Syllabus: GS-II: Govt Intervention

Why in the news?

The State government has moved to implement several recommendations of the  Biplab Kumar Sarma high-level committee, falling within its remit; discussions between the State, the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and other stakeholders have advanced, but several key measures remain dependent on action by the Central government. Recent announcements indicate the State accepted action plans on some recommendations (around 38–39 items) while leaving others for tripartite discussion with the Centre.

About the Assam Accord (1985) 

• The Assam Accord (signed 15 August 1985) was a tripartite agreement among the Government of India, the State Government of Assam and leaders of the six-year Assam movement represented by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP). 
  • The accord was signed under Rajiv Gandhi’s prime ministership.
• The Accord sought to: 
  • Identify and regularise persons who came to Assam before specified cut-off dates; 
  • Detect and deport those who came after the cut-off; and 
  • Provide safeguards to preserve the cultural, linguistic and political rights of the indigenous people of Assam — primarily through Clause 6 which promised “constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards … to protect, preserve and promote the cultural, social and linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people.” 
• The Accord also contained other provisions on detection of foreigners, economic development and institutional measures for implementation.

Key clauses of the Assam Accord 

• Clause I–IV (Foreigners / Cut-off dates): Regularisation/identification of persons who came to Assam before 1966 (and other administrative measures for those arriving 1966–1971), and detection/deportation of those who entered after 1971.
• Clause V: Measures to identify and expel foreigners continuing after 1971 and to prevent future influx.
  • The Clause 5 set March 24, 1971, as a cut-off, anyone who had come to Assam before midnight on that date would be an Indian citizen, while those who had come after would be dealt with as foreigners. 
  • The same cut-off was later used in updating the National Register of Citizens (NRC) for Assam.
• Clause VI: Provision of constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards for protection of Assamese cultural, social and linguistic identity — i.e., measures to protect indigenous interests.
• Clause VII: Economic development commitments for Assam (projects, investments, infrastructure, employment).
  • Under Clause VII, several developmental projects were taken up as part of the Accord’s implementation — including the Numaligarh Refinery, Bogibeel Bridge, North Eastern Development Finance Corporation (NEDFi), and cultural projects like the establishment of the Srimanta Sankardeva Kalakshetra and the Srimanta Sankardeva University of Health Sciences.
• Clause VIII–End: Institutional mechanisms, implementation arrangements and follow-up actions.
  

Recommendations of Justice Biplab Kumar Sarma (Retd.) Committee (Feb 2020) 

• The Biplab Sarma committee, formed in 2019 in response to mass protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.
• It was appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and it submitted its report to then Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal in 2020. 
• The Committee consisted of 14-members and was headed by retired Justice Biplab Sarma.
• The Committee examined Clause 6 and submitted a detailed report in February 2020 with multiple recommendations to operationalise Clause 6. 
  • The Committee’s recommendations include administrative, legislative and institutional measures to protect land rights, language, culture, employment and political representation.
• It gave a total of 67 recommendations of which the State Government has decided to implement 57 recommendations falling under its ambit. 
• The remaining recommendation would need constitutional amendment or central action. 
• Recommendations needing Centre/constitutional action: reservation of Assembly/Parliamentary seats or local body seats for indigenous people; creation of an Upper House for Assam; introduction of Inner Line Permit (ILP) or similar entry controls; and statutory job reservations for indigenous communities.
  

Steps taken so far to implement the Accord / Clause 6

• High-level committee & report submission: The Biplab Sarma committee report (Feb 2020) formally placed recommendations on record.
• State action plans and budgetary commitments: The Assam government has prepared action plans and included Clause 6-related items in recent state budgets. 
  • Official statements indicate acceptance or agreement on implementation plans for around 38–39 recommendations that fall within State competence (land rights, language promotion, cultural projects, administrative safeguards).
• Consultations with stakeholders: Meetings between the Chief Minister, AASU and other indigenous organisations have taken place to discuss timelines and priorities.
• Central involvement & pending items: Several recommendations require the Centre’s concurrence or constitutional amendment. 
  • Tripartite discussions with the Centre remain necessary for these measures. 
  • Governments have signalled intent to hold tripartite talks but comprehensive agreement has been pending.

Challenges in implementing Clause 6 

• Constitutional constraints: Measures such as reservation of Assembly/Parliament seats, creation of an Upper House or statutory job reservation often require constitutional amendment or changes to centrally governed laws — placing the decision squarely within the Centre’s competence and political calculus.
• Definitional and identity questions: Who qualifies as “indigenous” or “Assamese” for the purpose of safeguards? Cut-off dates, criteria and the sensitive interplay with Citizenship law (NRC/CAA context) make definitions contestable and legally fraught.
• Inter-state and national implications: Measures like ILP or special representation could be seen as models for other regions, and they interact with national principles of equality, movement and representation. The Centre balances regional claims with pan-national considerations.
• Political contestation and stakeholder divergence: AASU, tribal organisations, political parties and migrant communities have differing expectations and fears; forging consensus is difficult.
• Implementation capacity: Even State-level measures (land records reform, language promotion, welfare programmes) require administrative capacity, funds and monitoring to translate recommendations into ground results.
  

Way forward

• Tripartite, time-bound negotiations: Convene and institutionalise tripartite talks (Centre–State–AASU/representatives) with a clear timetable and mandate for each recommendation — distinguishing those requiring constitutional amendment from those doable administratively.
• Define beneficiaries transparently: Establish legally robust and socially acceptable criteria for who qualifies for safeguards (cut-off dates, documentary tests, culturally sensitive norms) to reduce ambiguity and litigation.
• Use graduated legal tools: For constitutional/representation changes, consider intermediate steps (statutory protection, special development districts, quota in State government employment) while pursuing amendments where politically and legally feasible.
• Prioritise non-controversial, high-impact measures: Rapidly implement State-level items (land rights protections, language programmes, cultural institutions, targeted livelihood schemes) to build trust and show deliverables.
• Safeguard minority and human rights principles: Ensure measures do not violate fundamental rights or unduly discriminate; design safeguards that are constitutionally defensible (Article 371 provisions, Sixth Schedule models, special categories under Articles 244/371 or targeted legislation).
• Monitor, evaluate and fund: Robust use of budgets (state and Central), independent monitoring, local grievance redressal and periodic public reporting will be essential. 
  • Independent audits and civil society oversight can help.
    

Conclusion

Clause 6 of the Assam Accord embodies long-standing concerns about identity, culture and demographic change in Assam. The Justice Biplab Sarma (Retd.) committee provided a roadmap, but implementation is a mix of stateable/administrative measures and politically sensitive items requiring central action or constitutional amendment. In practical terms: the State can — and has begun to — implement many recommendations (land, language, culture, local administration); the Centre alone can authoritatively answer when constitutional safeguards requiring amendments will be enacted, because those steps require national legislative action. A calibrated, transparent, time-bound tripartite process that combines immediate State measures with a constitutional pathway for central approvals offers the most credible route to honouring Clause 6 while respecting constitutional bounds and social equity.

Mains-style questions

1. “The Biplab Sarma Committee report (2020) made detailed recommendations to implement Clause 6 of the Assam Accord. Analyse why several recommendations remain unimplemented and how they could be operationalised within constitutional limits.”
   

SOURCE