How illegal immigrants morphed into an invaluable vote-bank
How illegal immigrants morphed into an invaluable vote-bank - The Times of India
It can happen only in India, where vote-bank politics scores decisively over national interest and issues relating to India's sovereignty. How else can one explain the cunningness shown by the Centre and the Assam government to disregard the remedial measures suggested by two screaming Supreme Court judgments, which highlighted the demographic aggression faced by Assam from incessant influx of illegal migrants?
In 1971, India was complaining in the UN about the aggression it faced from the huge population shift that was taking place from East Pakistan to its northeastern part. Strangely, 40 years later, the illegal migrants have become an invaluable vote-bank for certain political parties, which hedge the question of their identification and deportation, despite clear directions from the apex court in two rulings in 2005 and 2006.
In 1971, the Sixth Committee of General Assembly was debating to define "aggression". India's representative Dr Nagendra Singh voiced serious concern about the incessant flow of migrants from East Pakistan into India and termed it as an aggression to unnaturally change the demographic pattern. Surely, India was preparing a ground for lending active military support to Mukti Bahini in the creation of Bangladesh.
Dr Singh supported Burma (now Myanmar), UK and others and said a definition of aggression excluding indirect methods would be incomplete and therefore, dangerous. "For example, there could be a unique type of bloodless aggression from a vast and incessant flow of millions of human beings forced to flee into another state. If this invasion of unarmed men in totally unmanageable proportion were to not only impair the economic and political well-being of the receiving victim state but to threaten its very existence, I am afraid, Mr Chairman, it would have to be categorized as aggression," he said.
"In such a case, there may not be use of armed force across the frontier since the use of force may be totally confined within one's territorial boundary, but if this results in inundating the neighbouring state by millions of fleeing citizens of the offending state, there could be an aggression of a worst order," he had said while arguing for a broader meaning of aggression to include unmanageable influx of migrants.
The illegal migration did not subside even after Bangladesh came into being. A six-year violent agitation against illegal migrants led to signing of the Assam Accord in 1985 between Assam student leaders and then PM Rajiv Gandhi. It promised a comprehensive solution to the festering problem.
In 1998, the then Assam governor sent a secret report to the President informing that influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh continued unabated into the state, perceptibly changing its demographic pattern and reducing the Assamese people to a minority in their own state. It had become a contributory factor for outbreak of insurgency in the state, he said.
The SC in the Sarbananda Sonowal [2005 (5) SCC 665] case quoted from the governor's report to say, "Illegal migration not only affects the people of Assam but has more dangerous dimensions of greatly undermining our national security. ISI is very active in Bangladesh supporting militants in Assam. Muslim militant groups have mushroomed in Assam. The report also says that this can lead to the severing of the entire land mass of the northeast with all its resources from the rest of the country which will have disastrous strategic and economic consequences."
The political game over illegal migrants came to the fore in 2000. The AGP government in August 2000 presented disturbing statistics to the SC — Muslim population of Assam went up by 77.42% between 1971 and 1991 while Hindu population increased only by 41.89%. In September 2000, this affidavit was quickly withdrawn by the Tarun Gogoi government immediately after coming to power. The Gogoi government also defended continuance of Illegal Migrants Determination through Tribunal (IMDT) Act, repeal of which was sought by the AGP government on the ground that it was totally ineffective in identifying illegal migrants.
The SC termed incessant flow of illegal migrants into Assam as "aggression" and castigated the Centre for failing in its duty under Article 355 to protect the state. It said, "There can be no manner of doubt that Assam is facing 'external aggression and internal disturbance' on account of largescale illegal migration of Bangladeshis. It, therefore, becomes the duty of Union of India to take all measures for protection of Assam from such external aggression and internal disturbance as enjoined in Article 355."
It quashed the ill-suited IMDT Act and directed effective identification of illegal migrants through tribunals under the Foreigners Act. Instead of implementing the directive, the Union and Assam governments attempted to obfuscate the issue by passing a new notification giving relief to illegal migrants from imminent identification. SC saw through the game and in December 5, 2006, pulled up both the governments [Sonowal-II, 2007 (1) SCC 174].
The problem of illegal migrants raised its ugly face yet again in Assam through recent riots. Other northeastern states have also been nervously watching similar demographic situations building up. It is time for the Centre and Assam, who are morally in contempt of the two SC rulings, to take concrete and decisive measures to solve the problem. Else, we will witness Assam-like flare-ups in more northeastern states.
