Assam poll and ethnic fragmentation Ranen Kumar Goswami
Assam is approaching yet another Assembly election. The fractured verdict in last Assembly polls and wafer-thin majority the parties had got in the previous ones are a warning against making any sweeping forecast about the outcome this time around. Electorate behaviour wise, pre-1985 Assam and post-1985 Assam are not the same. The Assam movement that had started in 1979 ended in 1985 with the signing of the Assam Accord, polarised Assam's society along ethnic and religious lines. It was quite natural that the voter verdict would also reflect that. The polarisation, visible in all elections since then, reached a high point in 2006. But before going into that, let us pay a glance at voter participation. Here too, 1985 was a landmark. Voter turnout, since then has remained among the highest in the country. Assam's electorate has arguably shown more mature political response to the democratic process than many of the more populous, and perhaps, more politically volatile States. In 1985, of the 98,82,684 voters, 78,27,860 exercised their franchise, the turnout percentage being 79.21. In 1991, the number of voters was 1,18,92,170 of whom 88,79,984 cast their ballots, the percentage of polling being 74.67. In 1996, of the 1,21,19,125 voters 95,64,434 exercised their franchise and the percentage of polling was 78.92. In 2001, the polling percentage was 74.63 as 1,08,35,651 of the total 1,44,39,167 voters turned up at the polling booths. In 2006, the number of voters was 1,74,34,019; of them 75.77 percent cast their ballots. This enthusiastic participation in the electoral process tells a very is significant tale. This gives a lie to the claim of those worshipers of the gun who say the people of Assam have lost faith in Indian democracy. The Assam movement leaders formed the Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) at a convention at Golaghat on October 14, 1985. The polarisation in Assam's society began to show. In 1985 polls, the wave the AGP piggybacked on handed it a vote share of 34.84 per cent and 63 seats, one short of absolute majority. The party had to secure the support of three independents and welcome them into the party fold to enter the corridors of power. Minority leaders, opposed to the Assam movement, organised themselves in a new party called the United Minorities Front (UMF). It secured 10.85 per cent votes and 17 seats. Emergence of the UMF was a clear signal that those who opposed the anti-alien movement had a strong voice, loud enough to be heard in the Assembly. The CPI-M got 4.48 per cent votes and two seats. In 1991, the Congress, under the leadership of Hiteswar Saikia secured 29.93 per cent votes and 66 seats, while the AGP got 17.93 per cent and 19 seats. The Natun Asom Gana Parishad (NAGP), the breakaway faction of the AGP got 5.45 per cent and five seats. Emerging as an electoral force to be reckoned with for the first time, the BJP got a vote share of 6.55 per cent and 10 seats. The CPI with a vote share of 2.47 per cent got four seats and the CPI-M with a share of 3.85 per cent could lay its hands on two seats. In 1996, an AGP-led four-party alliance captured power in the State. The AGP got 29.70 per cent of votes and bagged 59 seats. The Congress, with a vote share of 30.56 per cent, got 34 seats. AGP's alliance partners CPI secured 1.95 per cent of votes and three seats, the CPI-M secured 1.94 per cent votes and two seats and ASDC got 1.98 per cent votes and came out winners in five seats. The BJP had a vote share of 10.41 per cent and four seats. In 2001 elections, the Congress under the leadership of Tarun Gogoi bounced back to power securing 39.75 per cent of votes and winning 71 seats. Its strength subsequently rose to 78 as seven more legislators including NCP's three joined the party. The AGP had a vote share of 20.02 per cent and 20 seats and the BJP with a vote share of 9.35 per cent bagged eight seats. Now, let's have a closer look at the 2006 election. Here, we rely on a comprehensive study by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) under the guidance of renowned psephologist Yogendra Yadav. According to Yadav, the way Assam voted in this election could be called a story of political and ethnic fragmentation that had followed the Assam movement. The process reached its logical culmination this time around. The Congress bagged 53 seats with a vote share of 31.08 per cent. The AGP tally was 24 seats with a vote share of 20.39 per cent. The Bodoland People's Progressive Front (BPPF-H) got 11 seats with a vote share of 3.72 per cent and the newly-formed Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF) bagged 10 seats with a vote share of 9.03 per cent. Yadav says that now the era of coalition politics finally arrived with the Congress falling 10 seats short of a majority. The party benefited from a divided Opposition. The swing against the ruling party was the weakest in the smallest region, the Barak Valley, where it gained two additional seats despite a drop in votes. In upper Assam, the CSDS says,“the largest region that has been a traditional Congress stronghold, it lost 10 percentage point votes. But the party was sitting on very large margins here, thanks to big wins in 2001 elections. The Congress managed to win 30 seats here, a modest loss of eight seats compared to the last (2001) time.” What happened at the roots of the society manifested itself in the electoral arena in 2006. Beneath it lay the ethnic fragmentation of the electorate. The post-poll and the exit poll conducted by the CSDS confirmed the impression that the AGP was the first choice of the Assamese-speaking Hindus, who had a fear lurking in their minds that they might become a minority in their own State. Among the Bengali-speaking Hindus, the CSDS shows, the Congress was nearly matched by the BJP. As many as 36 per cent of Assamese-speaking Muslims and 38 per cent of Bengali-speaking Muslims voted for the Congress. An overwhelming majority of the Scheduled Tribe vote went to political parties outside the mainstream. In short, each party appeared to be an ethnic party. The AGP and the BJP secured 60 per cent of their support from their core constituencies: Assamese and Bengali-speaking Hindus. The AUDF secured two-thirds of its votes from Bengali-speaking Muslims. For the BPPF (H), two-thirds of its vote reservoir comprised Bodo ethnic groups. Yet, the CSDS says, the only exception was the Congress, which secured electoral support from all communities. It is worth a recall here that the AUDF was born following the Supreme Court verdict in 2005 which declared that the Illegal Migrants Act (Determination by Tribunals) ultra vires the Constitution. A leading section of Muslims alleged that the Congress had not done what could have been done to retain the Act. This discontent crystallised in the form of AUDF. In 1985, a similar discontent had given birth to the UMF. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the AUDF is the latest version of the UMF giving voice to a feeling of insecurity among the minorities in face of the continuous demand for detection and deportation of illegal foreigners. The verdict in 2006 clearly reflected this feeling. Events as recent as the 2010 Barpeta violence over the NRC pilot project triggered further polarisation of public opinion. We can safely predict that the 2011 verdict will also bring this fragmentation to the fore. All this does not mean that Assam's elections are only about ethnicities, though from 1985 onwards, it is playing a decisive role. Other issues like corruption, development, intra-party dissidence and factors like anti-incumbency also weigh on the voter's mind. Big dams are another issue that can influence the voter's decision this time in many areas. Militancy, talks and law and order are other issues. There are certain to be area-specific issues too. But the big question is: will these issues decisively erase the boundaries of ethnic fragmentation? ( The Assam Tribune, March 30, 2011, Wednesday) _______________________________________________ assam mailing list assam@assamnet.org http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
