group of people migrating from central Asia such as China,

Mongolia, Tibet and Siberia at about 1000 BC (Chatterjee 2007: 26). They settled

down in different parts of Northeast India and ruled over the region for many

centuries. Indo-Aryan people came to Northeast during the epic period i.e. at the

time of compiling Ramayana, Mahabharata and other Vedic literature. Coming of

Muslims (1205) and Ahoms (1228) during the first half of the 13th century and of

British in the 19th century had added to the diversity of this region.

Chapter-3

62

Writing a history of ancient Assam which comprised almost the whole of present

Northeast India except Manipur, Tripura and Sikkim has not been an easy task.

Any historian who wrote about the history of ancient Assam had to face the

difficulties of having insufficient evidence and information. In this regard,

Edward Gait observed, “The science of history was unknown to the early

inhabitants of Assam, and it is not till the Ahom invasion in 1228 AD that we

obtain anything at all approaching a connected account of the people and their

rulers. Some scattered facts may be gleaned from a few ancient inscriptions and

from the observations of a Chinese traveler. But before that, nothing definite is

known, and our only information consists of some dubious and fragmentary

references in the Mahabharata, and in the Puranas and Tantras and other similar

records” (Gait 2005: 1). However, for the convenience of presentation, an attempt

has been made to present things chronologically and systematically and

accordingly the chapter is divided into three sections. Section I covers the

mythological period the historical account of which is relatively vague but gives a

glimpse of the background of Bodos in Northeast India, Section II covers the

historical period including pre-colonial and colonial time and Section III deals

with the post-colonial modern period in which the identity movement of the

Bodos is initiated.

I

Mythological period

During mythological era, Assam was known as Pragjyotisha (Barua 2008: 1).

Gradually, by 4th century AD, it came to be known as Kamrupa. At the time of

Mahabharata, Pragjyotisha included “the greater part of modern Assam together

with the districts of Jalpaiguri, Coochbehar, Rangpur, part of Pabna and also

probably part of East Nepal” (2008: 2). The earliest mentioned King of Kamrupa

or Pragjyotisha, was a non-Aryan named Mahiranga Danava. According to K.L.

Chapter-3

63

Barua, the name Mahiranga has been derived from the word ‘Mairang’ (2008: 2)

In order to substantiate his argument he cited the example of a hill on the

‘Seventh Mile’ of the Gauhati-Shillong road which is still known as ‘Mairang

Parbat’. In Bodo language, Mairong means paddy or rice. Therefore, it can be

assumed that the inhabitants of Kamrupa or Pragjyotisha of the then time were

the Bodos of Mongoloid origin who was then known as Kiratas, Asuras, Danavas

and Mlechhas. Mahiranga was succeeded in turn by Hatak Asura, Sambar Asura

and Ratna Asura. They were succeeded by a powerful chief known as Gatak

Asura who was known to be extremely addicted to meat and strong drinks (Gait

2005: 12). Naraka (or Narkw) Asura defeated him and founded a new dynasty.

Naraka Asura was known to be the son of the mother earth and king Janaka of

Videha brought him up along with his princes. Since Naraka Asura is believed to

be the son of the Earth, the Bhumi, his dynasty has been identified as Bhauma

dynasty (Basumatary 2009: 67). However, many historians are of the view that

Naraka Asura was a Bodo King as during such time ‘Asuara’ appellation was

attached to Bodos. Initially, Naraka Asura was a pious and humble King and was

worshiper of Goddess Kamakhya. But under the influence of Bana Asura, another

Bodo King of Tezpur, he grew irreligious and presumptuous and asked Goddess

Kamakhya (or kamaikha) to marry him. Goddess Kamakhya agreed on the

condition that a temple would have to be erected on Nilachal in her name and

also a tank and a road to the temple to be constructed in a single night. Naraka

Asura agreed and almost completed the task, when the Goddess caused a cock to

crow to claim that it dawned and thus refused to marry him (Gait 2005: 12). This

was how Kamakhya was said to have been erected. Binay Kumar Brahma

claimed ‘Kamakhya’ as a Bodo word. He observed, “the term ‘Kamakhya’ is a

compound word and may simplify in Bodo with their meaning as: Kam or

Kham= to burn; ai= mother goddess; kha=structuring. Complete meaning reads

as ‘Mother Goddess being structured out of burned ashes’. Siva Purana says that

to escape the insult inflicted to her husband Siva by her father Dakhsva, Sati had

jumped into the burning fire of yajna and died (Brahma 2008: 14). As Naraka

grew more oppressive, Vishnu in his incarnation as Krishna, slained him and

installed Bhagadatta, the eldest son of Naraka Asura, on the throne of

Chapter-3

64

Pragjyotisha. Bhagadatta was a powerful King of epic period and described as a

warrior “not inferior to Sakra (Indra) in battle” (Barua 2008: 20). In Sabha Parva

of Mahabharata, he is called “the mighty King of the Mlechhas” (Baruah 1985:

82). Mlechhas were believed to be the progenitors of the present day Bodos.

Bhagadatta took part in the famous battle of Kurukshetra on the side of Kauravas.

He fought valiantly and suffered death at the hands of Arjuna. Bhagadatta was

succeeded by his son Vajradatta and his descendents continued to rule for

nineteenth generations. The last king of this Bodo/Asura kingdom of Pragjyotisha

was Suparna. Suparna was killed by his minister (Gait 2005: 13).

