Assam tabled two Nellie reports. Why this Japanese scholar believes none address question of justice

Last month, two reports were tabled in the Assam Assembly on the Nellie massacre – one of the largest mass killings in post-independent India.

Both the reports arrived at different conclusions.

The Tewary Commission, which had been set up by the Congress state government, said that the Indira Gandhi government's decision to hold Assembly elections in Assam at the peak of an anti-foreigners' movement was not to blame for the violence in 1983.

In February that year, 1,800 Bengali Muslims were massacred in Assam's Morigaon district days after Assembly elections were held under President's rule. No one has been punished for the killings in all these years.

A different narrative was put forward by a second commission formed by Mukti Jujaru Sanmilan and organisations spearheading the Assam movement, which mobilised people against so-called illegal migrants. The Justice (retired) TU Mehta Commission ascribed the violence squarely on the imposition of the elections against the wishes of the people.

The Himanta Biswa Sarma government's decision to table the “unofficial” Mehta Commission findings has revived the narrative about the anxiety over “illegal immigrants” ahead of the Assembly election.

But, as the Japanese scholar Makiko Kimura pointed out, neither report addresses the question of justice for the dead.

Kimura wrote The Nellie Massacre of 1983: Agency of Rioters (2013), one of the few, scholarly investigations into the violence, which looks into the reasons for the riots, why the attackers participated in the violence, the role of organisations like the All Assam Students' Union and the government and its agencies.

In this interview with Scroll, Kimura explains the motivations of the two commissions and what happens when justice eludes victims for decades. Excerpts:

What do you think of the Assam government's decision to table two reports on the 1983 Nellie massacre after so many years?
I have no clue why the government decided to make them public now. Most probably, it is just to divert the attention of the public from some other issues, as many others say.

What are the major differences in the findings of the two commissions? What did both say about the violence against the Muslims peasants? Did they hold anyone responsible for the massacre?
As I say in my book, from the beginning these two commissions represented the interest of the organisations or institutions which asked them to report on the violence.

Both the Tewary Commission report and Mehta Commission Report do not provide details regarding the attackers involved in the collective violence.

The role of the top leaders of the AASU or the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad in any of the incidents has not been established beyond the reports in newspapers, weekly journals, and other publications.

The commissions were, from the beginning, biased towards certain organisations, and their work was utilised to show either the central government's or [the Assam movement] leaders' perspectives.

The conclusion of the Tewary commission report is very ambiguous about the cause of the violence. It shies away from criticising the government. It criticised the students' movement leaders but not very strongly. It only blamed the lower rank police officials for negligence and was guilty and punished. That's it.

The responsibility of the government and their decision to hold elections in such unusual conditions has never been touched upon.

The Tewary commission did not say anything about what kind of measures should be taken for compensation or justice. I don't think the government has ever discussed this topic either.

The Mehta Commission Report is also silent on the Assam movement leaders and their responsibility. I am sure that they were pretty aware that if they continued with their boycott of the elections, something would happen especially because the local police were influenced by the movement leaders and their propaganda that they have to drive out foreigners of Assam.

It is regrettable that there has been no neutral and third-party investigation into the Nellie massacre, such as the ones conducted by the Peoples Union for Democratic Rights or People's Union for Civil Liberties after violent incidents in other parts of India.

Tell me a little about your experience visiting Nellie over the years. What struck you about the survivors?
I was struck by the fact that most people had stayed in the same village even after the attack. Every family has lost members of their family. Sirajuddin, who was quoted in my book, and who gave testimony in the documentary by Subasri Krishnan, What the field remembers, lost four daughters. And his family is not an exception.

Many people said they have lost 10, 20 family members. And they live with those memories.

I have visited a few times. The last time was on February 18, 2023. Every year, they conduct some memorial, but it was smaller and more discreet that year. I heard the organisers were afraid there could be repercussions.

The Tewary Commission in its conclusion said that the 1983 violence was not communal, though over 2,000 Muslims were killed. How do you read this finding?
A recent article in The Print quotes the commission as saying: “It is entirely unwarranted to give a communal colour to the incident's under enquiry. All sections of the society suffered as a result of the senseless violence.”

It is true that there were numerous violent incidents, and there were no fixed victims or attackers. But I am sure the Muslims were most targeted. There was no other incident on the same scale as Nellie.

It is clear that the Assam police overlooked warnings on possible disturbances in Nellie because they were sympathetic to the movement.

In your view, what led to the 1983 violence and what role did the Assam movement leaders and the government play?
As I say in my book, the first and foremost case was the central government's failure in handling the situation skillfully and, to some extent, the AASU's failure. The Assembly election became an occasion for both the Congress and the AASU to pursue success in their attempt to gain control in Assam, and thus, the two powerful organisations' interests clashed.

To sum up, both the AASU and the Union government did not make enough effort to prevent the violence that had easily been predicted. Instead, both parties tried to utilise the opportunity to gain power to their own end. In this way, neither can escape the criticism of instigating small-scale violence and creating an atmosphere where everybody felt threatened.

Why could the violence not be prevented in the initial days? Why did the state machinery fail to stop the riots?
In a report in India Today on May 15, 1983, Arun Shourie pointed out three things. It helps you to understand why the state machinery could not stop the Nellie incident.

First, ensuring a free and fair poll was not the priority for the police and administrative officers, as well as security personnel. For them, the goal was to be able to proclaim one way or another that the ritual of the elections had been gone through. Thus, police and security personnel were made to concentrate on the polling booths in order to protect the 8,000 officers who had been airlifted for polling duty, and the candidates and their families.

Second, the local policemen were not satisfied with the Centre's decision, and they became very hostile towards the state apparatus. There was obvious hostility between the local Assam police and the CRPF Personnel.

Third, there was a wireless message sent on February 15 by the Nagaon police station that warned of a possible attack in the area. The village residents had visited the officer-in-charge of the Nagaon Police

station, Zahirud Din Ahmed, and requested him to take some action. There was a specific warning from the district headquarters to the police station in Jagiroad, but the concerned officers failed to take any action.

The government was not really concerned about the violence, they were mostly focused on the elections. They did not have the will to prevent the violence.

What does the lack of justice for riots like this do to communities?
I think overall, Muslims keep losing trust in the government and their own country. When you isolate and marginalise minorities, it sows seeds of future trouble. In the end, it destabilises the country.

Source: Scroll
Related Posts: Why Assam CM’s decision to table report on Nellie massacre is being called into question Bill to ban polygamy tabled in Assam Assembly by Himanta Biswa Sarma Supreme Court refuses to entertain petition to rehabilitate Nellie massacre survivors Bill to safeguard manuscripts among 4 tabled in K’taka assembly Non-government panel’s report on Assam Agitation to be tabled in Assembly Major tragedies were averted by security forces in the last two months Number of deleted votes in some constituencies of Bihar exceeds victory margins of last Assembly elections VB-G RAM G Bill tabled in Lok Sabha amid Opposition protest Economic Survey 2026 to be tabled today Budget 2026 To Be Tabled By FM Today