Balladeer of the Masses: "A Tribute to Bhupen da!"

                                                                                             Tanmoy Sharma

First published in the 21 November, 2011 issue of Open magazine. Re-posted here. Click here for the original essay.

This anecdote goes back to the 1970s, during the peak of the Naxal uprising in eastern India. Bhupen Hazarika, after performing at a late-night show in Kolkata, was returning home in an Ambassador car. To avoid traffic, he took a shortcut. But within minutes came an obstruction: the car was stopped by a gang of young shawl-clad, bearded gunmen. Petrified, Hazarika stepped out of the car. Seeing the singer—to their grand surprise—the ferocious young men dropped their guns, touched his feet, and said, “Who on this planet will kill you, Bhupenda?” The next morning, Hazarika got phone calls from other star singers, informing him that they had been looted by the same ‘dacoits’ while returning from the venue.                                                                                                 

This is one instance among hundreds of others that could help explain how a man who never was a conventional megastar could shatter such a huge mass of land and people with his death. On 6 November, the day after his demise at the age of 85, all newspapers in Assam had one thing in common—not a single story other than this was carried in any of the 14-page broadsheets. All roads in Guwahati led to the historic Judges Field, as hundreds of thousands thronged for a last glimpse of the music maestro, whose body was kept there for two whole days.

Bhupen Hazarika was the balladeer of the masses. Immensely popular as the ambassador of east India’s rich folk music, ‘Bhupenda’, as he was fondly called, became nothing less than a legend in Assam, his birth land. Our grandparents, the aged of today, narrate stories of how a young Bhupen Hazarika would come to sing in the remotest of small towns. My father, who came to be closely associated with him during the tumultuous Assam Movement in the 1980s, tells me, “Assam was burning in inter-ethnic violence after the imposed elections of 1983. The All Assam Students Union (Aasu) decided to launch a month-long integration drive to be led by Bhupenda. We travelled through nooks and corners of the state. At every village, our convoy would be stopped, anguished villagers would draw him out of the car and accord him a hero’s welcome—unimaginable          even today.”

His popularity amongst all ethnic groups of Assam is a matter of some incredulity. At that time, the Aasu could penetrate some severely affected belts only because of Hazarika. “At a particular Bodo village near Gohpur in Golaghat district, where tensions between the Assamese and Bodos had reached a climax, we began our programme with a Bodo speaker. The whole crowd got agitated. ‘What do you think of us? No one will be allowed to speak until Bhupenda starts,’ they cried,” my father recollects. 

Generation after generation in Assam, West Bengal and Bangladesh grew up listening to his immortal classics. He was the wilful optimist who always dreamt of weaving together various ethnic aspirations to create a ‘Golden Assam’, integrated in harmony.

Linguistic jingoism and radical assertions of upper-caste Assamese Hindus had led to a fragmentation of undivided Assam in the 1960s. Hazarika was dead opposed to this. ‘The broad clouds of the wet Cherrapunji sky, cuddle our Brahmaputra in the shape of rains,’ he sang in the Assamese song He He Dhole Dogore, advocating the unity of Assamese in the plains and Khasis in the Meghalaya hills. And lyrical ballads such as Siangore Galong and Tirap Ximanto created such a unique bond between Arunachal Pradesh and Assam that the love is still intact.

In 1960-61, when the Bhasha Andolan in Assam took a violent turn, it was Hazarika’s magic that bridged the gap between the Assamese and Bengalis—‘No alphabetic letter for the language of love’, he sang. He used his music as a potent tool in bridging divides, but the same music also reflected a deep-rooted commitment to his Assamese roots, its people, language and culture. Assam had had a fraught political relationship with New Delhi since Independence. In this scenario, Hazarika appeared like a messiah of the Brahmaputra valley, representing their aspirations.

Academic Sanjib Baruah once wrote, ‘He is probably the most influential figure in postcolonial Assamese cultural life.’ Hazarika’s ballads chronicle the political history of Assam, the central metaphors revolving around the Brahmaputra river and Bohag Bihu, the spring festival of Assam.

