SPARKING off yet another controversy, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma is now questioning the existence of Bagh Hazarika, a storied Muslim warrior of the Ahom army which had defeated the Mughals in the famous Battle of Saraighat. In several statements over the past week, Sarma has been claiming that Ismail Siddique, better known by his battle title Bagh Hazarika, was a “fictitious character”, celebrated at the expense of “real generals” to “serve the interests of Left intellectuals”. With the statement provoking sharp reactions from the Muslim community, 10 scholars and activists have issued a statement accusing Sarma of making “communal” claims. The tales of Bagh Hazarika's heroic valour bear significant cultural weight in Assam’s history and society, particularly for Assamese Muslims. Said to be a trusted aide of the celebrated Ahom general Lachit Borphukon in the 1671 battle against the Mughal Army, he is held up as an important symbol for the argument that “Assamese” is the primary identity of “indigenous” Assamese Muslim communities such as Goria, Moria and Deshi. However, since it came to power in the state, the BJP has adopted the story of Borphukon as part of its glorification of “Hindu” warriors who had taken on the Muslim Mughals, a narrative in which Bagh Hazarika is an uncomfortable fit. In November, the Assam government held mega events to push for the recognition of Barphukan as a “national hero”, who had taken on the Mughals much the same way as Shivaji. While Sarma didn't talk of Bagh Hazarika then, the Hindu Jagran Manch had at that time claimed that Hazarika was a “fictional character”. The CM first raised the issue of the General's legendary aide last week. “During the celebration of 400 years of Lachit’s birth anniversary, some intellectuals from Assam had questioned and said that Lachit was not a ‘Hindu hero’, that he was not an ‘Indian hero’. One question was that one Bagh Hazarika had fought alongside Lachit. Which history has this Bagh Hazarika come from? No one in Assam has questioned this till now,” he said at an event. At another event Thursday, he repeated: “No one ever told us anything about the Battle of Saraighat. Because Leftists only wanted to tell us that there was Lachit and Bagh Hazarika on one side, meaning that there were Hindus and Muslims on this side also, and that on the other side too, Aurangzeb and Ram Singh, Hindu and Muslim, were together. So this was just a war between rulers, that there was no ideological basis to this. But that in this there was a resolve for independence, that in this there was a question of self-respect. these things we were not allowed to know.” The CM added: “It has been put in people’s minds that there was one Bagh Hazarika. But if one reads all the buranji (Ahom chronicles) from the era of the Battle of Saraighat, there is no mention of Bagh Hazarika. Those (Ahom generals) whose names are there (in the buranjis), why have those names been forgotten? Why have the youth of Assam not been allowed to know the name of the generals? Because these will not serve the interests of Left intellectuals,” he said. Nurul Haque, working president of the Sadou Asom Goria-Moria-Deshi Jatiya Parishad, said that these statements are meant to chip away at a long-held axiom of the community. “It's like a threat to Assamese Muslims. Because Bagh Hazarika’s character is tied to our identity of Assamese Muslims. As a Muslim, he fought against the Mughals as an Assamese, and we take that as an ideal, as an ideology. It’s a point of reference for us to contest against those who associate us with radical forces or with Muslims from Bangladesh,” he said. A scholar who did not want to be named said that the presence of Bagh Hazarika does not suit the “current dispensation’s attempts to portray Lachit as a Hindu icon”. Writer Arup Kumar Dutta, author of the book The Ahoms: A Reimagined History said that Bagh Hazarika has a life in the state’s oral traditions, which should be looked at as historical sources. “Buranjis are the only documentary source for historians to study the Ahom dynasty but are unfortunately monarch-centric, so a lot of information is not contained in documented history. For instance, we know very little about the antecedents of Lachit himself. Bagh Hazarika for obvious reasons is not a part of documented history as we know it, but that does not mean that this is a fictitious character. For a region like Assam where documentation is limited because of various factors, including environmental factors, oral traditions among common folk is an important source of history. Some families also maintain their own personal history records which are not monarch-centric. We have descendents of Bagh Hazarika who maintain some records. To fully understand history, we should not just look at conventional history sources,” said Dutta. Historian Udayaditya Bharali also pointed to oral history traditions. “If you only look at Ahom buranjis, it’s exclusive. They don’t say anything about ordinary leaders, just topmost commanders. Subordinate officials are not mentioned. This (Sarma's) is a political reading of history,” he said. The Sarma government has taken several measures to reinforce its Hindutva leanings, with the CM himself never one to refrain from wading into Assam’s tricky linguistic and religious waters. Last year, the Assam Cabinet approved the identification of five Assamese Muslim sub-groups — Goriya, Moriya, Julha, Deshi, and Syed — as “indigenous” Assamese Muslim communities, effectively setting them apart from Bengali-speaking Muslims.
