India - Articles

The issue of illegal immigrants in Assam represents lack of national clarity over a desirable policy on the issue of immigrants. Numerical guarantee in elections has solely authored this ambiguity over the decades by undermining, in the process, considerations of national security. However, if ambiguity is by choice, its motif should hardly be electoral considerations when it comes to the domain of national security.

In a series of about turns, the Government of India performed the latest volte-face when it retracted its position that there were about 50 lakh illegal immigrants in Assam. On 23 July, 2004 Union Minister of State(Home) Manikrao Gavit made a ‘clarificatory note’ in the Rajya Sabha on behalf of Union Minister of State (Home), Shriprakash Jaiswal that the figures provided by the latter on the same floor on 14 July was not based on “a comprehensive studyâ€� but on “hearsayâ€�. Sriprakash Jaiswal had stated that there were 1, 20, 53, 950 (over 12 million) Bangladeshis living across 17 states as on 31 December 2001.  Out of that, the estimate given for Assam was 5 million. Prior to that, Jaiswal told the Lok Sabha on 6 July that the number of illegal immigrants in the state was 26,490!  The clarificatory note followed pressure on the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh by the Tarun Gogoi government which contended that it was ‘‘a sensitive issue fraught with serious political implicationsâ€�. Manmohan Singh obliged by declaring on 20 July that “‘we do not know how reliable the estimate is or how they were arrived atâ€�. The history goes back thirty years ago to the then Chief Minister Hiteshwar Saikia who overnight ate his words that 30 lakh Bangladeshis entered Assam every year.

The message sought to be conveyed was that no realistic assessment of the situation could be made and hence, no authoritative voice accepted.  Along with this, however, went another undeclared message: the government does not take the issue seriously. It is the latter that the nation cannot afford knowing well that the ghosts of the Assam agitation are creating havoc and can strike with fuller force in the coming days. It is common knowledge how an anti foreigners movement got appropriated in a demand for sovereignty.

In February 2001, the Report of the Group of Ministers on Internal Security had said, “the massive illegal immigration poses a grave danger to our security, social harmony and economic well being.â€� In 1999, Assam Governor, S K Sinha drew attention of the Centre to the fast changing demographic patterns in the state in the context of the advocacy of ‘Greater Bangladesh’.  The reported estimate was that the illegal migrants were in a position to influence the outcome in 32 per cent of the total Assembly seats (40 out of 120). The Group of Ministers, while noting that a proposal was under consideration, recommended the repeal of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983, which in its opinion had served the negative purpose of actually retarding deportation of illegal immigrants.

Controversial provisions of the IMDT Act 1983 have also strengthened a belief among many Assamese that they are being discriminated upon. The Act has made detection and deportation of illegal immigrants virtually impossible. Besides putting the onus of proof on the complainant, it requires the complainant to be within the radius of 5 kms of the migrant. As the name suggests, tribunals led by retired judges, not the executive as is the norm, would decide on that. It provides that anybody who settled in Assam before 25 March 1971 is a legal citizen of India whereas the cut-off date for the rest of India is 19 July 1948. The double migration policy can hardly be seen as just.

As if the above legal framework is not enough, after more than twenty years of the passing of the Act, the Government of India has privileged ambiguity over the issue through numerical contestations. It does not help the cause even of the legal migrants. Recent history is witness to that.

Two options are clear. One is to advocate the case for a South Asia with open borders. It involves acknowledging the historical tragedies and carrying forward the human responsibilities. India may champion the ideals of global oneness and abolition of artificial boundaries. The second, not bad by the yardsticks of the practices of international nation-state system, is to continue the principle of differentiating nationals and citizens from aliens and foreigners. India subscribes to the latter with dishonesty and hence cannot pretend to be champions of the first either.

In a democracy, the logic of power tends to suppress the democratic spirit by employing the same democratic frameworks. On such occasions, people may revolt either against the power or democracy itself. The nation can afford neither.