Autumn in Springtime
|
Vice Chairman : Pradip Gogoi (under arrest since 8
April, 1998)
Political Wing
Military Wing
Gen Secy |
Anup Chetia (under arrest) |
Chief of Staff |
Paresh Baruah |
Paresh Baruah |
Rekhiraj Singha |
SO to COS |
Bening Rabha |
Org Secy |
Ashanta Bagh Phukan |
SO to COS |
Robin Neog |
Asstt Gen Secy |
Bobon Hazarika |
Chief Trg Offr |
Kamal Bora |
Finance Secy |
Chitraban Hazarika |
QM GHQ/Dir |
Samarjit Chaliha |
Asstt Fin Secy |
Ramu Mech |
OIC Arms |
Chakra Gohain |
Foreign Secy |
Sasadhar Choudhury |
Action Gp Cdr |
Amal Narzary |
Cultural Secy |
Pranati Deka |
Ops Cdr |
Raju Barua |
Adviser |
Bhimkanta Borgohain (Father of ULFA) |
Central auditor |
Chintamani Hazarika |
Asst Foreign Relations Offr |
Navajyoti Hazarika |
Office Secy |
Neelu Chakraborty |
Adviser Pol Wing |
Bishnujyoti Buragohain |
Action Gp Cdr |
Tapan Baruah |
Publicity Secy |
Mithinga Daimary |
Medical Offr |
Manik Sarma |
Exec member |
Probin Deka |
Pol Affairs Offr |
Bhaskar Dutta |
|
|
RT IC |
Bhaskar Choudhury |
|
|
Camp Adjt |
Prahlad Saikia |
|
|
WT IC |
Manas Gogoi |
|
|
Asst WT IC |
Drishti Rajkhowa |
The ULFA is divided into four zones. The zones and their areas of influence are enumerated below:
East
(Purb Mandal) Districts |
West (Paschim Mandal) Districts |
Central (Madhya Mandal) Districts |
South (Dakshin Mandal) Districts |
Lakhimpur |
Dhubri |
Darrang |
Hailakandi |
Jorhat |
Kokrajhar |
Karbi Anglong |
NC Hills |
Sibsagar |
Bongaigaon |
Nagaon |
Cachar Hills |
Tinsukia |
Goalpara |
Morigaon |
Karimganj |
Dibrugarh |
Barpeta |
Dhemaji |
|
Bokajan div of Karbi Anglong |
Nalbari |
Part of Sonitpur |
|
Golaghat |
South Kamrup |
North Kamrup |
|
Part of Sonitpur |
|
|
|
Zones are further divided into sub-zones or anchals, which are further divided into sakhas. Each sakha has one political and one military wing:
East
West
Central
Dhansiri Anchal |
Manas Anchal (7 sakhas) |
Agnigarh Anchal (5 sakhas) |
Dihing Anchal (8 sakhas) |
Birjora Anchal |
Kolong Kopili Anchal (9 sakhas) |
Rangpur Anchal (8 sakhas) |
Pancharatna Anchal |
Kazalikut Anchal (5 sakhas) |
Subansiri Anchal (6 sakhas) |
Sankosh Anchal (4 sakhas) |
Saraighat Anchal (10 Sakhas) |
A proper military wing of the ULFA, the Sanjukta Mukti Fouj was formed on March 16 , 1996. The organisation has three full fledged battalions: the 7th , 28th and 709th. The remaining battalions exist only on paper at best they have strengths of a company or so.
Sanjukta Mukti Fouj (United
Liberation Army)
Military Organisation of
ULFA
7
Bn |
(HQ- Sukhni) Responsible for
defence of GHQ |
8
Bn |
Nagaon, Morigaon, Karbi Anglong |
9
Bn |
Golaghat, Jorhat, Sibsagar |
11
Bn |
Kamrup, Nalbari |
27
Bn |
Barpeta, Bongaigaon, Kokrajhar |
28
Bn |
Tinsukia, Dibrugarh |
709
Bn |
Kalikhola |
Note: 1,4,23 &
709 Bn currently being raised
1,4,23 & 79 Bn (under
raising)
.
Meanwhile protests over Bhutans
purported aid to the ULFA were growing. On June 7, 2000, the Chief
Minister of Assam, Prafulla Kumar Mahanta met the Bhutanese envoy
to India, Tshokey Tshering, and conveyed to him the State Governments
concern about the reported links between officials of his country
and the ULFA.