Another Bodo/Asura kingdom which found mentioned in Bhagabat Gita and

Vishnu Purana was the Asura Kingdom of Tezpur. Bana Asura of Tezpur was the

contemporary of Naraka Asura and worshipper of Lord Siva. He had many sons

and one daughter. The name of his daughter was Usha. Usha was very beautiful

and, therefore, could attract the attention of Anirudda, the grandson of Krishna.

With the help of Chitralekha, Anirudda entered the castle of Usha in the palace

and married her secretly. But he was caught. However, he was rescued by

Krishna after defeating Bana Asura (Gait 2005: 15-16). Remains of this dynasty

are still in existence in Tezpur town (Sonitpur district of Assam) in the form of

Agnigarh. According to Hindu mythology, Agnigarh is the site of the fortress

which was built by Bana Asura to keep his daughter in isolation. The all sites of

the fortress used to remain surrounded by fire day and night so that nobody could

go in or out without permission. Today, it is an important historical place in the

state and also bears the reminiscence of Bodo/Asura rule in Assam.

Generically, Bodos belong to Indo-Mongoloid group of people and spoke Tibeto-

Burman language. They migrated to the northeastern part of India at about 1000

BC from central Asia such as China, Mongolia, Tibet and Siberia (Chatterjee

2007: 26). However, it was not a onetime migration. The process of migration

went on successive waves. Sydney Endle observed that there were at least two

great phases of immigration from the north and northeast to the river valley of the

Brahmaputra, i.e. one refers to immigration to Northeast Bengal and western

Chapter-3

65

Assam through the valley of Tista, Dharla, Sankosh etc and the other making its

way through the Subansiri, Dibong and Dihong valley into eastern Assam (Endle

1990: 4). Gradually, Bodos spread into different parts of Assam, Bengal,

Meghalaya, Tripura Bangladesh and some pockets of Nepal and Burma. They

settled in and ruled over the northeastern part of India, particularly Assam for a

long time and left their marks of identity on the toponymy of entire Northeast

India. Sydney Endle observed, “It is indeed not at all unlikely that the people

known to us as Kacharis and to themselves as Bada (Bara), were in earlier days

the dominant race in Assam, and as such they would seem to have left traces of

their domination in the nomenclature of the physical features of the country, e.g.

the Kachari word for water (di or doi) apparently forms the first syllable of the

names of many of the chief rivers of the province, such as Diputa, Dihong,

Dibong, Dibru, Dihing, Dimu, Disang, Diku (cf. khu Tista) &c.,and to these may

be added Dikrang, Diphu, Digaru, &c., all near Sadiya, the earliest known centre

of Chutiya (Khachari) power and civilization” (1990: 4). The Ahoms ruled over

Assam for about six hundred years, but their word for river (i.e. nam) occurs only

in a few instances in the extreme east, e.g. Namrup, Namstik and Namsang. From

this fact, it can be assumed that the span of Bodo/Kachari rule in Assam is of

longer duration than that of the Ahoms (Gait 2005: 6).

Edward Gait described the Kacharis as aborigines or the earliest known

inhabitants of the Brahmaputra Valley. They are identical with the people called

Mech in the Goalpara and North Bengal. The Kacharis call themselves as Bodo

or Bodo-fisa (son of the Bodo). In the North Cachar Hills, they call themselves as

Dimasa, meaning ‘son of the great river’. They were known to the Ahoms as

Timisa (2005: 6). The Bodos were earlier not known by the name of Bodos.

During the time of the compilation of Ramayana, Mahabharata and Vedic

literature they were known as Kiratas, Asuras or Mlechhas. In Sanskrit, the term

‘Kirata’ refers to the wild non-Aryan tribes living in the mountain, particularly

the Himalayas and the northeastern parts of India, who were mongoloid in origin

(Chatterjee 2007: 26). Thus, the term ‘Kirata’ is a generic name referred to

different sections of the people belonging to the mongoloid origin. The Bodos are

Chapter-3

66

only a part of greater Kirata group of people. Ahom Buranjis refer them as

Kacharis.

The above account suggests that the Bodos who were then known as Asuras,

Kiratas, Mlechhas and Danavas ruled over Pragjyotisha or Kamrupa for many

centuries. They also ruled the Kachari kingdoms of Dimapur, Maibang and

Kashpur for many generations. However, it is often a matter of dispute that the

traces of Bodo rule which lasted for such a long duration and was spread

throughout the length and breadth of the then Assam are not enough and are

found mainly in the form of memorials and monuments. One explanation of that

may be, as Edward Gait suggests, the destruction of Nature (Gait 2005: 20).

Natural calamities like earthquake and flood (in the Brahmaputra valley) might

have washed away the traces of Bodo rule in Assam. (2005: 20). Some also think

that lack of understanding of people about the importance of historical evidences

is also responsible as adequate care to preserve and maintain them was not given.

II

Pre-Colonial Period

History of Bodos became relatively clearer from the 4th century AD. During this

period, some authentic sources like Harshacharita, Bargaon Grants of

Balavarman III, Nidhanpur Copperplate Grant and Doobi Copperplate Grant of

Bhaskar Varman came to light and attracted the attention of the historians. In the

famous Allahabad rock inscription of King Samudragupta Kamrupa was

described as frontier Kingdom of Gupta dynasty of Magdha (now Eastern Uttar

Pradesh). Doobi Copperplate Grant states Pushya Varman as the first King of

Pragjyotisha and Kamrupnagar as his capital (Narzinary 2000: 7). He was

contemporary of King Samudragupta and claimed his lineage from Bhagadatta,

the famous non-Aryan Asura/Bodo King of epic period (Roy 1995: 8). As regards

the authenticity of his claim for lineage, it may be said that there cannot be any

Chapter-3

67

doubt that he was a Bodo King, as no Aryan would like to claim his lineage from

a non Aryan Mlechha, Asura or a Bodo King (1995: 8).

