Syllabus: GS-II & V: Constitutional Amendments

Why in the News?

The implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, 1985, has gained critical urgency, especially following the notification and initial implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. 

More About the News

• The Assamese people view Clause 6 as the sole remaining legal shield against adverse demographic and cultural changes, particularly as the CAA potentially alters the timeline and conditions for granting citizenship in the state. 
• The long-awaited report by the Justice (retd) Biplab Kumar Sarma Committee (submitted in February 2020) provides a concrete roadmap, which is now being selectively discussed and acted upon by the State Government.

The Historical Context and Legal Imperative

• The Accord’s Basis: The Assam Accord, signed on August 15, 1985, was a political settlement that ended the six-year-long Assam Movement.
• The Trade-off: The people of Assam agreed to accept as Indian citizens all foreigners who entered between 1951 and the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, a concession codified in Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
• The Promise (Clause 6): In return for bearing this enormous demographic and social burden, the Central Government promised to provide “constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards” to protect, preserve, and promote the cultural, social, and linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people. 
  • Clause 6 is thus seen not as a favour but as a moral and legal right.

Constitutional Safeguards: The Pillars of Protection

The constitutional safeguards sought under Clause 6 cover three core areas indispensable for the community’s survival:

• Political Security (The Numbers Game):
  • The primary goal is to ensure the political dominance of the indigenous people even if they become a numerical minority due to demographic change.
  • The Biplab Sarma Committee recommended 80%-100% reservation of seats for the Assamese people in the Legislative Assembly, Lok Sabha, and local bodies.
  • A further demand is the creation of an Upper House or Legislative Council with seats exclusively reserved for indigenous representatives to act as a permanent political check.
• Economic Security (Land and Jobs):
  • Land Rights Protection: The committee recommended creating Revenue Circles where land ownership and transfer would be restricted only to the defined “Assamese people,” similar to laws in states like Himachal Pradesh. This is crucial for protecting the agrarian base and cultural bond of indigenous people with their land, including Satra lands and Tribal Belts and Blocks.
  • Employment Reservation: Demands include 100% or at least 80% reservation in Central and State Government jobs for local youth to ensure economic justice and prevent the outward flow of the state’s resources.
• Cultural and Linguistic Identity:
  • Language Protection: Implementing the committee’s recommendation to make Assamese a compulsory subject up to Class VIII or X in all schools under the State Board and CBSE is a key demand.
  • Special funds and institutional mechanisms (like an Autonomous Language and Literature Academy) are sought for the preservation of indigenous tribal languages and the development of institutions like Sattras and Namghars.

The ‘Assamese People’ Conundrum

The biggest obstacle to implementing Clause 6 has been the lack of a clear, universally acceptable definition of the term “Assamese people”.

• Sarma Committee Definition: The high-level committee proposed a definition for the purpose of the safeguards which includes:
  • Indigenous Tribals and Other Indigenous Communities of Assam.
  • All other Indian citizens residing in Assam on or before January 1, 1951, and their descendants.
• The 1951 vs. 1971 Conflict: This recommendation sets the cut-off date for receiving safeguards at 1951 (based on the National Register of Citizens, 1951), which is earlier than the 1971 cut-off date used for defining Indian citizenship in Assam under the Accord. 
  • This distinction is deliberate, as it excludes those who entered between 1951 and 1971 from the special benefits, even though they are Indian citizens.
• Need for Inclusivity: The final definition must be broad enough to respect the diversity of Assam, ensuring that indigenous tribal groups (like Bodo, Mising, Karbi), the Tea Garden community, and even the Bengali-speaking indigenous people of the Barak Valley are included in the overall protection framework, thereby preserving the state’s internal cohesion.

 Implementation Status and Way Forward

• The Biplab Sarma Committee submitted a total of 67 recommendations. The State Government has identified about 40 recommendations that fall entirely under its jurisdiction (primarily administrative, language, and cultural measures).
• Recommendations requiring Constitutional Amendment or Central Government action (such as reservations in Parliament, Inner Line Permit, or creation of an Upper House) are still pending, requiring tripartite discussions between the Centre, the State, and stakeholders like the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU).
• Experts argue that these safeguards can be legally achieved by invoking special constitutional provisions like Article 371 or by necessary constitutional amendments, provided there is the political will to do so.

Exam hook: Key Takeaways

• Clause 6: A promise of Constitutional, Legislative, and Administrative Safeguards for the indigenous people of Assam in exchange for accepting the 1971 cut-off for citizenship.
• Sarma Committee Recommendation: Defined “Assamese people” using the 1951 NRC as the basis for receiving safeguards, a key distinction from the 1971 citizenship cut-off.
• Core Demands: Political reservation (up to 100%), restricted land rights (like Himachal Pradesh model), and reservation in State/Central jobs.
• Current Status: State-level recommendations are being implemented; those requiring Constitutional amendment are pending Central action.

Mains Question:

“The implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord is constrained by the challenge of defining ‘Assamese people’ and the potential conflict with fundamental rights under the Constitution. Critically analyze the recommendations of the Biplab Kumar Sarma Committee in this context and suggest a path for inclusive implementation.”

Source