Keep Barak Valley Away from Clause 6: Youths from Silchar Submits Memorandum Justifying Why

A group of youths from Silchar have submitted a memorandum opposing recent calls to include Barak Valley under Clause 6 of the Assam Accord. The memorandum was addressed to the Chief Minister of Assam through the District Commissioner’s office in Cachar, just a day after a group of people from the Barak Valley Khilonjiya Forum made demands for its inclusion. The group includes, Subhashis Choudhury, Saumyadeep Das, and Swapnil Deb.

The Barak Valley Khilonjiya Forum demanded the inclusion of Barak Valley under Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, a provision aimed at protecting the cultural and linguistic identity of the Assamese people. The forum, citing historical and indigenous ties, submitted a memorandum on 22 October 2024 to the District Commissioner of Cachar, setting a 15-day deadline for the government to respond. The group argues that Barak Valley, like other parts of Assam, deserves the protection offered under Clause 6. Forum members expressed frustration, with some warning of mass protests and unrest if their demands are not met.

In a press statement, representating the group, Subhashis Choudhury, explained that Barak Valley should not be part of Clause 6, highlighting that the region did not participate in the Assam Agitation, which led to the formation of the Assam Accord. He acknowledged the efforts of those who fought for the cause but emphasised that Barak Valley has distinct interests and should protect its own identity.

Choudhury stressed that while they support the Assam Accord’s purpose of preserving the Assamese and Khilonjiya communities, Barak Valley’s unique cultural and historical context must be considered. He believes that the responsibility of the government is to safeguard the interests of Barak Valley’s majority population.

The memorandum presented several key arguments for keeping Barak Valley out of Clause 6. Firstly, it noted that the region played a minimal role in the Assam Agitation and thus, does not agree to its outcomes being imposed on the valley. Secondly, Choudhury suggested that if there is confusion, the government should consult elected representatives from the area to understand the majority opinion.

The document also criticised the representation of Barak Valley by certain groups, arguing that their views do not reflect the majority’s interests. Choudhury believes these groups are politically ineffective and represent only small sections of the community.

A significant point raised in the memorandum was the issue of migration into Barak Valley from neighbouring states. It cautioned that exempting certain groups from the requirement to produce valid residency documents could encourage further migration, posing a threat to Assamese social security.

Choudhury proposed that the government consider making it mandatory for all communities to have their ancestors’ names listed in the 1951 NRC to qualify for the Khilonjiya tag. This, he argued, would prevent misuse of the provisions and ensure that only long-standing residents are recognised.

To be precise, the memorandum states, in recent years, the Barak Valley region has witnessed multiple waves of migration from neighbouring states, especially along border areas such as Kumacherra, Dipucherra, Lakhipur, Jirighat, Lailapur, and Kalain Cherra. Migrants have come in search of more fertile land, peace, stability, and job opportunities. Some arrive as victims of ethnic violence in their home states, seeking refuge in Barak Valley. For over 70 years, various communities fleeing violence and displacement have found sanctuary in the region. This pattern of migration continues today, bringing in people from diverse backgrounds, including those seeking better living conditions or, in some cases, engaging in land grabbing activities.

While it is crucial to offer shelter to those in need, especially fellow citizens facing distress, there is concern about how some groups are being exempted from producing proof of residence in Assam before 1951 in order to obtain the Khilonjiya status. This special status is designed to protect the indigenous identity of Assam’s people, but such exemptions could lead to further migration, undermining the social security of the Assamese community. To safeguard the state’s cultural identity, some argue that the government should require all applicants to show that their ancestors’ names were included in the 1951 NRC as a mandatory condition to claim the Khilonjiya tag. This would help prevent any misuse of the provision and ensure that long-established residents are prioritised for indigenous recognition.

Clause 6 of the Assam Accord has become a topic of intense debate, frequently making headlines in recent times. This provision, intended to protect the cultural, linguistic, and social identity of the Assamese people, has sparked discussions over its interpretation and implementation. Recently, Rajya Sabha MP, Sushmita Dev of the Trinamool Congress argued that the term “Assamese People” in the accord should not be limited to those who speak the Assamese language but should adopt a more inclusive approach, recognising the diverse ethnic and linguistic communities in Assam.