[27]
The Chief Minister, who reportedly did
some plain speaking with the Ambassador about the alleged links,
also referred to the evidence about the involvement of Bhutanese officials
in the ULFA's arms procurement process. Earlier, during the Indian
Parliaments budget session, members belonging to the Asom Gana
Parishad accompanied by members of the Left and some other political
parties, had staged a dharna
in front of the Royal Bhutanese Embassy in New Delhi. A protest march
had also been organised by the citizens of Mangaldoi on
May 30, 2000, against the alleged 'active support of Bhutan
to the ULFA. Around 2500 people had gathered to rally against
what was termed the Bhutanese Governments provision of transport,
money, logistical support for procuring arms, and shelter to the militants.
The protests which began to gather momentum in the succeeding days had interestingly been preceded by what an editorial of a Guwahati based daily newspaper had termed Bhutans gesture. [28] Quoting a PTI report emanating from Dhaka, the editorial had stated:
The Government of Bhutan has given an ultimatum to the militants of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) to leave Bhutan peacefully failing which the Royal Government at Thimpu will be compelled to use force. This disclosure has been made by no other person than the Bhutanese Foreign Minister, Lyonpo Jyigme Thinley, who was on a five-day official visit to Bangladesh ten days ago. Thinley disclosed that the ULFA militants have camps in the impregnable forest areas in Bhutan close to Assams border. The Bhutanese Foreign Minister expressed his Governments strong displeasure that in spite of several rounds of meeting with senior leaders of the ULFA the latter has not conveyed to Thimpu any timeframe for withdrawal from Bhutan as a result of which the Foreign Minister has been constrained to say, We cannot wait indefinitely, we are getting ready to expel them by force if we have to, as the last option.' [29]
The
encouraging tenor of the editorial was, however, soon belied as reports
of direct Bhutanese aid began to pour in. According to a security
agency a certain Bhutanese army Brigadier, V. Namgel, Security-in-Charge
and Military Adviser to the Bhutanese King, has been actively helping
the ULFA in obtaining arms and ammunition from foreign countries.
Commenting on the security agencys report, a Guwahati based
daily newspaper had written:
A major case of such help rendered by this high official to the ULFA was on April 8, 1999 when the ULFA brought a consignment of arms from Tibet to Deothang According to the evidence, Takin Travel Services based in Thimpu, which is a Royal Government of Bhutans official travel agency, facilitates the travel by ULFAs Commander-in-Chief, Paresh Baruah who travels in the guise of one Kamruzzaman Khan to places like Bangkok, Singapore, Dhaka etc. The Department of Immigration and Census under the Ministry of Home Affairs, offers all facilities to the ULFA leaders and cadres to move freely in Bhutan by issuing special permits to them and even for such purposes as dues collection, as they have issued one such special permit to Tapan Baruah alias Nripen Gupta. But it is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under the direct control of Mr. Thinley, which has gone out of its way to help the ULFA in all its activities. A senior official of the Ministry, one Wangchuk Dorji, has been specifically assigned the task of helping out the top leaders of the outfit in matters of making available funds, documents etc. from abroad, arranging travel to foreign countries by faking information etc. all under cover of diplomatic immunity. [30]
Documentary evidence suggests that Wangchuk Dorji had received Nu 40,000 from a top functionary of the outfit under the alias of one Deepak Das, for air fare, visa fee etc. from the British High Commission in New Delhi for travel to the United Kingdom on November 22, 1999. He had earlier received Nu 68,000 from the same ULFA leader, lodged at Hotel Tadin in Thimpu on April 12, 1996 'for business purpose to buy Chinese shoes.' He had also received Nu 1,18,000 for conversion to US dollars from the same ULFA leader on the same day. On March 7,1996, Wangchuk Dorji, the 'Diplomatic Mail Bag Incharge', wrote to one Kukonleg Gyaltshen, a senior Finance Ministry official, requesting the latter to 'kindly receive and send through diplomatic pouch' a packet to be sent by a top ULFA leader, under the alias, Rana Mashud to him Again on July 18, 1999, another Ministry of Foreign Affairs official, Pasang Wangdi, wrote to Singhye Dorji of the Royal Bhutanese Consulate in Bangkok, saying that a 'packet addressed to Khurshid/Deepak containing some cash and documents was sent by diplomatic mailbag on Saturday, July 13. They have been asked to contact you and collect it. Grateful if you could hand over the packet to either of them and obtain a receipt.' [31]
The Royal Government of Bhutan has, however, in the aftermath of these revelations reportedly terminated the services of two employees of the Foreign Ministrys protocol division Wangchuk Dorji and Lhaba Tshering for misusing diplomatic pouches to transfer funds for the outlawed ULFA. Investigations by the Bhutan Police revealed that the two officials had transferred US $38,000 and INR 300,000 in diplomatic pouches between several destinations in Southeast Asia. The Bhutan Government has also denied reports that it had actively supported the ULFA, and asserted, further, that the two officials had acted at an individual level and their actions had nothing to do with the Royal Government.