Varman dynasty, the first historically recorded Bodo kingdom of Pragjyotisha

lasted for three centuries and Kumar Bhaskar Varman was one of the most

powerful Kings of this dynasty. Suniti Kumar Chatterji described him as the

Hinduised Mlechha king (Chatterji 2007: 91). A chronological presentation of the

heirs of Varman dynasty who preceded Pushya Varman is as below:

Chart-3.01: Chronological Presentation of Kings of Varman Dynasty

Name of King Period of Reign

1. Samudra Varman 380-405 AD

2. Bala Varman 405-420 AD

3. Kalyan Varman 420-440 AD

4. Ganapati Varman 440-450 AD

5. Mahendra Varman 450-485 AD

6. Narayan Varman 485-490 AD

7. Mahabhuta Varman 490-555 AD

8. Chandramukha Varman 555-565 AD

9. Sthita Varman 565-585 AD

10. Sisthit Varman 585-593 AD

11. Supratisthit Varman 593-594 AD

12. Bhaskar Varman 594-650 AD

13. Avantivarman 650-655 AD

Source: Basumatary, B. C. (2009). Bodo Civilization in India. Kokrajhar: Ganda Offset.

Varman dynasty lasted up to 655 AD and was succeeded by Salastamba dynasty.

In Bargaon Copperplate inscription of Ratnapala, Salastamba, the founder of the

Salstamba dynasty, was described as the governor of a Mlechha Country (Barua

2008: 67). Hence, it is apparent that Salastamba belonged to Bodo race who were

Chapter-3

68

then known as Mlechhas, Asuras and Kiratas. Salastamba founded his dynasty in

655 AD and ruled up to 675 AD. After 20 years of rule, Salastamba was

succeeded by his son Vijaya in 675 AD. Subsequently, Vijaya was succeeded by

Palaka, Kumara and Vajradeva in turn. Salastamba dynasty of Kamrupa lasted for

more than three centuries and came to an end in 985 AD. The last King of the

Salastamba dynasty was Tyaga Simha and he died heirless. A chronological

presentation of the heirs Salastamba dynasty is as under.

Chart-3.02: Chronological Presentation of Kings of Varman Dynasty

Name of King Period of Reign (Approx)

1. Salastamba 655-675AD

2. Vijaya 675-685AD

3. Palaka 685-700AD

4. Kumara 700-715AD

5. Vajradeva 715-730AD

6. Shri Harsha Deva 730-750AD

7. Balavarman II 750-765AD

No authentic information could be unearthed about 35 year of

historical vacuum that follows the rule of Balavarman.

8. Pralambha 800-820AD

9. Harjaravarman 820-835AD

10. Banamalavarman 835-860AD

11. Jaymalavarman 860-875AD

12. Balavarman III 875-890AD

No authentic information could be revealed about nearly hundred years

of missing link that follows the rule of Balavarman III.

13. Tyaga Singha 970-985AD

Source: Barua, K. L. (2008). Early History of Kamrupa: From the Earliest Time to the

End of the Sixteenth Century. Guwahati: LBS Publications.

Chapter-3

69

Salastamba dynasty was succeeded by Pala dynasty. Rulers of this dynasty (like

Varman and Salastamba dynasty) were also believed to be the Hinduised

Mlechhas. During ancient period there was a prevalent practice of giving

Kshatriya status to the ruling non-Aryan families and also giving them Hindu

names (Baruah 1985:112). The first King of this lineage, Brahma Pala, was of

Indo-mongoloid origin and he was described in an inscription of his son Ratna

Pala as being the relative of Tyaga Simha, the last Bodo/Mlechha King of

Salastamba dynasty.(Chatterjee 2007: 98). This Pala dynasty lasted for one and a

half century and came to an end in 1125 AD when the last King Jaya Pala was

overthrown by Rama Pala of Gaur (Barua 2008: 95). The chronological

presentation of Pala dynasty of Kamrupa is as below.

Chart-3.03: Chronological Presentation of Kings of Varman Dynasty

Name of King Period of Reign (Approx)

1. Brahmapala 985-1000AD

2. Ratnapala 1000-1030AD

3. Indrapala 1030-1055AD

4. Gopala 1055-1075AD

5. Harshapala 1075-1090AD

6. Dharmapala 1090-1115AD

7. Jaya Pala 1115-1125AD

Source: Barua, K. L. (2008). Early History of Kamrupa: From the Earliest Time to the End of

the Sixteenth Century. Guwahati: LBS Publications.

