Syllabus: GS: II & V: Polity & Governance 

Why in the news?
More than three decades after the Assam Accord was signed on 15 August 1985, crucial promises—especially those on detection of foreigners, border security and constitutional safeguards for indigenous people—remain only partially implemented. 

• The Justice Biplab Sarma committee report and Assam’s recent steps to operationalise Clause 6 have brought the unfinished clauses back into public debate.

Background

• The Assam Accord was a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS), signed on August 15, 1985, that brought an end to six-year-long violent anti-foreigner or Assam movement (1979-85).
• It was signed by the Centre and the Assam government with the All Assam Student Union (AASU) and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad, which had spearheaded the Assam Movement.
  • The accord was signed under Rajiv Gandhi’s prime ministership.
• At the core of the Assam Accord was the “Foreigners Issue” in Clause 5 of the MoS. 
  • 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.
• To implement the various Clauses of Assam Accord a new Department has been established in the name of “Implementation of Assam Accord Department” during the year 1986.
• But no serious attempts were made to implement the recommendation of the accord.
• Clause 6 of the Assam Accord states that appropriate constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards will be provided to protect cultural, social and linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people.

What remains unimplemented — the major gaps

1. Detection and deportation (Clause 5)

• The Accord required robust machinery for detection and deportation. 
• Records show 75,489 persons were declared foreigners till 31 March 2016, but actual deportations remain tiny (about 1,432 reinfiltrators deported during 1986–2014).
• Problems: complex legal processes, repeal of some prior laws, slow action by administrative agencies and diplomatic difficulties with neighbouring countries.
  

2. Sealing and securing the international border (Clause 9)

• The Accord called for physical barriers, intensive patrolling and a border road. 
• Of 280.06 km of Indo-Bangladesh frontier in Assam, 208.65 km of fencing has been completed; 71.41 km remains open, largely comprising riverine and char areas.
• Riverine gaps and legal disputes over land have stalled full closure; high-technology solutions are still under study.
  

3. Constitutional and protective measures for indigenous people (Clause 6)

• Clause 6 promised safeguards to protect Assamese identity. 
• After a long delay, a high-level committee chaired by retired Justice Biplab Sarma made 67 recommendations (2019–20); the State has agreed to implement 57 that fall within its remit.
• Key challenge: defining “Assamese peoples” and deciding the geographic scope without stirring ethnic tensions (decisions exclude Barak Valley districts and Sixth Schedule areas).
  

4. Administrative weaknesses

• Detection work is dispersed; border police report to district superintendents who cannot adequately supervise the specialised, time-consuming task. 
• Recommendations include dedicated officers for foreigners detection in vulnerable districts and stronger coordination with central agencies.

5. Land, encroachment and property provisions (Clauses 10–11)

• The Assam Alienation of Land (Regulation) Act, 1980 and Assam land rules exist but eviction and protection of government and tribal lands is a continuous, uneven process.
  

Why these gaps matter

Unresolved implementation fuels local insecurity, political tensions and creates space for organised extremist groups to exploit vulnerabilities. Equally, poor implementation raises constitutional questions about equality, rule of law and regional stability.

What can be done?

• Strengthen border management with a mix of physical, riverine and technological measures and faster land acquisition processes.
• Create a focused institutional architecture: dedicated superintendents for foreigners detection, faster functioning of tribunals and better central-state coordination.
• Fast-track socio-legal safeguards under Clause 6 with clear definitions, stakeholder consultations and phased implementation to reduce backlash.
• Improve deportation mechanisms through sustained diplomacy and pragmatic bilateral arrangements with the neighbouring state.
  

Important terms explained

• Foreigners Tribunal: A quasi-judicial body that determines whether a person is a foreigner.
  
• Foreigners Act, 1946: Primary law used for detection and deportation of illegal migrants.
  
• Clause 6 (Assam Accord): Guarantee of measures to preserve Assamese cultural and linguistic identity.
  
• Riverine/char areas: Dynamic river islands and banks that complicate border fencing.
  
• Sixth Schedule areas: Autonomous tribal regions with special constitutional protection.
  
• Deportation: Legal expulsion of a person identified as a foreigner to their country of origin.
  

Exam hook — Key takeaways:

• Assam Accord (1985) set cut-offs 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 for citizenship; detection machinery is partly functional but deportations are minimal.
  
• Border fencing in Assam: 208.65 km completed, 71.41 km pending — riverine stretches are the main challenge.
  
• Justice Biplab Sarma committee made 67 recommendations on Clause 6; 57 are to be implemented by the State.
  
• Implementation gaps touch legal, administrative and diplomatic domains and affect internal security.
  

Mains question:
Examine why the Assam Accord’s Clause 5 and Clause 6 have been difficult to implement fully and suggest institutional reforms to operationalise them effectively.

SOURCE