Benedict Anderson’s popular work on nationalism, which describes it as ‘imagined into existence’, touches the spirit of Hazarika’s lyrical narrative somewhat. He always envisaged the creation of a great Assamese ‘nationality’, inclusive in its very essence. He constructs a landscape of ‘the beautiful mother Assam with untold virtues, the land of sunrise in the east of India’. The song Mahabahu Brahmaputraenvisions the mighty river as being the holy site of great synthesis down the ages. His became a powerful voice in the articulation of subnationalist Assamese aspiration, singing, ‘Bohag is not just a season; nor is it a month; it is the lifeline of the Assamese nation, and the verve of the masses.’

Even so, Hazarika could successfully direct subnationalist Assamese sentiments towards a pluralist arena of ‘Indianism’. Take, for instance, the six-year-long Assam Movement that started in 1979 with a demand to deport illegal Bangladeshi immigrants, which later evolved as a justified politico-economic struggle of the Assamese people seeking a legitimate space within the Indian political system. At that crucial historical moment, Hazarika, the undisputed champion of cultural politics, authoritatively showed Assam the way ahead. One of his iconic songs, written during this time, goes, ‘Today every Assamese is a good Indian, and every Indian who came to Assam from faraway corners, making her their motherland, is a new Assamese. And we would rather live like this.’

Such an affinity for pan-Indian cultural life can be traced to Hazarika’s early days with Jyoti Prasad Agarwalla and Bishnu Prasad Rabha, two patriarchs of modern Assamese culture. The volatile independence struggle of the 1930s and 1940s induced a socialist fervour in the young Hazarika, which helped him look out to the Gangas, Narmadas and Godavaris for wide-perspective inspiration.

Recollecting his stay at Banaras Hindu University in the 1940s, Hazarika once wrote in an autobiographical essay, ‘Proximity to towering intellectuals like Radhakrishnan, SP Mukherjee and Madan Mohan Malaviya and stories of friends from different parts of the country made me realise that we are all the same.’ He later sang: ‘Love for my mother doesn’t mean hatred for the other’s.’

Fusing this attitude with an unparalleled personal aura, he soon became a favourite in cultural hubs like Kolkata and Mumbai. But Hazarika, though he had a Dadasaheb Phalke Award by his side, chose to stay away from the hustle and bustle of commercial Bollywood cinema. Rather, he went on to give the nation songs like Dil Hoom Hoom Kare and O Ganga Boichho Kaino, the latter becoming an anthem of people’s struggle across the country.

Looking back, one is certain to be puzzled by varied streams of his musical evolution. Despite maintaining strong subnationalist leanings, he displayed a mellow Indianism through innumerable songs for larger causes. Deep intellectual formations during his eventful sojourn at the prestigious Columbia University, and his profound friendship with singer and activist Paul Robeson in New York, encouraged him to devote a life of music to the service of humanity, transcending boundaries. Robeson taught him, “The strum of a guitar can alter the way a society thinks.” Till his last concert, Hazarika kept enthralling audiences with Robeson’s epic song, We are in the same boat, brother.

The Beatles sang, ‘Everybody’s talkin’ bout this-ism, that-ism, all we are saying is give peace a chance.’ Despite varying ideological bends, Hazarika too was a world citizen seeking true peace, singing the anthem of humanity from Tokyo to New York, Mississippi to Danube:Manuhe Manuhor Babe ( If man is indifferent to man, who else will think of man?). Equally a legend in the endless green plains of Bangladesh, he sang, Ganga aamar ma, Padma aamar Ma. Jai Jai Nabojat Bangladesh (Hail newborn Bangladesh), which he composed and sang in 1972 at the Berlin Music Festival, celebrating the liberation of the new country, became the unofficial anthem of Bangladesh after Amar Shonar Bangla.

Indeed, the self-confessed ‘roving nomad’ belongs to all, cutting across caste, creed and religion, crossing borders of states. With his demise, South Asia has lost one of its most influential cultural communicators. But his songs and spirit endure. For he sings, ‘Though for so long have I swum in the confluence of oceans, I’m yet not tired; coz’ the tides in the Pacific of my mind continue to be restless.’