Another important dynasty of Bodos of the pre-colonial period was Kachari

dynasty of Dimapur which included vast areas of present Assam and Dimapur

district of present Nagaland. The capital of this dynasty was at Dimapur

(presently situated in Nagaland). The term ‘Dimapur’ is composed of two words

i.e. ‘Dima’ and ‘pur’. In Bodo language ‘Dima’ means ‘big river’ and ‘pur’

Chapter-3

70

means ‘a place or an area or a land’. Together, ‘Dimapur’ means the ‘land of the

big river’. However, there is no authentic information when this Kachari dynasty

came to power in Dimapur. But there is evidence to suggest that by the 13th

century, when the Ahom Kings were carving out an Ahom kingdom in upper

Assam, the Kachari kingdom was quite powerful, and for about two hundred

years the Ahom Kings refrained from launching any major attack against them

(Roy 1995: 11). The kingdom was extended along the South bank of the

Brahmaputra valley and also included the Dhansiri valley and North Cachar hills.

In 1490 AD the Ahom King Suhenpha attacked the Kachari kingdom of Dimapur

but did not succeed. The Ahom King Suhumung also tried to capture Kachari

kingdom in 1526 but failed. However, a major defeat of the Kachari kingdom of

Dimapur came in 1531 when Suhumung attacked it with renewed preparation and

killed Detcha, the brother of Kachari King Khungkhara. Detsung (relative of

Khungkhara) was installed as a puppet King at Dimapur as Khungkhara fled

away to escape execution. However, the relationship deteriorated and Detsung

revolted against Suhumung in1536 and a fierce struggle occurred between the

two in which Detsung was defeated and put to death. After his death, the

Kacharis left Dimapur and Dhansiri valley and marched towards the South. They

established their new capital at Maibong (Gait 2005, 238). But at the face of

expansionist Ahom rule, the Kacharis could not rule Maibong peacefully. The

Ahom King Rudra Singha attacked this Kachari kingdom in 1706 and annexed it

to his Kingdom. The Kachari King Tamradhaj fled to Kashpur in Cachar district

and established a new Kachari Kingdom there. But in 1818, the Manipuri prince

and Burmese attacked the Kingdom of Kashpur which forced Kachari King

Gabinda Chandra to seek help from the British East India Company. The British

East India Company helped Gabinda Chandra and restored him to the throne. But

the King did not live long. In 1832, King Gabinda Chandra died heirless and as a

result, the kingdom was transferred to the East India Company under the policy

of Doctrine of Lapse. However, some parts of the kingdom remained under

Tularam, Commander-in-Chief of King Gabinda Chandra, and his two sons till

1854 (Roy 1995: 11-12). After that, the entire Bodo kingdom of Kashpur has

gone to the East India Company.

Chapter-3

71

Colonial period

Consolidation of colonial rule in Assam, however, took long period and different

units were brought under the fold of colonial rule at different periods of time. For

instance Plains Assam in 1826, Cachar Plains in 1832, Khasi Hills in 1833,

Jaintia Plains in 1835, Karbi Anglong ( Mikir Hills ) in 1838, North Cachar Hills

in 1854, Garo Hills in 1872-73 and Lushai Hills in 1890 (Datta 1993: 5-6). After

bringing almost the whole of Assam under its fold, the British East India

Company started tea plantation over a vast area of land. Tea plantation in Assam

began its journey in the year 1836 and expanded at much faster rate between

1850 and 1900. The expansion of the tea industry in Assam led to the import of

labourers from the neighbouring states of Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra

Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. The important tribes recruited by the British tea

planters were Santals, Oraons, Mundas, Khaharias, Gonds, Khonds and Nagesia

(Narzinary 2000: 13). The import of the Santhals served two important purposes

of colonial rule-first, it met the scarcity of labourers in Assam and the second, it

helped in suppressing the Santhal uprising (Jharkand Movement) under the

leadership of Birsa Munda in Bihar (now Jharkhand). Besides, a large number of

people from the then East Bengal also migrated to the region in search of land

and better livelihood.

Superintendent of Census Report of India 1931, C. S. Mullan, remarked that

probably the most important event in the last twenty five years that seemed to

have altered the whole future of Assam and destroyed the whole structure of

Assamese culture and civilization - had been the invasion of a vast horde of land

hungry Bengali immigrants, mostly Muslims, from the districts of Eastern Bengal

particularly from Mymensingh (Bordoloi 1986: 28). This invasion began

sometime before 1911 and continued for many years. By 1921, the first group of

migrants had conquered Goalpara. The second group of migrants which followed

them in the years 1921-31 had consolidated their position in that district and had

also completed the conquest of Nowgong. Subsequently, they also spread to

Chapter-3

72

Barpeta and Darrang districts of Assam. Sibsagar was so far untouched from the

trouble of illegal migration (1986: 29). “It is sad but by no means improbable”,

Mullan observed, “that in another thirty years Sibsagar district will be the only

part of Assam in which an Assamese will find himself at home” (1986: 30).

Table- 3:01 Number of Migrants from East Bengal in Assam during 1911-31 (In thousands)

District 1911 1921 1931 Total Goalpara 77 (MS 34) 151 (MS 78) 170 (MS 80) 398 (MS 192) Kamrup 4 (MS 1) 44 (MS 30) 134 (MS 91) 182 (MS 122) Darrang 7 (MS 1) 20 (MS 12) 41 (MS 30) 68 (MS 43)

Nowgong 4 (MS 1) 58 (MS 52) 120 (MS 108) 182 (MS 161) Sibsagar 14 (MS Nil) 14 (MS Nil) 12 (MS Nil) 40 (MS Nil)

Lakhimpur 14 (MS Nil) 14 (MS Nil) 19 (MS 2) 47 (MS 2) Total 120 (MS 37) 301 (MS 172) 496 (MS 311) 917 (MS 520)

Source: Bordoloi, B.N. (1986). Alienation of Tribal Land and Indebtedness. Guwahati: Tribal Research Institute, Assam. Note: MS= Mymensinghias.

