Map 1.1 Location of Assam
4.4 Impact of competitive factionalism on the AGP
132
133
Goswami and Dineswar Tasa became the conveners of the political convention and were regarded as the chief architects of the new regional political party. However, his wish to become the president was not fulfilled. The convention made Prafulla Kumar Mahanta the president. That was opposed by Atul Bora on behalf of the PLP. To avoid an awkward situation, the collegiums system was proposed and accepted. But the AASU faction of the AGP rejected the collegium system and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta became the President of the party117.
From the very beginning, dominant AASU leaders, politicians of the AJD and the PLP, youth leaders of the AJYCP were at the helm of leadership in the AGP. But groupism and lack of administrative knowledge crippled the party as well as the government. The leaders who had good hands on the mastery of social movement were proved disgusting administrators. Besides, with no inner party discipline, the AGP was riding high on the motions of the Assamese people. Within two months of its formation, the party had to prepare for the Assembly and parliamentary elections in December 1985. The organizational structure, the constitution and rules were yet to be framed. Therefore, ticket distribution for the election was too chaotic. Everyone seemed to have been vying for a party ticket. The presidents and general secretaries had to hide themselves from such contenders. Premkanta Mahanta118 wrote that as soon as the date of election was declared by the election commission, ex-student leaders, pseudo leaders tried to get party ticket in an inconsiderate manner. Ticket distribution became a childish affair without any consideration of seniority, experience and knowledge. Competition among the top leaders began to ensure ticket for their own supporters in the assembly constituencies in order to stay in the fray for the top posts in the government. It was a matter of surprise to see the otherwise inexperienced student leader’s
117 Mrinal Talukdar, Assam after Independence, (Guwahati: Nanda Talukdar Foundation, 2017), 313.
118 Mrinal Talukdar remarks in his book ‘Assam after Independence’ advances the opinion, “The Assam history can never forget Hiranya Kumar Bhattacharyya and Premkanta Mahanta. These two senior police officials, jeopardizing their professional careers, transformed Assam’s foreigners’ issue into a national problem.” Bhattacharjee was an IPS officer who was dismissed from the service for actively supporting the Assam Movement.” Premkanta Mahanta was an APS officer who was a sympathizer and organizer of the movement. For details please consult ‘Betrayal of North East: The Arrested Voice’ (2015) by Hiranya Kumar Bhattacharyya, Manas Publications, New Delhi.
TH-1788_09614110
134
reckless strive in power politics. All the leaders became candidates in their respective home places. Some of them even resorted to inglorious influence and use of force. The final candidate’s list could not be prepared in the party head office.
But Prafulla Kumar Mahanta and Bhrigu Kumar Phukan had to make it hiding in a house owned by Dizen Phukan, an Assamese businessman in Naamail, away from Guwahati. Premkanta Mahanta, an experienced IPS officer of Assam cadre applied for party nomination from the Sootea constituency which was denied to him.
Mahanta, who was a passionate supporter of the Assam Movement and an architect of the anti-foreigner struggle, was not even called for election campaigning for the party. He describes his deep anguish in his heart for not being able to play a role for the party which was virtually his brainchild. At last, he voluntarily started campaigning at North Lakhimpur and other places. He did not get an invitation to the outh taking ceremony of the first AGP government. Hiranya Kumar Bhattacharyya, the other senior police officer of Assam, who was a torchbearer of the Assam Movement, was also not invited119. In the evening of 24th December 1985, the day of outh taking ceremony, Biraj Kumar Sarma, MLA of East Guwahati constituency brought out a protest rally in Uzanbazar area because he was not given a ministerial berth. All these internal squabbles and power mongering, indiscipline and childish attitude of the AGP leaders forecasted the future of the new born regional party. The competition for power continued unabated till 1991 and culminated in the split in the party. Actually the AGP was formally split into three parts- the AGP, the NAGP and Jatiya Swatantra Manch.
Earlier, Chandramohan Patowary had criticized Chief Minister’s proposal to shift the capital of Asam to Kaliabor or any other place in middle Assam for administrative convenience. Patowary was paid the price of criticizing Mahanta.
He was dropped from the cabinet along with 11 others in the first ministry reshuffle in 1988. There were other reasons of personal difference between the two as well. Ultimately, he had to quit the AGP and formed another party named
‘Jatiya Swatantra Manch’ with Reboti Phukan and Pranab Phukan. Patowary won in 1991 from Dharmapur constituency as a candidate of the Manch.