Sustained pressure from India ultimately made the Royal Government of Bhutan take notice of the situation. In a significant development the National Assembly of Bhutan, in its 78th Session, passed a resolution authorising the Government to launch an armed operation if necessary to flush out insurgents taking shelter in the country. The four-point course of action outlined was:
i. cut off ration supplies to the militants;
ii. punish all groups and individuals found helping the militants by invoking the National Security Act;
iii. pursue the process of dialogue with the militants to make them leave peacefully;
iv. if all efforts fail, military action would have to be taken as a last resort.
The National Assembly resolution was, of course, preceded by several rounds of talks between the Royal Government and the ULFA leadership [32] , including the infamous breakfast diplomacy that the King hosted for the Assamese separatists.
The Home Minister of Bhutan, Thinley Gyamsto, who had held a closed-door meeting with the ULFA 'Chief of Staff', Paresh Baruah on May 7,1999, reportedly held another round of talks with the ULFA leader in the first week of July 2000. In the May 1999 meeting, Paresh Barua had apparently sought a few years time for a withdrawal from Bhutanese soil, and was able to impress upon the Home Minister that the ULFAs presence would not affect the Bhutanese. In the July 2000 meeting, the Home Minister is said to have conveyed to the separatist leader that the Bhutanese Government had 'no option but to be tough.'
A Kuensel
(Bhutans official newspaper) editorial, however, sought to underplay
Bhutans responsibility in the circumstance:
We realise that the ULFA and
Bodo problem is not just the case of a few thousand militants hiding
behind trees. It is a part of a regional political imbroglio with
complex connotations, the most significant being Bhutans relations
with Assam and New Delhi
the financial implications of military
action appeared to stun some members (of the National Assembly). Be
it the cost of arms or infrastructure, what seemed to be a colossal
reserve fund during peace times suddenly diminished in size when seen
as a budget for military activity
Most Bhutanese believe that
the solution is not in Bhutan, it is in India, and that the real solution
is not military but politics.
[33]
The ULFAs initial response
to Bhutan's hardening position was to seek the help of the National
Socialist Council of Nagaland Khaplang (NSCN-K) to set up some
of its camps in Myanmar. However, it also began to make preparations
for the defence of its camps in Bhutan and, accordingly, powerful
landmines are being planted around their areas of influence in that
country. The ULFA leadership also reportedly directed Pradyut Gohain
to increase the arsenal power of the Sukhni-based Seventh Battalion.
In the Bhangtar area, the ULFA has regrouped and reorganised themselves
to face any challenge from the Royal Bhutan Army (RBA).
[34]
The cadres are reportedly moving about freely
wearing RBA ranks with rifles fixed with discharger caps for throwing
grenades in case of an eventuality. Madhab Choudhury, who has
been acting as the ULFAs chief coordinator in the circumstances,
is liasing with the RBA and despite the sabre rattles
[35]
the ULFAs paraphernalia continues
to remain intact. Indeed, the organisation continues to receive rations
through Assam via the Neoli forest route, as also from North Bengal
villages dominated by the Kamtapuris. Bhutanese youth also continue
to supply foodstuff to the ULFA camps.