The above table reveals that as much as 917000 migrants from East Bengal

entered Assam during 1911 to 1931. Of them, 520000 were identified to be the

people of Mymensingh district. In Nowgong district alone, Mymensinghias

occupied 102363 acres of land in 1929-30. Majority of Mymensinghias was

Muslin, although a small percentage of Hindu was also there. Muslims occupied

89078 acres of land and Hindus occupied 13285 acres. In their venture to grab

land, they also resorted to anti-social activities like grabbing of government

reserves and forceful occupation of the land of local inhabitants (1986: 30).

The continuous flow of illegal migrants in Assam was primarily motivated by

economic factors (Sinha 1998: 4). On the one hand, Assam had vast area of

unutilized cultivable land but limited population and on the other, the

neighbouring state of Bangladesh was very thickly populated characterized by

scarcity of land and communal riots. With an intention to collect revenue from

the unutilized land in Assam, colonial rule promoted the migration process. As a

result, a large number of peasants from Bangladesh mostly the Muslims migrated

to Assam. In his report on illegal migration to Assam, (1998) submitted to the

Chapter-3

73

President of India, Lieutenant General (Retd.) S K Sinha, the then Governor of

Assam remarked,

“Bangladesh is the world's most densely populated country with a population

density of 969 per square kilometer. The growth rate of population in that country

is 2.2 per cent and its population is growing at the rate of 2.8 million per year.

Each year nearly one third of Bangladesh gets inundated by floods, displacing 19

million people. 70 million people constituting 60 per cent of the population live

below the poverty line. The per capita income in Bangladesh is 170 dollar per

year, which is much lower than the per capita income in India. The border

between India and Bangladesh is very porous. In these circumstances, the

continued large scale population movement from Bangladesh to India is

inevitable, unless effective measures are taken to counter it” (1998: 6).

Ethno-linguistic and religious commonalities between the illegal migrants and

their counterparts on Indian side enabled migrants to find shelter and also to

suppress their foreigner identity. Some political parties had also been

encouraging and even helping illegal migrants, with a view to build vote banks.

These immigrants are hard-working and prepared to work at cheaper

remuneration than the local people which made them acceptable. Moreover, with

corruption being all pervasive, government officials are bribed to provide them

help (Sinha 1998: 6). In the long run, the unauthorized flow of immigrants in

Assam created a ‘law and order’ problem in the region. As the problem occurred

out of illegal occupation of land by immigrants, the British administration

devised a means to bring the situation under control. Initially, they applied this

devise in Nowgong district and Barpeta sub-division of Kamrup district in 1920

(Bordoloi 1999: 5). Gradually, this system was extended to other districts of

lower Assam. The system later on came to be known as ‘Line-System’. Under

this system, villages were divided into three different categories namely, ‘Open

Villages’, ‘Closed Villages’ and ‘Mixed Villages’. In the ‘Open Villages’,

immigrants were allowed to settle freely. But in ‘Closed Villages’ they

(immigrants) were restricted. Similarly, in ‘Mixed Villages’, immigrants were

allowed to settle on the one side of the line drawn in the map whereas they were

Chapter-3

74

restricted from settling down on the other side. But the line system introduced by

the British administration could not serve the purpose for which it was created.

This could not resolve the problem of unauthorized occupation and encroachment

on the land of indigenous population. Even the ‘closed villages’ were found to

have been encroached. For instance, in Barpeta sub-division alone, 50 villages

were encroached by the immigrants (1999: 5).

In order to ease the tensions arising out of continuous flow of migrants and

review the working of the Line System in the region, the Government of Assam

constituted a committee which was known as Line System Committee. The

Committee was headed by F. W. Hockenhull. Other members of the committee

were Abdul Matin Choudury, Syed Abdur Rouf, Sayidur Rahman, Rabi Chandra

Kachari, Mahendra Nath Saikia, Sarbeswar Baruah, Kameswar Das and A G

Patton (1999: 6). The committee submitted its report in 1938. In its report, the

committee recommended a middle course between the two conflicting opinions

prevailing at that time- one demanding the total abolition of the Line System and

the other total retention of it. The committee recommended that (1) Instead of a

line dividing the area of a village, a large unit of restriction should be adopted

such as Mouza or block of Mouzas, which were to be protected from encroachers

(2) that, Line System should be continued, extended or introduced with a view to

regulate settlement of land with immigrants and contain them in specified

localities (Das 1986: 31). In November, 1939 the state government of Assam

adopted a resolution based on the report of the Line System Committee and the

idea of constituting ‘prohibited areas’ was visualized. The 4th paragraph of the

resolution runs as follows:

“The restrictions constituting the so-called Line System which have been in

existence for over 10 years past were primarily intended against the unending

flow of Bengal immigrant cultivators and took the form of constituting certain

areas in which settlement of land with such immigrant was prohibited.

Government agrees with the committee that in future the unit for such restriction

or prohibition should, where possible, be larger. They consider that in the sub-

montane (the lower slopes of mountains) areas it should be possible to constitute

Chapter-3

75

whole Mouzas or compact parts of Mouzas inhabited predominantly by backward

and tribal classes of ‘prohibited areas’. Elsewhere where the whole village or a

larger compact area is predominantly peopled by backward or tribal classes, such

village or areas may be constituted prohibited area. Within the prohibited areas as

constituted, immigrant cultivators shall not be allowed land either by settlement

or by transfer of annual pattas” (Bordoloi 1999: 7).

