Has India's response to cross-border migration been effective ?

M. Amarjeet Singh *

Police conducting operation for individuals illegally staying Manipur at Khuyathong , Nagamapal and Babupara on 31 August 2012
Pix - Bunti Phurailatpam

Recently the police rounded up several immigrants from different places of Manipur in the name of verifying their identity. Initial reports had suggested that several of them were Bangladeshi and Myanmarese nationals, while the rest were Indians from other states. In the case of those from other states the local police can't take any action because they can visit and work in Manipur without official permit. The issue of foreign nationals is different and hence requires a closer look.

Police officials claimed that the foreign nationals will be questioned to ascertain their identity and action will be taken against those who have entered the country without valid documents. Further, they claimed that steps will be taken to deport them to their respective countries. Many people hailed the police, but the larger question is: what can the police do? Now, the local media have also stopped following the matter. It is therefore important to examine how difficult for India to tackle immigration from Bangladesh (the issue of Myanmarese immigrants can be taken up separately).

There are more migrants on the move than ever before. Migration provides livelihoods to a large number of people. Hence it is rightly said that we are now living in the 'age of migration'. Interestingly, migration has never been free from some kind of restrictions. It can also be a source of conflict as we witness in Northeast India or Mumbai.

Northeast India became one of the great destinations of migration after its incorporation into the British Indian Empire. It brought far-reaching transformation of its society, economy and polity. Initially the English-educated Bengalis were recruited to work in the new administration. Then since the demand for labour was high due to the rapid expansion of tea plantation, coal mining and oil exploration, the labour recruitment from other part of the empire was also started. When the British rule came to an end, the empire was divided.

The allocation of territories into India and Pakistan triggered religious riots causing forced migration of hundreds of thousands of people defying the newly-created borders. Further, during the Bangladesh liberation war against Pakistan, hundreds of thousands of refugees moved towards India, put up in numerous refugee camps and their relatives. In addition, there has been migration of people from East Pakistan/Bangladesh into India in the hope of securing their livelihoods. Many of the aspiring migrants who could not fulfill the requirements to migrate legally also resorted to irregular (illegal) means.

But, neither India nor Bangladesh maintained any reliable records of the movement of people. Thus the total number of immigrants said to be living in India is never known, the available estimates also give contrasting numbers--from about few lakhs to 15 million. However, it became an issue of debate and concern in the post-Partition period, more particularly in Northeast India primarily due to the higher population growth and the allegations of the electoral rolls being manipulated to enroll the illegal immigrants.

This culminated into several anti-immigration agitations in Northeast India. The biggest one that took place in Assam and the agitators demanded the recounting of the citizenship of all those living in the state by taking the countrywide registration of citizenships prepared in 1951 as the base year. The agitation concluded following an agreement, popularly known as the Assam Accord, arrived at between the Central Government and the agitators in 1985 promising to take appropriate measures to detect and expel unauthorized migrants, officially referred to as 'foreigners', who came to Assam on or after 25 March 1971, and to protect the culture, social, linguistic identity and heritage of the 'Assamese people'. In neighbouring Tripura, the unabated immigration became the root cause of ethnic conflict and this confrontation led to violent conflict between the Indian state and the armed groups.

Unfortunately, neither the Assam's anti-immigration movement nor the Tripura's armed conflict was useful in resolving the problem, but have produced adverse impact on the society and the polity. The divide between the tribal and the non-tribal peoples and also between the Muslims and some others has widened. For instance, the killing of about 1819 people, mostly Muslim of East Bengal origin, in an attack organised by rival communities in and around Nellie village in 1983 was enough the polarised the society along religious lines. The victims had participated in the local legislature elections of 1983 defying a poll boycott called by those demanding the holding of the election on the basis of a revised voters' list. Tripura had also witnessed a violent conflict involving the tribal and the non-tribal peoples in 1980 killing several hundreds of people.

The Assam Accord that promised protection and promotion of the culture, social and linguistic identity of the 'Assamese people' also became controversial because the non-Assamese groups who were unwilling to be treated as 'Assamese people' felt that this clause might give legitimacy to the imposition of Assamese culture to non-Assamese groups.

