The Assam Assembly engaged in a heated debate over the implementation of the Assam Accord, with Raijor Dal President and MLA Akhil Gogoi pressing the government on unresolved clauses. The discussion highlighted concerns regarding illegal migration, land rights, and cultural identity, issues that have remained at the core of Assam’s political landscape for decades. Gogoi demanded clarity on the status of key provisions, particularly those related to identifying and deporting illegal migrants.
The Assam Accord, signed in 1985 between the central government and leaders of the Assam agitation, sought to address the concerns of indigenous people. Despite years of deliberation, several provisions remain unfulfilled. Gogoi criticized the government for its failure to fully implement the clauses related to detecting and expelling foreign nationals who entered Assam after March 24, 1971. He accused the ruling party of using the Accord as a political tool rather than taking concrete action.
Government representatives responded by stating that the implementation process was ongoing and that efforts had been made to safeguard the interests of Assamese people. The discussion took a serious turn when Gogoi raised concerns about the National Register of Citizens (NRC), arguing that the updated list has failed to effectively exclude all illegal migrants. He claimed that indigenous communities continue to face threats to their identity and that successive governments have not done enough to address these fears.
The ruling party defended its position, highlighting the progress made in fencing the India-Bangladesh border to curb illegal migration. Officials assured the Assembly that steps were being taken to implement the Accord in a phased manner. They emphasized that issues such as granting land rights to indigenous people and ensuring constitutional safeguards for Assamese speakers were being addressed through various legislative and administrative measures.
Gogoi, however, remained unconvinced, arguing that the government’s actions lacked urgency. He pointed out that while infrastructure projects and industrial policies have been fast-tracked, the core issues of the Accord have not received the same attention. He urged the government to take immediate steps to resolve the matter instead of making vague promises.
The debate also touched upon Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, which guarantees constitutional safeguards for Assamese people. Various political parties have long debated the definition of “Assamese” in this context. Gogoi questioned why a clear legal framework for implementing this clause had not been established despite years of deliberation. The government assured that consultations were ongoing and that a concrete decision would be made soon.
Amid the intense discussion, the issue of land rights emerged as a major point of contention. Gogoi accused the administration of failing to prevent land encroachment by alleged illegal migrants. He demanded a transparent policy that ensures indigenous communities retain their ancestral land without fear of displacement. The government responded by stating that eviction drives were being conducted and that strict measures were in place to protect land belonging to indigenous people.
The conversation in the Assembly also veered toward the role of the Foreigners’ Tribunals, which were established to determine the status of suspected illegal migrants. Gogoi raised concerns about the effectiveness of these tribunals, arguing that delays and bureaucratic hurdles had prevented timely action. He called for reforms to make the system more efficient and transparent.
The Assembly session also witnessed opposition leaders questioning the government’s commitment to preserving Assamese culture. They argued that without concrete measures, the state’s demographic composition would continue to shift, endangering the linguistic and cultural heritage of the region. The ruling party assured that all necessary steps were being taken to promote Assamese language, art, and traditions.
Despite government assurances, Gogoi remained critical, stating that unless strong political will was demonstrated, the Assam Accord would remain a hollow promise. He urged the government to take decisive action and implement the remaining clauses in both letter and spirit.
As the debate concluded, the issue remained unresolved, with Gogoi and other opposition leaders demanding a clear timeline for the Accord’s full implementation. The discussion reflected the deep-rooted concerns of the people of Assam and underscored the continuing relevance of the Accord in shaping the state’s future.