119 Premkanta Mahanta, Raj Bhogonor Pora Kol Thokaloike, autobiography, Guwahati , 118-121.
TH-1788_09614110
135
The split and personal differences weakened the opposition unity and the AGPs role as constructive opposition in Assam Assembly was very poor. The Hiteswar Saikia regime was marred with fratricidal conflict between the ULFA and SULFA, ethnic conflict in the Bodo-Adibasi, Karbi-Dimasa regions. The counter insurgency operations and the draconian laws of TADA created serious human rights violations. The minorities were the worst sufferers. But AGP camp was still meditating over their internal factionalism. Mass media played the role of opposition in Assam. And it was the blessings of mass media that AGP could dream of coming to power again in 1996.
4.4.1 The ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ in the AGP: fate of the party Hiranya Bhattacharyya writes,
“No efforts were made to organize the party at the grass root level with the result that dedicated cadres capable of sustaining the party during the lean period did not surface at all. The leadership of the party has been monopolized by the same set of leaders till date whereas other political parties have been trying to induct new and young blood into their respective ranks.”120
The party could not capitalize on the large-scale popular support and emotional attachment of the ordinary people of Assam. Factionalism was looked down upon by the people as self-serving and against the regional interest of Assam. As the party had to face the general election immediately after its formation in 1985, the organizational set up remained incomplete. Even the constitution of the AGP was not final till the first general conference at Mangaldoi from 18th to 20th January, 1988. The framers of the party constitution did not pay attention to the collegium system of leadership as per the Golaghat political convention. AGP constitution made the provision for only one president. The collective leadership system would have been fruitful in curbing personality cult in the party. The selection process of the first central executive was also undemocratic. As Premkanta Mahanta writes,
“The list of members for the central executive was prepared in haste and was simply read out in the Golaghat convention. No discussion on nomination of able and experienced members to the central
120 ‘Hiranya Kumar Bhattacharyya. Betrayal of North East: An Arrested Voice, (New Delhi, Manas Publications, 2015), 231.
TH-1788_09614110
136
executive committee was initiated.The dissident voices were subdued and the list got approved.
Thus, autocracy and fascist tendencies prevailed from the beginning in the AGP.”121
The first party workshop-cum-political seminar was held on 26-29 April, 1986 at Guwahati. All the important issues like party ideology, implementation of the Assam Accord, party organization and its relation with the government, implementation of the election promises etc., necessary for the ruling party was scheduled to be discussed in the workshop. It was very much fruitful for the party cadres. But the practice was discontinued and leaders convened workers conventions only when there was a need to consolidate factional strength and power. Some senior leaders and central executive members visited Andhra Pradesh to acquire practical knowledge of organization building from the Telegu Desham Party (TDP). All these efforts went in vain when factional rivalry and contradictions started growing in the AGP. Second best attempt for consolidating party organization was made in the first general conference at Mangaldoi.
However, there was continuous stir about the organizational weakness of the AGP.
The editorials of the Gana Batori, the weekly party mouthpiece published from the head quarter of the AGP are a testimonial to it. The Gana Batori appealed to the MPs and also to the current MLAs to engage in party organization122. The party organization and activities were limited to the Central Committee, District and the Anchalik (Mandal) committees only. After the election most of the Central committee members became MLAs, Ministers or Chairmen to government corporations and boards. So the central committee has become relatively weak. The system of ‘one person one post’ if implemented in the government and the party organization then AGP as a party would have perhaps been stronger. In most cases at the district level the presidents and secretaries were engaged in more than one post of profit at local level. Ganabatari, the weekly mouthpiece of the party viewed that
“The office of profit did jeopardize the party organization. Most of the District offices of the AGP were not opened daily. Moreover, the district level functionaries came to the central office only to
121 Premkanta Mahanta. Raj Bhogonor Pora Kol Thokaloike, autobiography, 119.
122 Gana Batori, 16-30 April, 1987.
TH-1788_09614110
137
advocate for transfer and posting of some officers, or to accomplish some selfish personal matters. If things would be running like this way, the AGP as cadre-based party would never grow; its support base diminished.”123
These editorials of the party mothpiece itself depict the state of affairs in the AGP after it assumed power in Assam. No responsible person shouldered the responsibility of building the organization. Some devoted leaders, who were ideologically grounded and wanted to serve the Assamese national sentiment, viz.
Krishna Gopal Bhattacharyya, Binoy Kumar Tamuli, Debadutta Barkataki, Chanakya Das, Narayan Sarma and the like bestowed selfless service to the party.
Soon they got disillusioned at the power bickering among the ministers and leaders. The factional leaders wanted to gobble the top party posts in order to exercise absolute control during election, ticket distribution and ministry formation. Even when the party was not in power the ‘Prisoner’s dilemma’
continued to haunt the party leadership and made the organization to suffer.