[Photo courtsey- Himjyoti Talukdar, Enajori.com]

Talking to ULFA: Assam's Peace Myths and Reality

                                                                                                                    by Tanmoy Sharma

First  published  in  Kafila.org  on  February 28, 2011

Last week, when an eight member delegation of the outlawed United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) returned to Guwahati after the first round of peace-talks with the central government in New Delhi, the response in Assam is a mixed bag of emotions. Arabinda Rajkhowa, the ULFA chairman who led the delegation, while addressing the press, said that they had been assured of an honourable solution  to the three decade long Assam conflict by the Prime Minister.  Earlier, on 10^th February the ULFA made history by coming to the talks table in New Delhi for the first time with no firm pre set conditions on its agenda.  It is understood as of now, that no substantial talks would begin before the Assam assembly elections  which are expected to be held in April-May this year.  However  this ‘familiarisation exercise’ of the centre with one of India’s most influential and violent separatist outfits at such a crucial time is a hugely significant move in the contemporary history of  the insurgency-hit election bound Assam.

Separatist insurgency, fuelled by ULFA during the last three decades in pursuit of an independent homeland, had become a part of life in the politics of Assam a long way back. However things seem to have been gradually progressing with dramatic changes happening in the last one and a half year which all began with Arabinda Rajkhowa’s arrest by the Bangladesh government in the last week of November, 2009. With the new formed Sheikh Hasina government’s backing to India on counter insuregency measures, the months of November and December, 2009 saw a severe blow  to the already weakened ULFA when one after another top leader was being arrested by the security forces. Barring Paresh Baruah, the elusive Commander in Chief of the outfit, the catch of the entire top brass of ULFA was seen as a big leap in the much talked about long awaited peace process in Assam.

Even as these leaders were brought back to India, a new attempt was taken up by prominent public intellectual Dr. Hiren Gohain to restore the already stalled peace process between the insurgents and the government. Since the previous efforts by noted author Indira Goswami and People’s Consultative Group to build an environment for dialogue failed to great disappointment in 2006, the people in Assam by and large started hoping for a positive result with the initiative of Dr. Gohain led state level convention (SJA) . Apparently it seems that the new effort has finally borne some fruit as from the month of May, 2010 to this January, all the arrested ULFA leaders were being released on bail and they include-vice-chairman Pradip Gogoi, publicity chief Mithinga Daimary, deputy c-in-c Raju Baruah  and political ideologue  Bhimkanta Buragohain apart from chairman Rajkhowa. Sensing the strong public opinion yearning for permanent peace in Assam, this is seen as a very calculated move by the government.

Although there is little doubt over the willingness of the centre to resolve the brutal Assam conflict which has taken a toll of 30000 lives till date  in the crossfire, the behaviour is puzzling. To those of us who have been curiously and constantly watching the changing political dynamics of Assam for a long period of time, the government is sure to have understood two basic things. The first is that  this supposedly moderate faction of ULFA sans Paresh Baruah have been separatist only in rhetoric but autonomist in aspirations and they now secretly aspire to join mainstream politics; which is why it would be possible to start the dialogue without placing sovereignty on table. Secondly and most importantly, for the UPA at New Delhi and the Congress government in Assam, there cannot be a better time than this with polls just round the corner to accelerate the peace process realizing fully the fact that the ULFA leaders ,just out of prison, have no other option than to drop the sovereignty demand from their agenda,  which makes their bargaining power much lesser than that of the NSCN(IM) in Nagaland.

Now, one doesn’t need to be a political scientist to understand that the whole story of ULFA’s general council’s recent approval to facilitate peace talks without any pre conditions is largely a state engineered process on one hand and the helpless submission of the political leadership of an extremist organization which vowed to fight till death solely to attain Assam’s sovereignty way back in 1979, on the other. However in the middle of this high pitch political drama; the people of Assam have strangely become a confused lot. In the temptation of making the whole thing a super strong political campaign, the most crucial factor that has been ignored by the government is the main military man of ULFA, who has always called the shots-Paresh Baruah. Just before the talks began in New Delhi, C-in C Paresh Baruah for the first time in the last thirty years had sent a video footage to the local Assamese media from an unknown location in Burma showing his still intact military strength, clearly warning the peace lobby. The arrogant military head of the outfit has been reiterating that no dialogue can be held without sovereignty on its agenda.

