Imagine a wound that refuses to heal, festering for decades. That's precisely what the Nellie massacre represents in Assam's history – a horrific event in 1983 where countless lives were lost during a period of intense political turmoil. Now, 42 years later, two reports have finally surfaced, aiming to shed light on this dark chapter. But here's the catch: they paint strikingly different pictures of what truly happened. Prepare to delve into a complex narrative filled with conflicting accounts, political tensions, and the lingering pain of a community seeking justice.
These aren't just any reports; they are formal attempts to understand the roots and consequences of the widespread violence that engulfed Assam during the controversial 1983 state elections. The first is the official 'Commission of Enquiry on Assam Disturbances,' spearheaded by IAS officer Tribhuvan Prasad Tewary. The second is the 'Report of the Non-Official Judicial Inquiry Commission on the Holocaust of Assam Before, During and After Election 1983,' led by former Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh, T U Mehta. Both were presented to the Assam legislative assembly on the first day of its winter session. These reports were created in response to the mass killings that occurred, the most prominent of which was the Nellie massacre. The massacre stands as one of the most devastating instances of mass violence witnessed in post-independence India.
The Nellie massacre is more than just a historical event; it's a deeply sensitive and painful wound for Assam. The fact that no one has ever been held accountable or prosecuted for the atrocities committed adds salt to this wound, keeping it fresh in the minds of the victims and their families. And this is the part most people miss... The core divergence between the two reports lies in their interpretation of the decision to hold elections in Assam in 1983, precisely when the Assam Agitation was raging.
The Assam Agitation, a movement demanding the detection and deportation of illegal immigrants primarily from Bangladesh, had brought the state to a standstill since 1979. The official Tewari commission report boldly declares that "the decision to hold the elections cannot be blamed for the outbreak of the violence of 1983." In stark contrast, the unofficial Mehta commission report asserts that "the elections were the main and immediate cause of the violence." But here's where it gets controversial... which narrative is the truth?
To truly understand the significance of these contradicting accounts, let's rewind a bit. The violence erupted amidst state Assembly elections while Assam was under President’s Rule due to the Assam Agitation. The agitation, spearheaded by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP), aimed to identify and deport undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh, and it had reached its peak when the polls were conducted. These organizations had announced a boycott of the elections. In response to the unrest, the Congress government, led by Hiteshwar Saikia (who came to power after the contentious polls), established the Tewari commission in July 1983. Its mandate was broad: to investigate the circumstances that led to the disturbances in Assam between January and April 1983; to assess the effectiveness of the measures taken by authorities to anticipate, prevent, and address the disturbances; and to recommend measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.
Unsurprisingly, the AASU and AAGSP viewed the Tewari commission with suspicion, dismissing it as a biased attempt to whitewash the government's role in the violence. In 1984, the Assam Freedom Fighters’ Association formed the Mehta commission as a “non-official judicial enquiry,” arguing that the Tewary commission was merely a “belated administrative inquiry by a retired Chief Secretary of the UP Government,” whereas the public demanded a judicial inquiry.
Now, let's dive deeper into the core arguments of each report. The Tewari commission, in its primary conclusion, exonerates the decision to hold elections. The report argues that the unrest stemmed from long-standing issues such as the presence of foreigners and language disputes, which had frequently triggered violence in the past. It further contends that preventing elections due to the threat of violence would essentially be surrendering to “political outrage, brigandage and blackmail.” And this is a crucial point to keep in mind as we move forward.
Instead, the Tewari commission places the blame squarely on the “agitationists,” accusing AASU and AAGSP of orchestrating arson, riots, destruction of public property, and intimidation to disrupt the elections. The report claims that the situation spiraled out of control, resulting in immense loss of life and property. But wait, the report also acknowledges a critical point...
Within its chapter on the 'Handling of Disturbances,' the commission admits that the state machinery was fully aware of the immense challenges involved in conducting elections in such a volatile environment. A submission by the then IGP (Special Branch) S K Das highlights the difficulties faced by law enforcement in managing both the elections and maintaining order. Das noted that the police's mobility was severely hampered by the destruction of roads and bridges, making many areas inaccessible except on foot. He also pointed to instances where local police formations surrendered their authority to mobs.
Furthermore, the report notes that the agitation enjoyed widespread support, even among government employees, compromising the intelligence network, particularly at the grassroots level. Traditional sources of information dried up, leaving the authorities in the dark. The unofficial Mehta commission seizes upon these admissions, arguing that the conditions were simply not conducive to a free and fair election. It asserts that both the state and central governments, as well as the Election Commission, should have recognized this fact. "The excuse of constitutional compulsion was an eyewash," the Mehta report states, implying that the Congress party, then in power at the Centre under Indira Gandhi, was motivated by a desire to seize control of the government while the opposition was boycotting the polls.
While the official report puts the death toll of the Nellie massacre at around 1,800, the unofficial one estimates it at 3,000, predominantly Bengali-speaking Muslims. Crucially, both reports acknowledge that violence occurred across the state during this period, involving various groups, including Assamese, tribals, Bengali-speaking Muslims, and Bengali Hindus. Both reports also underscore the demographic anxieties simmering in Assam. The Mehta report emphasizes that the “foreigners problem” has been a long-standing issue demanding resolution. The Tewari report highlights the “fear of the Assamese of being overwhelmed by numbers” as a legitimate concern, along with issues of land scarcity and the encroachment of migrants.
In its recommendations, the Tewari report stresses the need to address the intertwined issues of detecting infiltrators and evicting encroachers through a multi-disciplinary task force, supported by armed police. It also suggests “special protection” to prevent land acquisition by “outsiders.” So, after all this, what are we left with? Two starkly different accounts of a tragedy that continues to haunt Assam. The key question remains: Who was truly responsible for the Nellie massacre and the widespread violence of 1983? Was it the decision to hold elections amidst a volatile environment, or was it the actions of the agitators? Or perhaps, was it a complex interplay of both? What do you think? Share your thoughts and perspectives in the comments below. This is a conversation we need to have to truly understand and learn from this dark chapter in Assam's history.
