On 15 August 1985, a Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) was entered into between the All Assam Students' Union (AASU), the State of Assam and the Union of India. The MoS, better known as the 'Assam Accord' put an end to the six-year old Assam Agitation and promised "a satisfactory solution to the foreigners in Assam". The Accord has been in news recently as the AASU demanded a personal hearing from the Prime Minister on the implementation of the Accord.

In November 2004, as the Prime Minister was scheduled to arrive in Guwahati to inaugurate the Indo-ASEAN Car rally, the AASU's call for an agitation and threat to put up blockades on the route to be taken by the rally participants was called off only after the Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi's written commitment promising a meeting between the AASU and the Prime Minister on the implementation of the Accord. Now the student body appears to be miffed at the invitation of the Home Minister for a meeting and has made it clear that it would "discuss the issue with the Prime Minister and nobody else."

The AASU's complains against the non-implementation of the Accord combine genuine grievances as well as populist demands intended to garner support and portray the organisation as harbinger of the interests of the people of Assam.

The complain of non-implementation of the provisions of the Accord is primarily linked with the issue of Bangladeshi migration into Assam. Whereas the popular perception in Assam appears to view the issue of migration as a threat to the demography of the State, another view with substantial support belittles any such assessment and believes that migration, if any, from the neighbouring country has stopped. Irrespective of the viewpoints, successive governments at the Centre as well as in the State including those with supposed anti-Bangladeshi migrants outlook like the Assam Gana Parishad (AGP) have done little to address the problem of migration in the State.

The latest census figures, however, suggest that the problem of migration has stabilised at an acceptable rate. Given the fact that the AASU prevented a census in 1981, the decadal population growth rate in Assam between 1991 and 2001 of 18.85 per cent has been found to be less than the national average of 21.34 per cent. Thus, one can safely assume that not many Bangladeshis have entered Assam in the past decade. However, a contending theory points at internal migration, i.e. Bangladeshis entering Assam are moving into other States of the region. For example, Nagaland, which has been complaining of a large-scale Bangladeshi migration into areas such as Dimapur registered an alarming decadal growth rate of 64.41 per cent. In fact, the fact that Assam is the only State in the northeast, which registered a decadal growth rate below the national average, partly substantiates the theory.

However, such an argument has little to pacify the AASU for whom the problem is just not the recent migrants, but also all the people who entered the State after march 1971. In fact, the Accord (point 5.8) said, "Foreigners who came to Assam on or after March 25, 1971 shall continue to be detected, deleted and practical steps shall be taken to expel such foreigners."

AASU also complains against the tardy progress of the border fencing work. The Accord had provided that "the international border shall be made secure against future infiltration by erection of physical barriers like walls, barbed wire fencing and other obstacles at appropriate places." However, only 4 kilometres of border fencing has been completed out of the sanctioned 71.5 kilometres during the second phase of the border fencing, between June 2000 and September 2004.

Another demand has been the provision of a special category status to Assam, which guarantees special protection to the people of Assam. Point 6 of the Accord which in general terms said, "Constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards, as may be appropriate shall be provided to protect, preserve and promote the culture, social, linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people." The AASU, appears to have stretched the demands little too far in not only demanding the establishment of an Upper House in the Assam Legislative Assembly guaranteeing representation to all ethnic communities of Assam but also 100 per cent local employment in government and private institutions, complete local representation in all elected bodies from the Panchayati Raj institutions to the Parliament and exclusive land and resource ownership to the Assamese people.

Given the nature of demands, it is unlikely that AASU, even if it succeeds to meet the Prime Minister, would be able to achieve much in terms of the implementation of its demands. With the exception of perhaps speeding up of the border fencing work, it is improbable that the Union government would be able to bend much to the wishes of the student organisation.