With ULFA now being a divided house with its political leadership going ahead with unconditional peace talks and a large chunk of armed cadres still in jungle under the authority of Baruah, people of Assam are seriously dubious about the extent of peace these talks would bring. There is no doubt that after the 2003 crackdown of ULFA in Bhutan and consequent operations of the Bangladeshi security forces to eliminate them, the ULFA is finding it increasingly difficult to sustain itself. Apart from that, the mass support it enjoyed in the 80’s and 90’s is also waning heavily. However Paresh Baruah, a known to be stubborn leader and the few men he has are still sufficient to wreak havoc in Assam irrespective of public opinion. And if Paresh Baruah’s men once again decide to wage an active war, it is the people of Assam who will become the worst sufferer in the futile battle of guns.

The question is where the solution lies. It is, at this very juncture, important to distinguish the Assamese separatist movement from the Kashmir, Nagaland and Manipur issue. Unlike the socio-historical origin of the secessionist sentiments in the other cases, separatist Assamese extremism began much later after India’s independence. As a matter of fact, the ULFA issue in Assam, India’s tea and oil heartland, came forth on economic premises much more than any historical or ethno-nationalist ground. Notwithstanding the fact that ULFA gradually turned into a terrorist organization taking to brutal killing of hundreds of innocent civilians, everyone in Assam agrees that the beginning of this insurgency was a result of the ‘long term accumulated frustration of the people of Assam’. The feeling of alienation from New Delhi and the exploitation of state’s resources by outside parties both centre and foreign industries without due share to the locals had resulted in tumultuous democratic movements in the past which yielded nothing more than pompous promises.

That’s why when a new generation of educated young men and women took up guns out of absolute anger, a huge amount of sympathy emanated from a large number of Assamese people. People of Assam who had happily assimilated to the idea of the Indian nation state more than one and a half century back, still do not want an independent Assam carved out of India.  Although ULFA had been able to draw a significant amount of sympathy from every Assamese household, they however failed to inculcate the crying necessity of a sovereign Assam in people’s minds. Yet, the brutal ant-insurgency measures adopted by the state killing almost everyone in the name of suspects helped grow the sympathy. That is why, in most of Assam’s rural areas, ULFA men are still romanticized as national heroes.

Hence, if the government of India wants to end the story with this incomplete development, considering it to be a great diplomatic win of the state, the ramifications can be disastrous. Assam, already being home to more than twenty insurgent groups with different demands, cannot expect to see real peace until Paresh Baruah, the de facto chief of the biggest insurgent outfit of the land comes to discussion table. It should be best left to the people of Assam to decide whether sovereignty, as per Baruah’s demand, should be put on the discussion table or not. However people of Assam firmly believe that the solution to permanent peace in this very land although doesn’t lie in its territorial separation from India, but to a great extent lies in greater autonomy of Assam and the freedom from the plunder of state’s resources. For that matter, the world’s largest democracy has nothing to lose in thinking of some substantial constitutional amendments.

Thus Sudan Splits, What's Next for the Aspiring Rest?

                                                                                                 Tanmoy Sharma

First  published in  Kafila.org   on  February 3,  2011.

 

To add to the tumultuous political dynamics of Africa, the world is most likely to see a new country adorning its map by the middle of this year with the two-way split of the continent’s largest country, Sudan.  For Africa, which has again hit the international headlines for fresh troubles in Ivory Coast, Tunisia and most recently in Egypt, civil wars based on identity and protests against despotic governments are nothing new. However the larger question that has kept many wondering is whether the world is going to see a new era of a large-scale statebirth with the formation of South Sudan, a process that almost stopped barring the examples of Kosovo two years back or East Timor  ten years back. As millions of jubilant south Sudanese in the city of Juba, went to vote in a long awaited independence referendum in the second week of January to see their war torn region emerge as a new nation, it will be important to revisit the troubling status quo of other regions of the world demanding secession.

