A Report A verdict to celebrate

A Report
A verdict to celebrate
By Sunita Govind

People in Assam danced to drum beats, burst crackers, distributed sweets and took out processions as the Supreme Court in a historic order struck down as ?unconstitutional? the two decades old Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act on July 12.

Allowing a writ petition filed by Asom Gana Parishad MP, Sarbananda Sonowal, a three judge Bench consisting of Chief Justice R C Lahoti, Justice B P Mathur and Justice P K Balasubramanyan, in a unanimous decision declared the 1983 Act and the rules framed in 1984 as ?ultra vires? of the Constitution.

The Court directed that all tribunals formed under the IMDT Act for adjudicating cases for identification of illegal migrants from Bangladesh would ?cease to function? and cases pending before them would stand transferred to tribunals under the Foreigners Act.

Welcoming the Court'sdecision, the RSS spokesman, Ram Madhav said that the IMDT was ?full of loopholes? and was ?encouraging infiltration?.

?All parties should come together to implement the Supreme Court'sdecision and make Assam free of Bangladeshis?, said the VHP Secretary General, Praveeen Togadia.

BJP General Secretary and election Incharge for Assam, Pramod Mahajan said the decision of the Court was ?overdue, historic, appropriate and in consonance with the feelings and emotions of the people of Assam?.

He also asked the Congress-led UPA Government at the Centre ?not to try to subvert the judgement as was done in the Shahbano case?.

The Act, applicable only to the state of Assam, came into existence in 1983 at the height of the anti-Foreigners agitation launched by the All Assam Students Union for the purpose of detection of foreigners and deletion of their names from the electoral rolls.

SC strikes down IMDT.

The Assam Accord?signed on August 14, 1985 by AASU, the Centre and the State Government?had the provision that all the foreigners who came to Assam after March 25, 1971 would be detected, deleted and deported through the mechanism of the IMDT Act 1983.

However, a disturbing feature which many found objectionable and led to the demand for its scrapping was that the onus of proving the citizenship of a person lay on the complainant and not on the accused infiltrator compared to the Foreigners Act in which the onus is on the accused to prove that he is not a foreigner.

Due to the flawed clause, not more than 2,000 people were deported in two decades of its existence and as of now 2.5 lakh cases are pending before the 16 tribunals.

During its six years rule, the BJP-led NDA Government took the initiative to scrap the law but failed due to inadequate majority in both the Houses of the Parliament.

Indulging in vote bank politics, the Congress has all along opposed scrapping of the Act. Even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his last visit to the state had ruled out scrapping of the Act.

Shamelessly defending the Act even after the apex court verdict, Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi claimed that the Act protected Indian citizens against harassment.

The demographic changes in Assam due to the loopholes in the Act were established beyond doubt in the 2001 census which showed that the percentage growth of Muslim population in the districts bordering Bangladesh between 1991 and 2001 varied from about 24.6% to 31.7%.

The worst affected districts include Dhubri (29.5%), Barpeta (25.8%), Goalpara (31.7%), Hailakandi (27.2%), Karimganj (29.4%) and Cachar (24.6%).

In fact, the trend extends beyond Assam to West Bengal. The disturbing percentage growth of Muslim population in the various districts include South 24 Parganas (34.2%), North 24 Parganas (23.8%), Nadia (21.9%), Murshidabad (28.4%), Malda (30.7%), Kolkata (19 %), South Dinajpur and North Dinajpur (79.5%), Jalpaiguri (31.3 %) and Cooch Behar (18.5%).

No wonder, even the Marxist Chief Minister of the state Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee appeared gravely concerned about the issue when he told at a meeting on human rights organized by the BSF that in some pockets, Bangladeshis were outnumbering Indians.

?We cannot allow such infiltration. Enough is enough. The Bangaldeshi official position is that there are no Bangladeshis here. How is that possible when we are sending so many to the prisons everyday??, he asked.

In fact, in its verdict, the apex court went to the extent of saying that Assam was facing ?external aggression and internal disturbances on account of largescale illegal migration from Bangladesh nationals?. The illegal migration also posed a threat to the integrity and security of the north-eastern region, it said.

Besides making the life of the people of Assam wholly insecure and generating a fear psychosis, it has also resulted in hampering the state'sgrowth although it had natural resources as people from the rest of the country had a general perception that it was a disturbed area and thus curtailed investment and employment opportunities, the court said.

?It is the foremost duty of the Central Government to protect its borders and prevent trespass of foreign nationals?, the court said while pointing out that the presence of illegal migrants has changed the demographic character of the region and people of Assam have been reduced to the status of minority in certain districts.

Unfortunately, the apex court'scounsel appears to have fallen on deaf ears.

Instead of implementing the court order, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh decided to set up a Group of Ministers (GoM) to study the ruling and advise the Government on what has to be done.

The Congress party is apparently driven by vote bank politics with elections to the state Assembly round the corner. With its Government failing on all fronts and the Opposition all set to oust it, the party is determined to win the elections by hook or crook even at the cost of nation'ssecurity and integrity.

However, the people of Assam, and the rest of the country, are determined to foil the nefarious designs of the Congress and the party will have to end up paying a heavy price if it compromises with national security and integrity in pursuance of its appeasement politics. The Supreme Court order is both an indication and vindication of popular opinion in the state.