Thus, a decision was arrived at for creation of prohibited areas in tribal and

backward people dominant areas where immigrant cultivators would not be

allowed to possess land either by settlement or by transfer of annual pattas.

However, the decision of the Government of Assam to create prohibited areas

could not take a practical shape as Gopinath Bordoloi Ministry resigned in 1939

at the direction of the Central Congress Working Committee. On the other hand,

a reverse trend developed in the state with the formation of a coalition

government under the leadership of Mohammad Sadullah on 17th April, 1939.

Sadullah Ministry passed a resolution in June 1940 whereby all wastelands were

to be divided into blocks and allotted to different communities including the

immigrants on payment of a premium of Rs-5/ per bigha of land (1999: 7).

Similarly in 1943, Sadullah Ministry made a ‘grow more food’ campaign which

encouraged large scale migration in the state. This policy of Mohammad Sadullah

brought a large number of Bangladeshi Muslims and drastically changed the

demographic pattern of the Brahmaputra valley reducing the indigenous tribal

people into minority in their own land.

Table-3.02: Population Growth in Assam during 1901-1951 Year Growth rate, Assam Growth rate, All India Variation

1901-1911 16.99 5.73 11.26

1911-1921 20.48 -0.31 20.78

1921-1931 19.91 11.0 8.91

1931-1941 20.40 14.22 6.62

1941-1951 19.93 13.31 6.62

Source: Census Report of India, 1971.

Chapter-3

76

The above table reveals that the population growth rate of Assam has always

been higher than that of national average throughout the colonial rule. Even in the

decade when the population growth rate of India was -0.31, the growth rate in the

state was 20.48 percent. This reaffirms the phenomenon of migration in the state.

In 1946, the Congress returned to power in the state and Gopinath Bordoloi

became the Chief Minister of Assam. With a view of constituting tribal belt and

blocks Bordoloi Ministry appointed a special committee which visited the areas

predominantly inhabited by the tribal and backward classes, identified the

villages which have more than 50 percent of tribal and backward class population

and prepared a guide map. It was found that villages did not everywhere form a

compact area. Therefore, in order to keep the compactness of the region, many

non-tribal villages were included in the proposed tribal belt and blocks and were

treated on the same footing as the tribals with regard to the future settlement of

waste land and transfer of patta land. But from the date of creation of the tribal

belt and blocks, no one except tribal and backward class could get settlement

within the tribal belt and blocks. On the above lines, legislation was made in

1947 and Chapter X was inserted in Assam Land & Revenue Regulation

Act1886. Under the provision of Chapter X of the Act of 1886, 33 tribal belt and

blocks were created. The number of tribal belts and blocks were increased to 45

by 1964 which had covered 12546557 Bighas (1672873 Hectares) of land area.

Thus, migration was a serious problem in Assam since pre-colonial period. It

created the problem of land alienation for poor peasants and also widespread

unemployment in the region. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in his book, ‘Myths of

Independence’ wrote, “It would be wrong to think that Kashmir is the only

dispute that divides India and Pakistan, though undoubtedly the most significant.

One at least is nearly as important as the Kashmir dispute, is that of Assam and

some districts of India adjacent to East Pakistan. To that also Pakistan has a very

good claim” (Sinha1998: 5). Even a pro-India leader like Sheikh Mujibur

Rahman observed that Pakistan must include Assam to be financially and

economically strong (1998: 5). Besides, the land revenue was increased to the

Chapter-3

77

Table- 3.03: Distribution of Tribal Belts and Blocks in Assam

District Name of the Tribal Belt/Block Area in Bighas Goalpara

(Undivided) Sidli Tribal Belt 461509

Bijni Tribal Block 302545 Total 764054

Kamrup (Undivided)

South Kamrup (Chaygaon) Tribal Belt 302352 South Kamrup (Gauhati) Tribal Belt 772464

Tamulpur Tribal Belt 462637 Baska Tribal Belt 377512

Chapaguri Tribal Belt 264010 Gobardhan Tribal Block 38348 Bajegaon Tribal Block 6528

Karija Bijni Tribal Block 27542 Total 2261391

Darrang Gohpur Tribal Block 5666 Balipara Tribal Belt 1536000

Kalaigaon Tribal Belt 1208782 Tetelibanguria Tribal Block 10117

Dolgaon Tribal Block 28306 Kacharipara Tribal Block 9656

Tezial Tribal Block 8867 Bhuyankhat Tribal Block 9299

Total 3116392 Lakhimpur (Undivided)

North Lakhimpur (Sub-Mountain) Tribal Belt

600160

North Lakhimpur (Riverine) Tribal Block 493680 Abor-Michimi-Tirap Block 493680

Total 1587520 Nowgong Boro-Kacharigaon Tribal Block 22090

Bhalukjan Tribal Block 2466 Ghagua Tribal Block 27866 Tetelia Tribal Block 37751 Gobha Tribal Block 30190

Phalguri Tribal Block 28071 Amsoi Tribal Block 19926

Bagariguri Tribal Block 25759 Bardologaon Lankabhita Tribal Block 22176 Amguri Chang Phulaguri chang Tribal

Block 6851

Jamadari Tribal Block 8398 Baranguri Pathar Tribal Block 21451

Total 251085 Grand Total 7980442

Source: Narzary, H.C. (2011). Dream for Udayachal and the History of the Plains Tribals Council of Assam: PTCA, 1967-93. Guwahati: N.L. Publications.