Although there is a slight anxiety of the African leaders over the formation of the new state, the world as a whole has hugely welcomed the move. Specially, many in the western press have opined that secession is the only way forward for the South as the ‘long marriage between Sudan’s Arab-and-Muslim north and its black, animist and Christian south’ has always been unhappy and disastrous with the constant conflict fuelled by ethnicity and oil. During the course of the 50 year long brutal conflict, around 2 million southerners have died in their struggle for freedom. Africa’s longest civil war till date, this north-south conflict had gained momentum  when the military ruler General Nimeiry  in 1983  suddenly imposed strict Sharia laws for the  nation with the intention of transforming Sudan into a completely Muslim Arab state which sent a wrong message to  the  already autonomous Christian South.  Late John Garang, the first secessionist national leader from the South took side of the Western powerhouse after the collapse of the socialist block. His former deputy, Salva Kiir is going to be the President of the new nation of South Sudan. With the surrendering support  of the Sudanese President Omar Hasan al Bashir ,The United States has certainly taken a tricky advantage of the situation by being a key architect of this internationally sanctioned referendum (promised in 2005) to  hack apart the Arab-Muslim world.  However to maintain stability, the USA  must have a balanced policy as China too will finally start cultivating good relations with the South as it has a huge stake in the oil sector.  Even leaving aside the diplomatic equations, the sentiments and aspirations of all the South Sudanese make the idea of a new nation look perfectly alright.

However on the other hand, the all-time stand of the African Union (A.U.)  against the divide of countries on the basis of ethnicity and religion fearing probable violence and new civil wars opens up the flipside of this international debate. Apart from the unresolved issues of border demarcation, the burden of debt on the shoulders of the South, sharing of oil revenues, poor infrastructure of the South and the dispute over the oil producing province of Abyei, there are other dangers as well, smelled by the AU. It is everyone’s common knowledge that experiments of secession, especially in the case of the mineral rich Katanga from Congo  or that of “Biafra” from Nigeria   had miserably failed in the past but led to the loss of more than a million lives. Again, there is a possibility of a serious conflict over the issue of oil export through the North as the South will be a totally landlocked country with no coastal lines. Prevalent ethnic   tensions between different groups within and along the boundary of South may also raise violent attempts of secession.

Whatever the apprehensions may be, what is more important now  to see is what impact this Independence of South Sudan will have in the other  quasi states and sovereignty aspiring regions of the world where frustration and agony have reached an all time peak. The precedent set by this exercise of self determination culminating in sovereignty, may pacify the process leading to an independent Palestine sometime very soon as the Palestinian leaders  are pushing for their national sovereignty within the 1967 borders of the country. History may soon witness a fully sovereign Kurdistan nation state carved out from a fractured Iraq. Given the way things are happening in the new millennium, the international relations experts are even not ruling out the possibility of an independent South Ossetia or a Somaliland or a Darfur. The story of Kosovo and South Sudan, as opined by many, will no doubt encourage the Indian separatists as well.  This will surely raise some serious questions on the ignorant attitude of the Indian state towards a similar referendum proposal for Kashmir  by the United Nations Security Council in 1948. The Indian government will also need to look into the “Nagalim” question more seriously in order to keep up its image with fast changing international diplomacy.

At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, when things in the modern world are resembling more with the tumultuous political dynamics of the medieval era, the voice for partition and self determination of every second group is getting louder and stronger. It is the job of diplomacy to decide which voices are legitimate and which are not as emotions often lead to a catastrophe. At the same time, all sovereignty demands can also not be ruled out as oppressive governments in many parts of the world have made life hell for the masses. However one thing is certain, without democratic mass support neither violence nor sanction can bring full freedom. Equally, there can be no real peace if a state arrogantly and brutally sticks to its claim over a region, whose people never want to be a part of that state. If South Sudan’s model succeeds tomorrow without any outbreak of violence,  a few more nations coming out of full mass support  and freed from repressive regimes, doesn’t seem like a bad idea for a better and peaceful new world!