QUO VADIS INSURGENCY AND IDENTITY: ACCOMMODATING ‘THE THIRD VOICE’IN  CONFLICT ZONES OF NE INDIA.
contd..

The prominent ideologue of ULFA Parag Das also claims that Assam was never a part of India. Das goes to the extent of saying that Sankardev was not part of the overall Indian socio-cultural ethos because he was a fish-eater! Prof. Mishra refutes Parag Das logic in the following ways— “ Das draws lessons from a simplistic reading of the anthropological traits of the Assamese people to prove that the Assamese are closer to their Mongolian brothers and sisters and have little or nothing to do with the Indian peoples. All this shows that while the case of colonial exploitation of the region appears to go down well with the masses and may, in the long run, sustain the idea of a Swadhin Asom, the very selective reading of Assam's history is bound to lead to greater confusion. There is no dearth of instances of revolutionary organisations and governments tampering with history, but this has been always at their own peril. Assam's participation in the national struggle is much too recent history to be tailored to suit any particular outfit's needs.”  

ULFA has ever tried to gauge the opinion of the ethnic groups of Assam—whether they support the cause of ULFA or oppose their demand. They have never tried to take into account the opinion of the ethnic groups like the Bodos, Karbis, Rabhas, Koch-Rajbangshis, Deuris, Chutias, Mising, Tiwa and other caste Hindu groups in their proposed demand for independent Assam. In a survey conducted by the Assamese daily ‘Amar asom’ it was found that the other insurgent groups like “NDFB, Rabha people’s liberation Front, Tai Ahom Liberation front, MALTA and others don’t share ULFA’s view on independent Assam rather they oppose the views of ULFA” Does it have any plan about cementing the widening differences among the ethnic groups in Assam? Neither has the organization come up with any plan about the flood problem of the state that has caused about 500 human lives and had damaged Rs 7000 crore worth property and agriculture in the year 2004 alone [Mélangethe Sunday magazine of The Sentinel on October 31, 2004]? The organization has to say nothing except blaming the center for exploiting the resources in Assam [In an interview, Paresh Barua, the so called Commander-in Chief of ULFA said-the issues of flood and immigration are not important to them, they are struggling for an independent Assam- Asomiya Pratidin- November 17, 2004]. ULFA has never ever tried to answer these basic questions.

The old hackneyed rhetoric argument --once the state becomes independent and then socio-economic issues, corruption, alcohol and drugs, and the divisions among the ethnic groups would be taken care of is too a far fetched argument and has no takers that the organizations like ULFA would like us to believe. ULFA claims that it represents the people of Assam. But ULFA have never defined the definition of the people of Assam. The question that comes to the minds of the people is where do the immigrants stand in this definition of ‘people of Assam’? On the ULFA’s claim that Assam was never part of India and became one after the treaty of Yandaboo in 1826 which they have rejected to accept was opposed by almost all the leading intellectuals of Assam. On this claim, Dr Amalendu Guha, the prominent social scientist of the state argued in an interview ---

“Indeed Assam was independent till the year 1826. However, Assam is not an exception here. That way Punjab was an independent state. So was the Bengal state. Before the independence in India there were seventy independent states in India. Later on all these have been brought together to form independent India. If we study the history of the nation-state this is the process how nation-state was formed –which is known as ‘law of agreement’. Even before the 1826 there were so many independent tribal tiny states of the Karbis, Dimasa, Kachari etc. The Ahoms have brought them together to form one unified ‘greater asom’