In the wake of the Assam's anti-immigration agitation, the Central Government hurriedly enacted a special legislation for Assam to identify foreigners and latter a slew of border control measures. In 1983, the Indian Parliament passed the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (the IMDT Act). Its intention was to detect and deport noncitizens, officially refer as 'foreigners', staying in Assam when the Foreigner Act, 1946 was applied in the rest of the country.

This Act defines 'foreigner' as those who illegally settled down in Assam after 25 March 1971, and the onus of proof shall lie with the complainant. The Foreigners Act, 1946 puts the onus on the accused to prove his/her Indian nationality and it was applicable to Assam too before the IMDT Act was promulgated. Two decades latter, the IMDT Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in its judgment delivered on 13 July 2005. The court held that the Act acted as the biggest hurdle in the identification and deportation of noncitizens.

Since then the Foreigner Act, 1946 has been reinforced in Assam. In addition, the policing along the Indian side of the India-Bangladesh border have strengthened with the construction of fencing, roads and floodlighting in order to prevent cross-border migration and other illegal activities.

However, all is not so well. Consider this: Bhumidhar Barman, the then Minister in the Assam Government, told the Assam Legislative Assembly in Guwahati on 10 February 2011 that only 219 'foreigners' could be deported from Assam between 2001 to November 2010, while over Rs 330 million have been spent for maintaining over 40 Tribunals set up for the process of their identification and detection. The Minister claimed that at least 15,835 persons were declared 'foreigners' by the Tribunals, while only 219 of them could be deported. Most of the people declared 'foreigners' have gone missing. The Minister maintained that the total costs of maintaining each Tribunal was about Rs 0.15 million per month.

It is, therefore, important to understand the key problems. First, as the India-Bangladesh border traverses through forested hills, lowlands, riverline areas and human settlements, the construction of border fence and roads is extremely problematic. Second, if Partition took place in 1947 there are unsettled border issues. Moreover, sections of the local people questioned the validity of the international border because they claimed that the Partition was done without their consent. This is indeed a peculiar example of a conspicuous discrepancy between the cultural and the political borders.

Third, since people on both sides share historical, religious and linguistic connections it is natural for them to shelter the would-be migrants who they consider as their kith and kin. Thus, the distinction between the migrants and the non-migrants is actually blurred in this part of the world. Fourth, Bangladesh constantly denies the claim of the presence of their citizens in India. This again makes India's effort extremely difficult.

Fifth, migration from across the border is a highly political issue in India with every political party accusing each other of indulging in vote-bank politics. It also divided the people along communal and religious lines. For instance, when the IMDT Act was overruled in 2005, some pressure groups expressed fear of harassment of Muslims by the local police in the name of detection of 'foreigners'. By contrast, other pressure groups welcomed the verdict because they felt that the Act was useless. Further there have been differences of opinion at the highest level of the government.

For instance, a report on migration authored by then Governor of Assam, Ajai Singh, in 2005 was labeled as a 'worthless document based on hearsay' by Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi. The latter maintained that it created confusion among the people. Fifth, administrative corruption has all along posed one of the biggest challenges to the existing programmes.

The local officials usually helped the would-be migrants in fraudulently acquiring identity documents such as ration cards, birth certificates, domicile certificates and voters' identity cards. When someone possesses such documents they can establish the Indian nationality status. Finally, the movement of people between Bangladesh and India has been easy because of the compact geographical nature and socio-cultural continuity.

In summary, India's migration management has been ineffective because it continued to neglect the social, economic and cultural connections between the sending and the destination places. Its approach has been a mere compulsion following sustained pressure from the local movement. Instead of erecting border fencing and laws like IMDT, the government must have adopted realistic approach. Such a realistic approach will be:

(a) Update the National Register of Citizens: The work of updating the National Register of Citizens must be accorded the topmost priority. Once it is done the national identity cards must be given to all the bonafide citizens of the country.

(b) Adopt uniform policies through the Northeast region such as temporary work programme or inner line permit.

(c) Bilateral migration agreement: It is the key to better managing Bangladesh-India migration. Both sides must cooperate in the enforcement of migration laws.