Adopting what has been perceived in select security circles to be a new method of defence, the ULFA has begun training non-Bhutanese youth in the use of arms in order to build up a strong resistance against the Royal Government of Bhutan. Informed sources have also reported that ULFA (against what has been felt to be all consistent logic) is considering a move deeper into the interiors of Bhutan:
Reports have suggested that 'pigs have started disappearing' from the general area of Yarphu and Halla which are due north, north-east (as the crow flies) of the ULFA camps at Sukhni and Deothang. This combined with some ground sightings suggests the presence of ULFA scouts in the area. In other words, the ULFA is probably planning a movement away from their present locations into the interior of Bhutan. Another report has suggested that an advance party belonging to the separatist organisation has been sighted in hotels in Tashigang which is closer to the Chinese border. The ULFA if the above makes sense seems to be considering a move north, deeper into Bhutan. [36]
In the meantime, the Indian army stationed in Assam specifically the 21 Mountain Division stationed in Rangiya has been making preparations for what could be termed a full-scale operation against the separatists holed up in Bhutan. The writer who has been witness to the scale of the Indian Amy's preparations is of the opinion that in the event of a crack-down, the ULFA will be left with no option but to surrender. Indeed, Lohit Deury who was instrumental in setting up the camps in the Himalayan kingdom informed the writer that the ULFAs "backbone will break in the face of a concerted operation." [37]
The Indian army has mapped every single route leading up to each ULFA camp in Bhutan on immaculately marked sand models. The field intelligence unit of the Indian Army regularly monitors the separatists' movements and the communication network of the ULFA (which analysts agree is quite sophisticated) has also been penetrated to a substantial degree.
The Assam State Police, considered until recently by most as the 'poor cousin' of the Indian Army, has also begun to show its strength, and many a major operation successfully concluded in the past six months can be attributed to this Force. The Assam State Police headed by Hare Krisna Deka and his deputy, G.M. Srivastava who is in charge of all operations, has been particularly successful in infiltrating the ULFA ranks.
A recent operation of the ULFA which was planned by the organisations Chief of Staff, Paresh Baruah himself was foiled as a result of 'active aid of an insider. [38] The ULFA, moreover, has been experiencing erosion in its ranks, and although the recruitment rate continues to be almost the same, surrenders are beginning to tell heavily on the organisations health. Until date, the number of ULFA cadres who have surrendered to the authorities since the Prafulla Kumar Mahanta-led government came to power totals 2,128. Desertions, too, have become frequent. Indeed the ULFA newsletter Swadhinata, which is normally used for propaganda, published the names of twenty-two ULFA cadres who had deserted the organisation. It also provided a list of armaments and money the deserters had spirited away. [39] According to Lohit Deury, moreover, only 5 per cent of the ULFA cadres sent on missions to Assam return to Bhutan. They simply go back to their homes and to their earlier lives. The ULFA has also lost its support base in rural Assam to a substantial extent. And if reports and statements made by surrendered ULFA cadres are to be believed, the organisations personnel on missions in Assam have to pay substantial sums for food from the Assamese people, in order to survive. And cases of villagers handing over ULFA members to the security forces have increased.
The ULFAs losses, therefore, have been
considerable. Two of its important operatives, Lohit Deury and Munna
Misra (the former has surrendered while the latter has reportedly
been executed by the ULFA he was reportedly on a clandestine
'mission' to Dhaka on the instruction of G.M. Srivastava) have been
neutralised. The organisations Assistant Publicity Secretary,
Swadhinata Phukan, was shot by the Police, and many of its operational-level
cadres have been killed in encounters. The outfits monetary
base has depleted and, although reports of extortion notices being
served on people and kidnappings for ransom continue to be received,
the ULFA is facing a serious cash crunch. Indeed, it has reportedly
begun to sell some of its weapons to the Peoples War Group and
the Karbi United Peoples Democratic Solidarity.
The
recent operations of the ULFA, primarily the targeting of linguistic
minorities, is a modus operandi which seems out of place
in its general strategic orientation. The victims were not 'traditional
targets', nor is it immediately clear as to why all of a sudden the
ULFA has begun to eliminate non-Assamese speaking people. The incident
of mass killing in Nalbari, where ten people belonging to a non-Assamese
Hindi speaking community were eliminated, created quite a stir in
the State. And although the Opposition and a section of the Press
have been quick to blame 'Government secret killers,' such allegations
have not provided any reason why the Government of the day would resort
to, or benefit from, such acts. Had it been a case of committing a
crime in order to blame another, the Government's covert agencies
could well have chosen targets which would have clearly suggested
the hand of the separatists.
The
ULFA's reasons for creating the latest situation of disorder, however,
and despite their apparent contradictions, are not beyond explanation.
