We will be answerable to history if we fail to hand over a secure Assam to our future generations – Himangshu Ranjan Bhuyan
For the Assamese nation, the Assam Accord signed on 15 August 1985 is a historic document. This accord, which brought an end to a long and bloody movement, a sacrificial struggle involving the martyrdom of 855 individuals and the emotional upheaval of the entire nation, was not merely a political settlement; it was a legal shield for the survival of Assam's indigenous people. The most sensitive and crucial part of this accord is its sixth clause, commonly known as Clause 6. Over the past four decades, no other issue has been discussed as extensively in Assam's social life, politics, and intellectual circles as the actual implementation of this clause and the constitutional safeguards it promises. Against the backdrop of rapid changes in Assam's demographic structure and the aggression of outsiders, this clause is no longer just another provision of the Constitution; it has become the sole remaining hope for the survival of Assamese identity.
The Assam Accord was born in a unique historical context. Unrestricted migration into Assam after independence had adversely affected the state's demographic composition. This migration did not merely disturb numerical balance; it also posed a threat to the linguistic and cultural identity of the indigenous people. The six-year-long Assam Movement had one central demand: the deportation of foreigners. Yet, for practical and diplomatic reasons at the time of signing, 24 March 1971 was accepted as the base cut-off date for detection of foreigners instead of 1951. This meant that Assam had to accept as Indian citizens all those foreigners who had entered between 1951 and 1971. In exchange for bearing this enormous burden, the Central Government gave the people of Assam a special promise, known as Clause 6. Through this clause, it was assured that appropriate constitutional, legislative, and administrative safeguards would be provided to protect, preserve, and promote the cultural, social, and linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people. Therefore, Clause 6 is not a favour; it is a moral and legal right earned by the people of Assam in return for accepting the foreigners who arrived between 1951 and 1971.
To understand the depth of the concept of constitutional safeguards, we must analyse the relationship between the numbers game of democracy and demographic change. In a democratic system, political power depends on numbers. Since Assam's demography is changing rapidly and the proportion of indigenous people is steadily decreasing, mere universal adult franchise cannot secure the political future of the indigenous population. A community that is in the majority today may become a minority tomorrow due to migration. In such a situation, there is a grave danger that indigenous people will become politically marginalized in their own state. The primary objective of the constitutional safeguards sought under Clause 6 is to ensure political dominance of the indigenous people even amidst a changed demography. For this purpose, demands have been raised for reservation of seats for indigenous people in the Legislative Assembly, Lok Sabha, and local self-governing bodies. Such reservation should not be limited to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes alone but should cover the entire indigenous society. The logic is simple: even if indigenous people become a numerical minority, control over governance and policy-making in the state must remain in their hands. Only such an arrangement can provide the community with permanent political security.
The most complex and contentious aspect of implementing Clause 6 is the determination of the definition of "Assamese people". The clause uses the term "Assamese people", yet no specific constitutional or legal definition was provided at the time. Assam is a state of extraordinary diversity of colour, religion, language, and ethnicity. Does "Assamese" mean only those who speak the Assamese language? If so, where do the indigenous tribal communities of Assam-Bodo, Mising, Rabha, Karbi, Dimasa, and others-stand? On the other hand, will the definition include the tea-garden community that has lived in Assam for generations or people speaking other Indian languages? These questions have no easy answers. In discussions on definition, the National Register of Citizens of 1951 is frequently proposed as the base document. That is, only those persons or their descendants whose names appeared in the 1951 NRC would be considered eligible "Assamese" or "indigenous" for constitutional safeguards. If this criterion is adopted, persons who arrived after 1971 or even between 1951 and 1971 would be excluded from these special benefits. It is precisely because of the differences and confusion surrounding this definition that the implementation of Clause 6 has remained stalled for decades. Yet one thing is certain: without a universally acceptable and clear definition, providing safeguards is impossible.
Protection of land rights is another indispensable component of constitutional safeguards. Assam's economy and society are fundamentally agrarian. The relationship of indigenous people with land is not merely economic; it is emotional and cultural. However, under the pressure of capital aggression and population growth, land is rapidly slipping out of indigenous hands. From urban to rural areas, ownership patterns are changing fast. Clause 6 raises the expectation of stringent land laws that will prevent the transfer of indigenous land to non-indigenous persons or foreigners. Like Himachal Pradesh and some other Northeastern states, Assam too should have strict restrictions on land purchase and sale. Special legal measures are urgently required to protect satra lands, tribal belts and blocks, and agricultural land. If indigenous people lose control over land, mere protection of language or culture will not save the community. Land is the root foundation of a nation, and protecting that foundation is one of the primary objectives of Clause 6.
The importance of Clause 6 in the spheres of Assamese language, literature, and culture is immense. In the storm of globalisation, smaller languages face existential crises. Even though Assamese is the state language, its use and expansion face numerous challenges. Under Clause 6, demands have been made to make Assamese compulsory not only in government work but also in education, commerce, and Central Government offices in the state. Additionally, special funds and schemes are needed for the development and preservation of indigenous tribal languages of Assam. In the cultural sphere, constitutional protection is required for the preservation of satras, namghars, and archaeological sites. The broad and liberal worldview denoted by Assamese culture needs state patronage to remain free from the grasp of alien subcultures. Proper implementation of this clause can bring a cultural renaissance to Assam, where every community can preserve its distinct identity while merging into a larger Assamese consciousness.
