The ULFA has entered a self-denial mode due not to ignorance, but a ‘fearful’ knowledge of the reality, which is driving it into a double denial: first, that it is no longer the organisation that once could set the terms of nationalist discourse in Assamese society; and second, that it is suffering from a disenchantment in the support it enjoyed in the initial days. For the ULFA, it has become a tactic of survival to self-deny.

 The reference is to the outfit’s demand for a referendum on the issue of sovereignty. Describing elections in the state as a “meaningless fifty year old drama”, it urged the people of Assam to boycott the 2004 Lok Sabha elections , and lent support to a call by the Manab Adhikar Sangram Samiti (MASS), a human rights organization in Assam, for a referendum on whether Assam should secede from, or continue as a part of, the Indian Union. This is not the first time that the ULFA has asked for a referendum on the issue of sovereignty. Prior to the 1999 Lok Sabha elections, it had given a call for a plebiscite to be held under the supervision of the UN. The fact that a 70 percent voter turnout occurred, defeated the call for plebiscite and this can hardly be forgotten by either the ULFA or the general public. The question then is: why has the ULFA reiterated this demand? The retort is that the ULFA did not seek a referendum before it launched its armed movement. The ridicule of the demand should not ignore a serious evaluation of the organisation’s present situation and psyche. It must not be forgotten that the outfit was established at the peak of the anti-foreigner agitation in the seventies, and enjoyed widespread support among the Assamese youth and also the moral support of a large section of the intelligentsia. This support was not necessarily for independence but displayed solidarity with the grievances of the state.

 The most unexpected development has happened since then. The relationship of the ULFA and Bangladesh from where the illegal immigrants are coming into Assam has completely changed. Since the early 1990s, when the ULFA started shifting its base in Bangladesh, the East Bengali immigrants have, in the words of the ULFA itself, become “friends” and “a protective shield” of the ULFA, whose economic contributions are immense, and without whose support the ULFA will find it difficult to fight for the liberation of Assam. Today, the ULFA needs the support of the illegal immigrants and Bangladesh more than that of the Assamese people!

 The ULFA had faced several setbacks in the past: once in March 1992, when a large section of its cadre laid down arms, and again in 2000, when the common people took to the streets in peace rallies, condemning its violence. The latest blow to the ULFA was the Bhutan operation, launched on 15 December 2003. Amidst reports of at least 800 insurgents having surrendered, besides those killed, with many of them expressing their disenchantment with the leadership, the outfit is in a crisis. The leadership quarreled when the military wing put the blame for its failure in Bhutan on the political wing, which reciprocated the favour. It would, however, be naïve to conclude that the organisation has not learnt from these past incidents.

 The ULFA knows two things for sure: one, it has already lost this referendum and second, the Government of India will never accept it. It is the second that is emboldening it to employ the rhetoric of referendum, not to initiate a nationalist discourse, but to deny the reality that Assam does not need the ULFA. This  has dangerous implications if this  self-denial ‘re-launches’ an outfit whose strategies of self-survival have ‘disowned’ the original cause of illegal immigrants which precipitated its birth and projected, till recently, its legitimate image in the Assamese society.

 Against this background, the Government of India must reexamine its options for a negotiated settlement, which is also the desire of the masses. The insistence on abandoning its conditions should not be a matter of ego for Indian democracy, because it only postpones peace that the people of the region want and deserve. The latest demand for a referendum could well be the last cry of the outfit to be heard. Self-denial fulfils its basic need for continuous re-invention lest it loses its insignificance. It is also a sign of the absence of principles. For an outfit like the ULFA, this may lead to a reign of pure terror.