Map 1.1 Location of Assam
3.5 Pattern of factional politics in the AGP
Paul R Brass (1966) observed that factionalism emerges when self regarding interests of leaders and followers of political party get preference ahead of other regarding interests of the party. In such a situation, the party concerned survives on distribution of political patronage. Position of the leader depends less upon their personal ability rather demagogic qualities prevails and the patron-client relationship formed between the leader and his followers become the basis of his power. If we look at the factional pattern in the AGP the indication of Paul R Brass is found to be true. The AGP as a party was constituted to materialize the dream and aspiration of the Assamese, to quell the fear in their mind that in the face of the incessant migration from outside, the Assamese people will be minority in their homeland. Assam is a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural state, distribution of political patronage benefitting all diverse interests is a challenge here. The AGP leaders, in the initial period, faced this dilemma of selection of beneficiary. Very soon party office bearers and party MLAs put up allegations against the Cabinet Ministers in the Government, indulging in favoritism and nepotism. The growing activities of the ULFA became another issue which was contentious. How to deal with the ULFA was the question that set apart Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahnata and Home Minister Bhrigu Kumar Phukan. Consequently two opposite factions emerged.
There were some structural bonds like regional sentiment, ties of friendship and kinship, reciprocal obligations that helped to create the factional groups. The AGP was moving towards a multi factional pattern of politics with Education Minister Brindaban Goswami and PWD Minister Atul Bora too maintaining a small faction each within the party. The bonhomie and legacy of Assam movement was gradually forgotten; friends turned into foes. Multi factional pattern is significant feature of disorganized and individualistic politics. In such a factional pattern,
TH-1788_09614110
98
leaders act like demagogue trying to get attention of the voters and media.
Followers and supporters of factions change allegiance according their convenience. The AGP leaders lavishly demonstrated such factional attitude.
Brindaban Goswami faction merged with Bhrigu Kumar Phukan faction and Atul Bora had maintained equidistance from the Mahanta and Phukan factions. As a result factional pattern of the AGP in 1990s looked like bi-factional. Factionalism in AGP was not ideological but personal. All the leaders of the AGP were like peers who knew each other’s strengths and weaknesses. As such, the leaders belonging to different geographical locations acted like small factions having followers in their constituencies. This was unique in case of the AGP. This was a major weakness of the party making it vulnerable to manipulation and sabotage during the time of elections. The tendency to factionalism continues in the AGP since the beginning till today.
3.5.1 From cooperative to competitive factionalism
As we have traced the root of factionalism in the AGP to the Assam Movement, its nature and impact was very much functional and positive initially. The AAGSP was like an ethnic coalition that led the movement. As we have discussed earlier, there were differences among the leaders of the constituting organizations of the AAGSP which took the shape of factions. For example, the PLP faction, the AASU faction etc. Within the AASU, there occurred some differences over ideology after the Nellie massacre in 1983. Leaders like Nurul Hussain and Nekibur Zaman and other minority leaders criticized the central leaders of the AASU for their hesitation to condemn the massacre. These minority leaders even came out of the AASU and formed separate student organization. In spite of these facts, the coalition character of the movement helped to widen its scope and increased the secular credentials.
The AGP was greatly benefited by this secular image of the leaders during the Assembly election of 1985. Towards the closure of the movement factionalism in the AAGSP intensified. The two main factions of the AAGSP, the PLP faction led by Atul Bora and the AASU faction led by Mahanta and Bhrigu Kumar Phukan debated over issues like IM (DT) Act, provisions of the Assam Accord etc. Atul
TH-1788_09614110
99
Bora, in spite of the opposition from the AASU, called for Assam bandh on August 14, 1984 for which he was expelled from the AAGSP. Biraj Kumar Sarma was made the convener of the AAGSP. The PLP faction did not sign the Assam Accord and criticized the AASU leaders for their thoughtless venture to end the movement abruptly for selfish gain. The PLP believed that with the IM(DT) Act in effect in Assam, detection and deportation of foreigners from the state is impossible. So, Assam Accord is merely eyewash and lacks legal legitimacy.
It was the effort of Brindaban Goswami, who as the convener of the Jatiya Abhibartan on12-14 October, 1985 at Golaghat could persuade all the stakeholders to the movement and made possible the formation of the AGP. Thus, factionalism at the very outset of the AGP was positive and functional, inculcated a rational thinking. It was cooperative factionalism in the interest of the Assam and its people. These factional groups while retaining their separate identities and membership played active role in consolidation of the new political party. The AJYCP, Asom Sahitya Sabha, women and ethnic organizations, regional political parties in Assam played crucial role in the formation of the AGP and democratization of Assamese society. This had diversified the political appeal of the AGP. Leadership of the nascent party also spoke about ethnic and minority rights and their safeguard.
In such a cooperative factional pattern, family ties and local network of political patronage is the driving force. But in case of the AGP, the episode of cooperative factionalism was short-lived. Distribution of political value along the local and personal network made the AGP leaders unpopular. Competition started among the cabinet colleagues to satisfy their respective local needs. There was allegation of corruption against some cabinet ministers. Chief Minister Mahanta had to reshuffle his ministry and dropped 12 ministers at one go on October 22, 1988. This phase is characterized by competitive factionalism. Opposition parties specially the Congress had got new verve due to the internal competition and political wrangling in the AGP.
TH-1788_09614110
100
3.5.2 From competitive to degenerative factionalism
Gradually, competition intensified in the party, government reduced to standstill, insurgent activity and its magnitude increased. Consequently, the AGP government could not complete its tenure and was dismissed by the center on 27 November, 1990. Presidents’ Rule under article 356 was imposed in Assam. Bhrigu Kumar Phukan faction promptly rose to mark it as a failure of the Chief Minister Mahanta and demanded his resignation from the post of the President of the AGP.
The rivalry intensified and one faction blamed the other of indiscipline. In the course of time, Bhrigu Kumar Phukan, Brindaban Goswami, Pulakesh Barua, Dinesh Ch Goswami, Bijoya Chakravarty and others formed the NAGP and claimed to be the real AGP as most of the veteran leaders were with them. Thus, factionalism resulted in defeat of regional forces in the Assembly election of 1991 and the Congress ascended to power. This phase signifies degenerative factional politics in the AGP. Factionalism when turned into degenerative form marginalizes the party organizers and true supporters, just like the Gresham’s principle: Bad principles drive out good principles out of the market. The AGP leaders single- mindedly pursued their factional goals and even sacrificed general interest of the party and the State. Naturally, public administration suffered and even deteriorated. Frankly speaking in the words of Francoise Boucek, the AGP became a value destroying brand. Degenerative factional politics have been the hall mark of AGP’s internal politics because of which regionalism as a political force in Assam has lost its ground today.