Reservation for indigenous people in administration and government jobs is another major demand of Clause 6. Only a policy of 100 per cent or at least 80 per cent reservation in Central and state government jobs for local youth can resolve unemployment and ensure economic security. At present, the rate of local recruitment in many Central institutions, railways, banks, and the oil sector operating in Assam is negligible. As a result, not only do the state's resources flow outwards, but local people are also deprived of economic self-reliance. Constitutional safeguards can establish a clear policy in this regard. Giving preference to indigenous candidates is not merely an emotional issue; it is a question of economic justice. The first right over the resources and opportunities of one's own state must belong to its local people, and giving legal shape to this principle is the very purpose of Clause 6.
Another important aspect is the creation of an Upper House or Legislative Council. The high-level committee constituted for the implementation of Clause 6 had recommended the formation of a Legislative Council in Assam with seats reserved exclusively for indigenous people. This House could be vested with special powers to block any law or policy detrimental to Assam's interests. It would act as a system of political checks and balances. Since the Legislative Assembly represents all citizens, there is always a possibility that indigenous interests may be harmed. An upper house composed entirely of indigenous representatives can remove that fear and function as a guardian of the community.
A long time has passed since the signing of the accord, yet the urgency and activity that the government should have shown are conspicuously absent. Reports of various committees and subcommittees remain buried in official files. Even the comprehensive and well-considered report submitted by the recent high-level committee headed by retired Justice Biplab Kumar Sharma has not yet been implemented. Behind this delay lie legal complexities and a lack of political will. Whether the proposed reservation system under Clause 6 conflicts with Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution is a matter of legal debate. However, experts believe that such safeguards can be provided by invoking special provisions like Articles 305 or 371 or, if necessary, by amending the Constitution. What is required is firm resolve and genuine goodwill on the part of the Central Government towards Assam.
After the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the relevance of Clause 6 has increased manifold. Since the CAA relaxes the timeline and conditions for granting citizenship, people in Assam fear that it will increase the burden of new foreigners. In this context, indigenous people feel that relying solely on deportation of foreigners is no longer prudent. Rather, to protect their existence even among those foreigners who are already here or who may come in the future, there is no alternative to constitutional safeguards. During the anti-CAA movement, the government repeatedly promised that Assamese interests would be protected through Clause 6. The time has come to fulfil that promise. If the government fails in this regard, it will erode public faith in the democratic system.
While implementing Clause 6, care must be taken to preserve internal cohesion and social harmony in Assam. There should be no misunderstanding between the Barak Valley and the Brahmaputra Valley on this issue. The Bengali-speaking indigenous people of Barak Valley must also be brought under this protection, and no fear should arise in their minds. The Assam Accord is not only for the Brahmaputra Valley; it is for the whole of Assam. Therefore, while preparing the framework of safeguards, the geographical and linguistic diversity of the state must be respected, and everyone must be taken along. The demands and aspirations of tribal organisations must be given due respect. Existing rights of tribal communities must not be curtailed; rather, they should be further strengthened. The process of Assamese nation-building is founded on synthesis, and Clause 6 must become a tool to strengthen that synthesis, not a cause of division.
From the perspective of international context and border security too, the issue is of utmost importance. Assam is a border state. Changes in its demography can pose a threat to national security as well. Indigenous people are the first sentinels of the country's borders. If they become weak or turn into a minority on their own soil, border security will also be adversely affected. Therefore, the Central Government should not treat Clause 6 merely as an internal problem of Assam but should view it as part of national security and integrity. Strengthening Assam's indigenous people through constitutional safeguards means strengthening India's eastern frontier.
Today a perception prevails that legal protection alone is not enough; economic development and creation of employment opportunities are equally necessary. That is true, but economic development cannot resolve the crisis of identity. Even in developed countries of Europe and America, there are strict laws to protect cultural identity. In a small and demographically sensitive state like Assam, where external influence is very high, protection of both economy and culture is equally essential. If land and markets do not remain in local hands, who will enjoy the fruits of economic development? Therefore, parallel to development, a legal fence for identity protection is absolutely indispensable.
In conclusion, Clause 6 of the Assam Accord is no ordinary provision; it is a living demand and the Magna Carta of the Assamese nation. The future of the community depends on its successful implementation. Instead of delaying it on various pretexts, the government should take courageous and sincere steps to make it effective. If necessary, the Constitution should be amended or new articles added. The people of Assam too must continue to build public opinion in favour of this demand with reason and patience rather than mere emotion. Intellectuals, student organizations, and civil society must persistently hold the government accountable. If Clause 6 is implemented, it will be a victory for Indian democracy, proving that in this country every community, big or small, has an equal right to survive and to stand tall with its own identity. In this struggle to protect the existence, dignity, and pride of the Assamese nation, Clause 6 is our last and most powerful weapon. We will be answerable to history if we fail to hand over a secure Assam to our future generations.
(The author can be reached at himangshur1989@gmail.com.)