GUWAHATI
Decades after blood was spilt on the streets of southern Assam’s Silchar, a new academic study examines how language, power and identity converged to produce one of the State’s most volatile conflicts.
The study, published in Contemporary South Asia, analyses the 1961 violence to argue that the crisis was not inevitable but the result of political choices, policy failures and deep-seated historical anxieties. It contends that language in Assam has never been merely a means of communication but has functioned as a marker of belonging and, at times, a trigger for violence.
The authors of the study are Md. Chingiz Khan of the Centre for Comparative Religions and Civilisations at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, Ravi Shankar of the School of Global Affairs at B.R. Ambedkar University, Delhi, and Bharti Shokeen of Sri Karan Narendra Agriculture University, Jobner.
The study traces the flashpoint to 1961, when the Assam government amended its Official Language Act to recognise Assamese as the sole official language, while allowing limited use of Bengali in parts of the Barak Valley. The decision triggered widespread protests across the region.
Firing by security forces at demonstrators in Silchar left 11 people dead on May 19, 1961, a moment that remains deeply etched in the collective memory of the Barak Valley.
The study argues that reducing the episode to an “Assamese versus Bengali” conflict obscures its deeper complexity. Assam, it notes, has long been a multilingual and multi-ethnic society, home to Ahoms, Bengalis, tribal communities, Manipuris and Muslims, whose coexistence was disrupted by rigid language policies.
“An intersectional approach, considering temporality, ethnicity, region, culture, and politics, offers a more nuanced understanding [of the issue]. Assam’s identity has been shaped by centuries of migration, cultural exchange, and layered histories, making rigid categorisations reductive,” the study observes.
Colonial legacy
The study underlines the decisive role of colonial policies in shaping linguistic hierarchies. British administrators classified and ranked languages through censuses and surveys, transforming fluid identities into rigid categories.
The imposition of Bengali as the language of administration in 19th century Assam marginalised Assamese speakers in courts and government employment. When Assamese later regained official status, the balance shifted, fuelling resentment among Bengali speakers, particularly in Bengali-majority regions such as Cachar.
According to the study, language became closely tied to access to power. Official recognition translated into employment opportunities, control over land records and political influence. Communities that felt excluded came to view language policy as an existential threat.
In Cachar, where Bengali speakers formed an overwhelming majority, the enforcement of Assamese was perceived as cultural domination. In the Brahmaputra Valley, concessions to Bengali speakers were seen as undermining Assamese identity.
The study notes that the violence of 1961 reflected both popular anger and institutional failure, with the Centre and the Assam government underestimating the depth of the crisis. Interim measures such as the Shastri Formula failed to address underlying tensions. Political parties were divided, bureaucracies were paralysed, and sections of the media, particularly newspapers published from Calcutta, were accused of aggravating the situation.
Beyond communal binaries
The study rejects the notion that the movement was communal in nature. Protesters on all sides included Hindus, Muslims and tribal groups, underscoring that language solidarity often cut across religious lines. This, the authors argue, exposes the limitations of narratives that frame the conflict as Hindu versus Muslim or indigenous versus migrant.
It also draws attention to smaller linguistic communities whose concerns were marginalised as Assamese and Bengali groups competed for dominance. Tribal languages, the study notes, faced the risk of gradual erosion amid the larger struggle.
The authors conclude that the fault lines exposed in 1961 continue to shape contemporary debates around citizenship, belonging and indigeneity, particularly in the context of the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. The lesson, they argue, is that imposing monolingual solutions in a linguistically diverse society is a recipe for unrest.
Published – January 02, 2026 05:10 pm IST
