Author: Jyoti Lal Chowdhury in Silchar
Publication: Organiser
Date: September 7, 2008
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=253&page=26
The Centre and the state government have their
own political expediency to look at the issue. The 'alarming' situation of
1911 today has assumed an 'explosive' and 'volatile' dimension.
Heat and dust has again been kicked up over
Bangladeshi issue in Assam with stray rumbles in Meghalaya. What usually starts
with a bang ends with a whimper. And even as emotions and passions are vented
out by AASU and other student organisations, Bangladeshis continue to pour
in. Six year long movement of AASU against foreigners, described as most historic
and massive, which culminated in the Assam Accord of 1985 only to gather dust,
failed to target, detect and deport even a single alien. Those who were declared
illegal migrants officially made vanishing tricks. This is the reality. Question
is should the Bangladeshis being blamed for their entry and settlement in
Assam, making it their epicentre to scatter over the other north eastern states
and even in the hinter land of the country?
It is on record that the immigrants from East
Bengal districts of Mymensingh, Pabna, Bogra and Rangpur had caused concern
to the authorities as early as 1911. The census report of that year had described
the situation then as 'alarming'. A British expert Lloyd estimated in 1921
the total number of settlers in Assam at least 3 lakh. C S Mullan in his census
report placed the number of immigrants in 1931 over half a million. A prophet
of doom, Mullan, had warned that in another 30 years, Sivasagar district will
be the only part of Assam in which an Assamese will find himself at home.
There was no tabulation in 1941 as a measure of war economy.
Quite significant in this regard was the census
report of 1951 which was described by the Superintendent of the job R B Bhagaiwala
ICS, as a biological miracle. His observation was a grim pointer to the fact
that the State bureaucrats of the time was more interested to swell the number
of Assamese speaking people at the pleasure of illegal migrants. His report
said a comparison with the percentage of population speaking different languages
in 1931 for which alone figures are available reveals an interesting tale.
There is a striking increase in the percentage
of people who speak Assamese in 1951 (56.7) over those of 1931 which was only
31.4. There was an equally striking decrease in the percentage of people speaking
Bengali in 1951 which is only 16.5 against 26.8 in 1931. With the solitary
exception of Assamese, every single language or language group in Assam shows
a decline in the percentage of people speaking the same. This entire decline
has done to swell the percentage of people speaking Assamese in 1951.
The figures do reflect the design of many
persons among the Muslims migrants as well as tea garden labour immigrants
to adopt Assamese as their mother tongue. It is not unlikely, as Bhagaiwala
pointed out, that some amongst them recorded their mother tongue as Assamese
with devious motives. There has been decline in the percentage of people speaking
Hindi which has fallen for 7.6 per cent in 1931 to 3.8 per cent in 1951.
The accuracy of language statistics in Assam
has suffered to a certain extent on account of the census of indigenous persons
of Assam and their land-holdings being taken along with the main population
census. An indigenous person in Assam was defined as a person belonging to
the state of Assam and speaking the Assamese language or any tribal dialect
of Assam. In the case of Cachar, it was the language of the region. This definition
gave rise to apprehension among people of Goalpara and Cachar where it was
vehemently opposed. This was due to clarification given by the state government
that indigenous person will include persons who speak Assamese at home. The
word 'at home' was deliberately omitted by the state government to expand
the scope of definition. This only added to apprehension or resentment.
On fear of being identified as illegal migrants,
some people in Goalpara insisted on recording their mother tongue as Goalparia
to become Assamese. Bhagaiwala pointed out that on this analogy, some people
in Kamrup may insist on recording their language as Kamrupi and those him
Nowgong as Nowgongian and that the census can't take cognizance of such idiosyncrasies.
When some of them insisted on recording their mother tongue as Goalparia,
the census staff has no option than to record the answer exactly as given
by the persons. As a result 4088 persons recorded their mother tongue as Goalparia.
There being no such language in existence, these persons were included under
Assamese as directed by the Registrar General of India after consulting the
government of Assam.
Should we then blame the Bangladeshis, the
erstwhile East Pakistanis, for their settlement in Assam? The over enthusiastic
bureaucrats started the process of welcoming the aliens whose swelling numbers
came handy to the politicians to use them as vote-bank blocks. The Centre
and the state government have their own political expediency to look at the
issue. The 'alarming' situation of 1911 today has assumed an 'explosive' and
'volatile' dimension.