Its time seems to be running out in Bhutan. It is interesting that
the ULFA plea to Bhutanese officials was to allow them to remain in
the kingdom for another "one and a half years," coinciding
precisely with the forthcoming State Assembly elections. It desperately
needs a breather, which it feels can be created if the State is brought
under Presidents Rule. The next few years are extremely important
for the ULFA, and it is naturally seeking the possibility of having
a government at Dispur which may be a little more conducive to its
existence. The targeting of non-Assamese people can feed the polarisation
of communities. Moreover, New Delhi is apparently quicker to get shocked
out of its complacence when victims happen to be Hindi speaking .
Such actions can also deepen the sense of insecurity among the members
of such communities, and push them towards an alliance with the Bharatiya
Janata Party, thus shifting their present mandate to the AGP government.
There is also the direct benefit of intimidating the community, which
predominantly comprises the business classes, into resuming generous
payments to the ULFA. Whether the ULFA is also acting at the behest
of some political party, as has been alleged, remains to be seen.
[40]
What
are the options before the ULFA today? In the face of an RBA operation,
the ULFA can adopt the following courses of action:
1.
It can shift to Myanmar. And, indeed, Paresh Baruah has requested
its Indo Burmese Revolutionary Front ally, the NSCN(Khaplang) for
the facilitation of bases in Myanmar. But Myanmar is too far afield
and, moreover, its Government has recently assured India of support
in counter-insurgency efforts. This is, consequently, an increasingly
unattractive option.
2.
The ULFA can move to the Tirap and Changlang areas of Arunachal
Pradesh. The Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, Mukut Mithi, has
in fact made a statement on November 4, 2000 in Itanagar, that around
200 ULFA cadres have indeed entered the State. The thrust of the Chief
Ministers statement notwithstanding, it is felt that such lateral
movements by the ULFA are not intended to set up permanent camps in
the State. While it is possible that the organisation is trying to
use diversionary tactics, the heavy presence of the Indian army in
the region would be a considerable deterrent.
3.
The ULFA can go deeper into Bhutan. As stated above, recent
movements do suggest such an intent. Unless, however, the ULFA is
considering a course of action that is manifestly irrational
especially as its striking capabilities in Assam will be reduced considerably
as it moves further north the sightings belie the intention.
At any rate, the Indian army is equipped to strike at places such
as Tashigang in Bhutan through their 5 Mountain Division (which is
a constituent of the Tezpur based IV Corps) which has an area of influence
all the way up to Tawang and beyond. For obvious reasons, it is improbable
that the ULFA would consider such a move.
4.
One more option available to the ULFA is to enter Assam in
batches. Its communications setup, Joymoti and Agnitora, are still
based inside Assam and, despite the loss of public support, beneficiaries
of the ULFA will continue to harbour and aid members of the banned
organisation. But the ULFA leadership is aware that the presence of
security forces and erstwhile members of the organisation will not
allow them a free hand. Indeed, its cadres, in the eventuality of
sustained pressure on them and their families, may well choose the
option of surrender. At any rate, it would be nigh impossible to re-establish
an effective operational paraphernalia in Assam on the lines and the
scale that currently exists in Bhutan, which would keep be necessary
if they are to keep intact their relevance as a 'revolutionary organisation.'
5.
The last option with the ULFA is to return to Bangladesh.
A few of its camps still survive in that country
[41]
. Most of its senior cadres
have established a good network in Dhaka and thereabouts. With a fanatical
resurgence among some of the groups within Bangladesh, it is possible
that the organisation might receive the support it needs from that
country. The corridor the ULFA would use in the event of a move to
Bangladesh from Bhutan, moreover, would be through Kamatapur Liberation
Organisation (KLO) territory, an area that has been cultivated by
the ULFA for some time now. The Inter Services Intelligence (ISI)
of Pakistan and the Directorate General of Field Intelligence (DGFI)
of Bangladesh are agencies which are amenable to the ULFAs needs,
and that also rule the roost in Bangladesh. Indeed, much of ULFA's
current agenda is already reportedly controlled by the ISI. It is
this option which the ULFA is most likely to take.
A former
General Officer Commanding (GOC)of IV Corps has spoken of containing
the ULFA in an area where its movements can be monitored. 'The white
tiger must be confined to the Sunderbans,' was how the Lieutenant
General expressed it. "I will be happy if it is seen in a waterhole
at six in the morning, sighted killing a deer at five in the evening."
[42]
The accent is, therefore, on containment.
