Syllabus: GS – II & V: Election System

Why in the News?

The findings of the Justice Mehta Committee, constituted by the Assam State Freedom Fighters Association, have resurfaced as the report is to be tabled in the Assam Legislative Assembly during the Winter Session. 

• The committee examined the causes and conduct of the 1983 Assam elections, widely associated with large-scale violence during the Assam Agitation.

Background: The Turbulent 1983 Elections

The 1983 Assembly elections in Assam were held amid:

• Widespread agitation led by AASU and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad
• A mass movement demanding revision of electoral rolls and identification of illegal immigrants
• Violent protests and deep mistrust between communities

The Mehta Committee’s findings help understand how administrative decisions, political pressures, and social tensions culminated in one of the darkest phases in Assam’s political history.

Key Findings of the Mehta Committee

• Imposition of Elections Against Public Will:
  The Committee stated that elections were held “against the wishes of the people”, despite the State clearly being unprepared. This created a direct trigger for violence.
• Non-Cooperation by Local Population:
  Due to widespread boycott calls, officials from outside Assam had to be brought in. Even ballot papers were printed outside the State, indicating lack of administrative readiness.
• Electoral Roll Issues:
  The rolls were “incorrect and outdated.” With the Assam Agitation focused on detecting foreign nationals, conducting elections without revision guaranteed stiff resistance.
• Failure of the Election Commission of India:
  The Commission visited only Guwahati and “some nearby areas”, failing to assess ground reality. The Committee argued that the EC should have postponed elections to prevent violence.
• Central Government’s Knowledge of Risks:
  The Centre was fully aware of the tension, as seen from:
  • The opening of temporary jails
  • Heavy deployment of security forces
  • Arrest of top AASU leaders before polling
• Communal Polarisation:
  Statements by leaders, including inflammatory speeches like “If they kill one, we will kill three,” aggravated tensions and deepened communal divides.
• Political Manipulation of Immigrant Communities:
  Some politicians allegedly promised suspected foreigners immunity from deportation in exchange for votes, worsening mistrust between communities.
• Violence and Destruction:
  Anti-election groups burned schools designated as polling stations. Government forces carried out torture and harsh suppression of protestors, worsening the situation.

Why the Report Matters Today

• Highlights the importance of credible electoral rolls for electoral legitimacy.
• Demonstrates that elections must be free, fair, and acceptable to the people.
• Shows how politicising demographic anxieties can lead to long-term communal divisions.
• Reminds the Election Commission of its constitutional obligation to ensure conducive conditions for polling.
• Provides historical context for the Assam Accord (1985) and continuing debates on citizenship and identity.

Key Concepts Explained

• Assam Agitation: A mass movement (1979–1985) against illegal immigration.
• Electoral Roll Integrity: Maintaining updated and verified voter lists.
• Communal Polarisation: Division of communities along religious or ethnic lines.
• Election Commission’s Role: Ensuring free, fair, and peaceful elections.
• State Capacity: Ability of governments to conduct lawful processes without violence.

Key Takeaways – Possible Mains Question

“Discuss the major findings of the Mehta Committee on the 1983 Assam violence. What lessons does it offer for ensuring the credibility and constitutional integrity of elections in conflict-sensitive regions?”

One-line wrap: The Mehta Committee reminds India that elections without legitimacy can erode public trust and intensify social conflict.