‘Assamese People Cannot Be Defined by Language Alone,’ Says Sushmita Deb, Urging Inclusive Approach Post-SC Verdict

The recent judgment by the Supreme Court of India has finally provided clarity on a decades-long debate regarding the cut-off date to determine the citizenship of people in Assam. The question centred around whether the date should be 1951 or 1971. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices Surya Kant, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which recognises the Assam Accord. The verdict was delivered by a 4:1 majority, with Justice Pardiwala dissenting, as he held that Section 6A was unconstitutional. With this ruling, the court has established that 25 March 1971 shall remain the date to determine citizenship eligibility in Assam, putting an end to the legal uncertainty that has persisted for years.

Rajya Sabha MP Sushmita Deb from the Trinamool Congress responded to the Supreme Court’s decision, expressing hope that this clarification would finally end the political games surrounding the citizenship issue in Assam. She highlighted the significance of the ruling, particularly in light of the longstanding debates, discussions, and even movements related to the period between 1951 and 1971. The ruling means that any attempts to shift the cut-off date back to 1951 are now without legal foundation, as the Supreme Court itself has confirmed that the date for determining someone’s citizenship shall remain 25 March 1971.

Further addressing the issue, Sushmita Deb discussed the term “Assamese People” as used in the Assam Accord. She drew attention to the Biplab Sharma Committee Report, which attempted to define Assamese identity starting from 1951. According to Deb, the report mentions at least six times that those who arrived in Assam before January 1951 should be protected, with assurances for the safeguarding of their culture, language, and heritage. However, she pointed out that the Supreme Court’s judgement renders this definition outdated, as it does not align with the legally established cut-off date of 1971.

Deb asserted that the Assam Government now needs to reconsider the implications of the Biplab Sharma Committee Report in light of the Supreme Court’s judgement. She mentioned that Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma had previously spoken about accepting 52 recommended points from the report and implementing them in the state. However, Deb emphasised that while these recommendations may be adopted, they must not contradict the constitution, and the cut-off date must remain fixed at 25 March 1971. She made it clear that the definition of Assamese People cannot be based solely on linguistic identity.

Supporting her viewpoint, Deb explained that even before India’s independence, Assam was a diverse region that included areas which are now separate states, such as Meghalaya and Mizoram. During that period, as well as today, Assam was home to a variety of communities, including people from the Hindi-speaking belt and speakers of other regional languages like Bengali, Bodo, Koch Rajbongshi, and Dimasa, among others. She argued that by identifying “Assamese People” exclusively as those who speak the Assamese language, the state would be providing protection to only one section of society, thereby neglecting other communities.

Deb emphasised the need for an inclusive definition of Assamese identity that accounts for the cultural and linguistic diversity within the state. She stated that the government should ensure equal protection for all the people of Assam, regardless of language, religion, or ethnicity. The Supreme Court’s judgment, according to Deb, signals that the government must move away from using the Biplab Sharma Committee Report’s definition, as it does not comply with the new legal framework established by the court.

She urged the Assam Government to rethink its stance on the matter and avoid applying a definition of Assamese People that could potentially conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling. By doing so, she believes the government can foster a more inclusive approach that aligns with the constitutional mandate and ensures fairness in protecting the rights of all communities residing in the state.

The Supreme Court’s judgment and Deb’s comments have brought the citizenship debate in Assam into sharper focus, particularly regarding how the state navigates issues of identity and protection. As the government moves forward, the onus will be on policymakers to respect the court’s ruling and adapt the state’s policies accordingly, in a way that acknowledges the historical and social realities of Assam’s diverse population.

The clarification provided by the Supreme Court is expected to put an end to the political manoeuvring around the citizenship issue. It now remains to be seen how the Assam Government will address these developments and whether it will take steps to update its policies in accordance with the judgement, ensuring that all groups receive equal recognition and protection.