The
present GOC of IV Corps, Lt. Gen. Mahesh Vij recently stated in an
interview with the writer
[43]
that unless specifically asked to do so
by the Royal Government of Bhutan, the Indian army will not venture
into the kingdom in order to take on the ULFA. It is fairly evident
that Bhutan will never make such a request. Indeed, a recent statement
by the Royal Government of Bhutan
[44]
made it clear that traditional routes out
of Bhutan (quite a few are through Assam), and the lives and properties
of its citizens, will be endangered if it were to undertake operations
against the ULFA.
The
pragmatic course of action would, therefore, appear to be a containment
of the ULFA within Bhutan. If strategy allows the possibility of dislodging
the organisation somewhat from their present areas of influence in
the kingdom, it may be undertaken. In other words, the separatist
outfit can be pushed into the interiors of Bhutan to areas that are
over a day's march from the border, considerably reducing its striking
power. But care must be taken not to allow the ULFA to move so deep
into Bhutan as to enable them to 'shake hands' with the bigger neighbour
further north. Also, certain allowances to the ULFA by way of selective
passage to some of its cadres and continuance of 'oxygen supply',
the essentials of survival, must be allowed. It keeps the organisation
'warm enough' inside Bhutan, disallowing any disaffection and excessive
frustration that may necessitate a move elsewhere, or desperate actions
against the host state. Such a course would not only allow the detailed
monitoring of the ULFA's activities, it would also leave the door
open for separatists who wish to return home in peace.
* The writer is a Guwahati based security and political analyst.
[1] Although the ULFA was officially termed to have been formed on April 7, 1979, the organisation came into its own only in 1984.
[2] Jaideep Saikia, The ISI reaches East: Anatomy of a conspiracy, Faultlines, New Delhi, 6, 2000, pp. 61-78.
[3] Lohit Deury, an ULFA leader who surrendered on August 14, 2000, told this writer that till date the ULFA has neither audited nor accounted the enormous amount of money it has collected. The National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), on the other hand, keeps immaculate records of its 'revolutionary funds'. On March 19, 2000, the Indian armys 21 Mountain Division operating in lower Assam in the aftermath of an encounter with the NDFB recovered the organisations audit report for the year 1998-99. Made available to the writer, the report contains systematic contents of the receipt and expense break-up. 'Lietenant' B. Laithun signed as the 'Chief Auditor' of the NDFB.
[4] See for instance, Ulfa targets non-Assamese, kills seven, Times of India, New Delhi, November 18, 2000; 10 butchered in ULFA ethnic cleansing, Telegraph, Calcutta, October 28, 2000.
[5] The cry for Presidents Rule increased after the Nalbari killings. The Chief Minister of Assam, Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, speaking in the aftermath of the massacre, stated that the killings were done at the behest of a political party. See also Cong demands PR in Assam, Assam Tribune, Guwahati, October 29,2000.
[6] Opposition parties in Assam have been alleging that the Asom Gana Parishad will utilise the services of Surrendered ULFA (SULFA) cadres in the forthcoming elections to the State Assembly.
[7] Leave peacefully or face force: Bhutan warns ULFA, Sentinel, Guwahati, May 18, 2000.
[8] Sanjoy Hazarika, Strangers of the Mist, New Delhi: Penguin, 1995, p.167.The ULFA Vice Chairman, Pradip Gogoi is under judicial custody in Guwahati. The organisations General Secretary, Anup Chetia is in jail in Dhaka.
[9] Syed Anwar Hussain, Internal Dynamics of South Asian Security: Ethnic dissonance, in Nancy Jetly, ed., Regional Security in South Asia: The Ethno-sectarian dimension, New Delhi: Lancers, 1999, p. 156.
[10] Hazarika, in Strangers of the Mist, writes that Rajkhowas father had, in the past, in fact, headed the AJYCP, p.167.
[11] Interestingly, during the 1998 General elections, the ULFA assassinated Anil Baruah, the CPI (ML) candidate for Dibrugarh.
[12] Udayon Misra, The Periphery Strikes Back, Shimla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study, 2000, pp.133-34.
[13] Samir Kumar Das, ULFA A Political Analysis, Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1994, p.29.
[14] See, Misra, The Periphery Strikes Back, p.135.
[15] Lohit Deury was the General Staff Officer II in the ULFA and the organisations chief coordinator with he Bhutanese establishment. He gave his first exclusive interview to the author after his surrender on August 14, 2000.
[16] Sanjukta Mukti Bahini, Asom Prachar Patra, July 1992, cited in Mishra, The Periphery Strikes Back, pp.141-2.