Chapter-3

78

highest peak by the colonial rulers (especially in between 1857-1865) which

created dissatisfaction among the people of Brahmaputra valley, particularly the

plain tribals. Several new taxes like water tax for fishing in the rivers or beels

(jalkar), tax for cutting timbers (gorkhaty) and tax for grazing cattle (khusary)

were imposed. In 1894, the Bodo peasants along with their Assamese-speaking

neighbours revolted in Rangia in Kamrup district and Patharughat area in the then

Mongoldoi sub-division of Darang district of Assam protesting the imposition of

new taxes and increase in the rate of land revenue. The colonial rule had to

suppress the uprising with heavy hand and had to resort to firing to bring the

situation under control (Pegu 2004: 71).

Along with the increased rate of revenue and the import of illegal migrants from

the neighbouring states and the countries like Bangladesh and Nepal, there was

going on religious conversion of tribals including Bodos. A large number of

tribals of various communities were converting to Hinduism from their ancestral

religion while a segment of them adopted Christianity. This process of conversion

to other religion had become a serious threat to the identity and survival of the

tribals and as a result dissatisfaction arose in the mind of the educated tribal

people particularly the Bodos. In response to all these developments, a socio-

religious reform movement known as ‘Brahma Movement’ was launched by

Kalicharan Brahma, a socio-religious leader of the Bodos, in the first decade of

the 20th century. Educational institutions were opened and the business on timber

with which father of Kalicharan Brahma was associated was also boosted. A

student organization named Boro Chatra Sanmiloni was formed in 1919. With a

view to protect and preserve the distinct Bodo identity, the leaders of this student

organization created literature in Bodo language and spread the message of their

suffering and marginalization to the ignorant Bodo masses. In 1928, The Assam

Kachari Juvok Sanmiloni and Dhubri Boro Juvok Sanmiloni submitted two

memorandums to the Simon Commission in which they demanded that the Bodos

should be identified as Kacharis in the Census Report of British India and a

separate designation (Regiment) for them to be created in military service of

British India. Demands were also made for reservation of seats for the tribal

Chapter-3

79

people in the provincial as well as local political bodies of the state. All Assam

Tribal League (AATL) was formed in 1933 with a view to bring all the tribes of

mongoloid origin to a common political platform and to strengthen their voice.

The Government of India Act 1935, in the meantime, on the recommendation of

the Simon Commission, reserved 4 seats for the plains tribal in the Provincial

Legislature. Election to the Provincial Legislature of Assam was held in 1937. In

that election, AATL put their own candidates and captured all the reserved seats.

General Secretary of AATL Bhimbar Deori was nominated as the member of the

Legislative Council of Assam. The leaders of the League also signed a pre-

independence election agreement with the Assam Congress Committee, whereby

the latter, if voted to the power, agreed to make provisions for the protection of

political and socio-economic interests of the tribals through democratic means.

They further pledged to protect tribal land from outside encroachers and to secure

constitutional safeguard to prevent political marginalization of the plains tribal.

III

India got her independence on 15th August, 1947. Like others, Bodos of Assam

also hoped that there would be a change in their socio-economic and political

plight. They would secure a decent life with adequate representation in the new

political dispensation of the country. But the same did not happen. The condition

of the Bodos remained as deplorable as it was. Instead, it accentuated gradually

as migration from East Pakistan remained unabated. Initially, it was mostly

Hindu refugees, fleeing out of the fear of religious persecution during the time of

liberation of Bangladesh. This problem lasted for several years and ultimately led

to the declining of Hindu population in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). For

instance, in 1947 Hindu population of East Pakistan was 27 percent by 1971 it

reduced to 14 percent and by 1991 it was down to 10 percent (Sinha 1998: 5).

Along with Hindu refugees, Muslim infiltrators continued to migrate to Assam

for economic reasons.

Chapter-3

80

There is no consensus estimation regarding the number of total migrants in

Assam. Besides, the whole of northeastern part of India with exception to

Manipur, Tripura and Sikkim had been within the fold of undivided Assam till

1963. And the process of separation from Assam had completed only in 1986

with the separation of Mizoram and Meghalaya. Therefore, lack of sufficient

information and evidences had been a major challenge in writing about migration

problem of Assam.

Anil Saikia, H Goswami and A Goswami have estimated the number of foreign

migrants in Assam at 1337015 during 1951-1991 (Saikia et al. 2003: 114). Shri

Indrajit Gupta, the then Home Minister of India, stated in the Parliament on 6

May, 1997 that there were 10 million illegal migrants residing in India (Sinha

1998: 18). During the time of Assam movement, All Assam Students Union and

Gana Sangram Parishad have estimated the number of illegal migrants at 4.5

million. Susanta K. Das believes that the population growth in Assam from 1901-

1951 “has been the second highest in the world, exceeded only by Brazil” (Das

1989: 2). Amalendu Guha, however, has stated that the number of post-1951

settlers with questionable citizenship status would in no case exceed 1.3 million

(Nasar & Ahmed 2006: 93). Lieutenant General (retd.) S K Sinha, estimated

intrusion of 7.5 million of illegal Hindu migrants during 1971-1989 in India. As

regards Assam he wrote,

“Recent enumeration of electoral list in Assam by the Election Commission

shows more than 30% increase in 17 Assembly constituencies and more than

20% increase in 40 constituencies between 1994 and 1997. Whereas the All India

average growth for a three year period intervening the two intensive revisions in

1994 and 1997 is 7%, the growth in Assam for this period is 16.4%” (Sinha 1998:

9).

