India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act attempted to solve this problem by allowing immigrants to settle in specific parts of districts demarcated for ‘new settlers’. 110 This, however, did not halt migration. Separate electorates and limited franchise after the passage of the Government of India Act 1935 caused this issue to acquire communal undertones. 111 Maulana Bhasani (1880–1976), one of East Bengal’s longest-serving politicians, started his career with a Bengali agitation in Assam, arguing that restrictions to immigration hindered ‘land development’. 112 This was made worse by the musical chairs in the Government of Assam: the Muslim League and Congress alternated power through 1935–1947. The Muslim League was seen as encouraging Bengali — largely Muslim — settlers from Mymensingh and Dacca districts under the guise of the ‘Grow More Food’ programme; the Congress pursued an ‘Assam for Assamese’ policy, even being ambivalent about Bengali Hindus. 113 As Partition drew closer, the Muslim League claimed Assam, despite Muslims being a minority in the province, arguing that Bengal–Assam, as a unit, had a bare Muslim majority. 114 At Partition, most of Assam’s largest district, Sylhet, was excised from Assam and added to East Bengal; the rest of the province stayed with India. After 1947, the new Government of Assam, now Congress-dominated and with the Muslim League reduced to political insignificance, saw the Partition as a way to rework Bengali migration as a question of national security rather than merely a provincial concern. This necessarily required modifying the contours of the issue. No longer was the issue to be framed as an Assamese versus Bengali struggle; Assamese Members of Parliament now had to tone down their opposition to Hindu Bengali migration, which had increased after Partition, while giving a sinister overtone to Muslim migration. Muslims in border districts were increasingly seen as potential fifth columnists, with suspect loyalty and intentions. As early as the Calcutta Inter-Dominion Conference in April 1948, Gopinath Bordoloi, Assam’s Premier, had confronted East Bengal’s politicians with his demand that Muslim migration to Assam cease forthwith. 115 A month later, he followed that up with a complaint to the Indian Home Minister, Sardar Patel. While the movement of Hindus was seen as ‘due to fear complex … and discriminatory treatment’, 116 the movement of Muslims could only be explained, for these legislators, in terms of Pakistani aggression. Therefore, he argued, it was 110 See Amalendu Guha, ‘East Bengal Immigrants and Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhasani in 111 112 113 114 115 116 Assam Politics, 1928–47’ (1976) 13(4) The Indian Economy and Social History Review 419, 419–42. As Amalendu Guha explains, this question had various dimensions. On the whole, Assamese Hindus were anti-settler. Assamese Muslims were ambivalent — they disliked the lumpen Bengali-speaking settlers but held out the possibility of them becoming ‘Assamified’. Bengali Hindus were increasingly worried, over time, about their position as a linguistic and religious minority in the province. Bengali Muslims, almost unanimously, opposed the line system and argued for unrestricted settlement. Monoj Kumar Nath, The Muslim Question in Assam and North-East India (Routledge Press 2021) 37–42. ibid 38–39. For a deeper history of this, see Udayon Misra, Burden of History: Assam and the Partition —Unresolved Issues (Oxford University Press 2017) 44–45, 47–48. Memorandum by Sir Stafford Cripps (L/P&J/5/337) reproduced in Nicholas Mansergh (ed), Constitutional Relations Between India and Britain: The Transfer of Power 1942–47 (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office 1970) vol VII, 177. Bengal and Assam together had a Muslim majority population of 51.6%. Calcutta Conference (n 87) 5. Letter from the Premier of Assam to Home Minister Sardar Patel for Checking the Migration of Bengali Muslims reproduced in Bhasin (n 66) 7188. 225