[17] Ibid, p. 147
[18] Counter-terrorism Operations by the Army in Assam include Operation Bajrang: November 27, 1990 June 10, 1991; Operation Rhino I: September 15, 1991 January 13, 1992; and Operation Rhino II: March 15, 1992 continuing.
[19] 3,475 lives have been lost in the terrorist conflict between January 1992 and June 2000 alone. This includes 1949 civilians; 899 militants; and 527 security force personnel. See www.satp.org.
[20] Kuensel, Thimpu, October 21, 2000. In fact, the National Assembly deliberated upon the security threat posed to Bhutan by ULFAs presence during its 76th and 77th sessions also, in 1998 and 1999 respectively. See Kuensel, September 18,1999, 77th National Assembly Supplement. Further, Bhutans Foreign Minister, Lyonpo Thinley, assured his Indian counterpart that his government would not allow its territory to be used for anti-India activities. See Hindu, Madras, April 28, 2000.
[21] Sentinel, October 22, 2000, reports that the General Head Quarters has been renamed as Defence Wing Office.
[22] The Indian armys 26 Madras Regiment, 10 Bihar Regiment and 5 Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry (JKLI) are stationed in Darranga Mela, Tamulpur and Nalbari respectively. The HQ 107 Mountain Brigade is at Tamulpur, the HQ 21 Mountain Division is positioned at Rangiya. In the past, the 21 Mountain Division especially under the command of Maj Gen B.K. Bopanna, a former GOC had done commendable work in containing insurgency in the area as also promote civic actions among the populace.
[23] The district has recently shown signs of resisting the ULFA.
[24] Interview with the author after his surrender on August 14, 2000
[25] Jaideep Saikia, Indias Neighbours and the Separatists, Sentinel, March 30, 2000.
[26] Jaideep Saikia, Return of the Prodigal Son, Sentinel, August 17, 2000.
[27] Mahanta meets Bhutan envoy, Assam Tribune, June 8, 2000.
[28] Bhutans gesture, Assam Tribune, May 23, 2000.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Bhutan Govt actively aiding ULFA activities, Sentinel, July 1, 2000.
[31] Ibid.
[32] At a meeting held at Bhumthag, Bhutanese Home Minister Lyonpo Thinley Gyamsto introduced this four-point course of action and added that three rounds of talks were held with ULFA and one round with NDFB in which these outfits were told that they must leave Bhutanese territory. Bumthaps express support for National Assembly decision on the ULFA-Bodo problem, Kuensel, October 21, 2000. www.Kuensel.com.bt/news20001021/ulfabodo.htm.
[33] "No easy solution", Kuensel, July 8, 2000.
[34] Bhutan Army ready to oust militants, Assam Tribune, July 12, 2000.
[35] Informed sources told this writer that the RBA has made lateral moves in the last few months. It has also reportedly cautioned the local population from aiding the ULFA. But the moves do not seem to signify anything at the operational level.
[36] Jaideep Saikia, Return home to where the warmth is, Sentinel, July 27, 2000.
[37] Interview with the author after Deury's surrender on August 14, 2000.
[38] Sensing decadence in the organisation, the outfits Chief of Staff, Paresh Baruah had instructed the Operations Commander, Raju Baruah, to cobble together a formidable strike team in order to attack a CRPF outpost in Bansbari, Barpeta. Widely understood as an 'inside job, two of the team members, Champak Patowary and Rocket Tamuly, liquidated several members of the team in a place called Nganglam where the team was resting on the night of August 29, 2000, after which the operation was aborted (Raju Baruah was reportedly injured in the counter attack). One of the strongest ULFA action groups ever to be constituted, the strike force included Rajen Gohain, Amar Singh, Rhino, Dristi Rajkhowa, Pramod Saharia, Ramen Kalita and Rontu Bhaity among others. Raju Baruah was himself in command. Also see, Jaideep Saikia, Anatomy of a counter-strike, Sentinel, September 21, 2000.
[39] Swadhinata (ULFA Newsletter), February 22, 2000.
[40] Assam Tribune, October 29, 2000.
[41] See http://www.satp.org/India/Assam/Terrorist Outfits/ULFA.htm
[42] Confidential discussions with the author.
[43] Jaideep Saikia, Generally speaking, Sentinel, November 2, 2000.
[44] Army action against ULFA, NDFB will spell disaster for Bhutan, Sentinel, October 25, 2000.
|