In fact, the process of cultural assimilation, land alienation and imposition of

dominant language (Assamese) on the indigenous tribals continued to remain the

bone of contention even in independent India. Though 33 tribal belts and blocks

Chapter-3

81

were constituted in the year 1947 as fulfillment of the provision of the Assam

Land and Revenue Regulation Act 1886, which was extended to 45 in subsequent

year, it could not provide adequate protection to the tribals from the domination

of the non-tribals (Datta 1993, 129). The provision of tribal belt and block could

not serve the purpose for which it was created as the common people for whom it

was constituted were ignorant about it. Sixth Schedule status of the constitution

was given to the hills tribals but plains tribals were left. As a result, the problem

of land alienation became unabated. Some instances of the issues of land

alienation are given below (1993: 157).

1. The total areas within Bijni Tribal Block vide the Govt. Notification No. RD.

69/46/20 Dated 5/12/47 was 302545 B-0K-0L out of which an area

measuring 66786 B-1K-11L had been excluded from the operation.

2. An area measuring 44691 B-4K-14L was taken away from Bijni Tribal

Block for constitution of Panbari and Kuklung Reserve Forests vide Govt.

notification No AFR 73/51 Dated, 21/5/52.

3. Area measuring 3489 B-0K-14L was excluded vide Govt. Notification No

RSD, 28/51/4 dated 4/3/58 for dereservation of Agrang PGR for settlement

of local landless people, and

4. The area measuring 11253 B-0K-0L had been excluded vide Govt.

Notification No RSD, 3/59/147 dated 29/7/64 for rehabilitation of refugees

in Bisnupur colony.

On 2nd September, 1984 Binay Khungur Basumatary in his speech in Assam

Assembly stated that at about 1973673 bighas of tribal land have been taken

away from the tribal belt and blocks, specially Bijni, South Kamrup (i.e.

Chayagaon and Guwahati) and Kalaigaon tribal belt and blocks by the

Government of Assam for settlement of migrants, building of industries and the

capital city of Assam and for constitution of Reserve forests (Datta 1993: 194).

On the other hand, under the pressure of the Assam Sahitya Sabha and All Assam

Students Union the Government of Assam passed the Assam Official Language

Act in the year 1960 and Assamese was imposed as official language in Assam.

Chapter-3

82

The tribals of Assam strongly resented this initiative of the government and the

hill tribes’ leaders like Williamson Sangma, B. M. Peu and A. Thonglura strongly

criticized the declaration of the bill. In Assam Legislative Assembly debate

regarding the Official Language Bill, 1960 A. Thonglura said,

“….now the Assamese brethrens are speaking about their apprehension that they

might be wiped off by the Bengalese. If the Assamese people who are quite

advanced and who have got facilities and security entertain such apprehension,

then what about the tribes who have less security and facility. At least in the

constitution, there is provision for the Assamese language, but so far as the tribals

are concerned there are no such provisions. There is no security for their language

like the Assamese language…….. But if Assamese people insist by dint of their

majority then Assamese should be the official language…... Personally I am not

fascinated with the terms of separation. But if the aspiration of the Assamese

people cannot stop, then we shall have to move for separation” (Assam

Legislative Assembly Debate 1960: 42-43).

Thus, the declaration of Assamese as an official language has widened the gap

between the tribals and the non-tribals in Assam. It gave a serious blow to the

unity and the integrity of the then Assam which included the entire Northeast

except Manipur, Tripura and Sikkim. Within a short span of time, movements for

the separate identities of the tribal people gained momentum. In the year 1963,

Nagaland was created as a separate state and it was followed by the creation of

Meghalaya in 1972. Similarly, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram were created in

1986. This was how entire Assam got fragmented and the Assamese people had

lost their hill tribe brothers. The Assamese-Bengali rivalry during 1960s and

1970s was also the result of this language problem. The plains tribals of Assam,

particularly the Bodos also expressed their grave concern over the issue of Assam

Official Language Act 1960. The issue became more serious when the language

movement for Medium of Instruction was launched by the All Assam Students

Union and a decision was made by Gauhati University and Dibrugarh University

(1972) to introduce Assamese as the medium of instruction in all colleges under

Chapter-3

83

its jurisdiction (ABSU 1987: 38). This decision was to come into effect from the

academic year 1972-73. Several tribal Organizations like Bodo Sahitya Sobha,

All Bodo Students’ Union and Plains Tribal council of Assam strongly criticized

this initiative.

Thus, it may be said that while on the one hand the unabated migration had

complicated the situation in Assam, on the other hand, the chauvinistic attitude of

the majority Assamese people further perpetuated the crisis and marginalization

of indigenous population in the state. The misleading policies of the Government

of India in the post-independent phase could not deal with the situation

effectively. A policy of granting concessions was not enough to tackle the

problem. As a result, several separatist movements broke out, some of which

fragmented the state in various parts and some persisted with utter strain in the

law and order situation of the state. The movement of the Bodos is one such

example which continues since the early part of the 20th century with its

unhindered demand for separation from Assam.