By Ashis Biswas
KOLKATA: As with the controversial and eventually inconclusive NRC operations in Assam, the Election Commission-sponsored (ECI) delimitation of Assembly and Lok Sabha seats too, has deepened existing ethnic divides, generating fresh political tensions.
Now that the ECI delimitation proposals have received Presidential assent, only the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) seems to be happy with the territorial redefinition of 140 LS/Assembly constituencies. State Chief Minister Mr Himanta Biswa Sarma, former Congressman-turned BJP hardliner, has been an active supporter of the ECI initiative.
The BJP-run administration’s objective, as admitted directly and otherwise, was apparently to ensure a comfortable majority in both houses for parties supposedly representing Assamiya interests and aspirations — Bhumiputras, in local parlance. Judging by the statements issued by various parties or the sizable body of reports/analyses on the issue, this end has been adequately achieved.
In the process it has been alleged , interests/sentiments of major ethnic groups including the Bodos in upper Assam as well as tribals in the Barak Valley and large number of Bengali-speaking Hindus and Muslims, have been ignored. There have been protests and bandhs against the changes proposed in the three Barak valley districts, while mass organisations and groups have approached the Supreme Court for relief.
Bodo leader Mr. Sansuma Khunger Bwismutiary, former MP from Kokrajhar, has also opposed the delimitation proposals and announced plans to approach the Apex court if needed. The tribals have been let down badly, he alleged.
The realignment of Assembly and Parliamentary seats have altered their demographic character drastically from area to area: there are constituencies with over 400,000 voters in some places, while in most seats this number would not exceed 120,000 or so, according to ground level reports.
Physical boundaries of constituencies too have been changed substantially, with an apparent intention to favour in terms of numbers, a particular community/group over others! Negatively impacted groups such as those already mentioned have strongly criticised the ECI and the State Government for sponsoring such ‘politically motivated changes,’ as they put it.
The ECI arranged for special hearings for disaffected parties and groups, but the procedures followed left most parties disillusioned. For instance, Barak valley protestors alleged that while they had hundreds of complaints, they received little more than 30 minutes of time to present their case — similar views came from smaller tribal communities.
Minority leader Mr Badruddin Ajmal MP representing the All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) earlier alleged that the ECI recommendations had plainly targeted the Muslims as a community. The provisions wrought havoc in the name of redrawing constituency boundaries to leave Muslims as smaller voting communities than before! He threatened to move court against such manoeuvres.
Bengali-speaking Barak Democratic Front (BDF) leaders who have already approached the Apex court alleged that the number of assembly seats in three districts had been reduced from 15 to 13!
Again, Mr Bwismutiary alleged that the number of seats reserved for tribes had been reduced from 15 to only 6. Such a move, made without any prior discussion with concerned political parties and other stakeholders, not only discriminated against tribals. It took away many of their basic rights by Constitution-enshrined, from both the centre and different states, violating their legally defined status as a scheduled, protected group.
Mr Sarma as chief Minister had vigorously defended the proposed changes, claiming that they sought to protect the interest and status enjoyed by ‘Bhumiputras’ whose future had come under a threat from illegal migration from Bangladesh in recent years. Tribal interests too had been taken into account and no one really had grounds for complaints.
Broadly, what has been the extent of the changes proposed and how many seats are involved?
An answer of sorts has been available from comments and revelations made by state BJP leaders. The ruling party has been strongly attacked of late by former Union Minister and 4 times BJP MP from Nagaon, the veteran Mr Rajen Gohain. Currently he is a senior cabinet Minister of Assam.
He is expected to contest from the Nagaon parliamentary seat in 2024. No more. The delimitation provisions, he alleged, had totally changed the demographic profile of Nagaon Parliamentary. This he saw as a direct gift made by the BJP, his own party, to the AIUDF!
His Ministerial colleagues Mr Jayanta Mallah Barua and Mr, Pijush Hazarika rejected his allegation. As widely reported in various Assam-based media, Mr Barua applauded the ECI for ensuring that the interests of ‘Bhumiputras’ would be protected in at least 102 Assembly seats out of 126 in Assam. This would be a happy contrast from earlier times, when votes of immigrants decided the electoral outcome of 40/50 seats! Similarly, the status and future of indigenous communities would be effectively protected by the delimitation provisions in 11 out of 14 Lok sabha seats!
As for Mr Gohain’s grievances, well, as a veteran politician who had been amply rewarded during a long political career, he might as well retire gracefully now and help the BJP politically.
Given this backdrop, it comes as no surprise to learn reports that the Barak Valley-based parties have revived their slogan for a separate autonomous ‘Purbachal’ state, to ensure minimum security, safety and progress for the people living three traditionally neglected districts. Especially under the BJP, BDF leaders alleged, it had become clear that the common people in lower Assam would not receive even minimal justice from the state administration. (IPA Service)