Building resilience of Assamese people

The Supreme Court’s judgement upholding constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, has also upheld the cut-off date of March 24, 1971, in the Assam Accord for detection, deletion of names, and expulsion of illegal Bangladeshi migrants from the state. It also validates the updating of the National Register of Citizens in Assam with 1971 as the cut-off year, as Section 6A led to the framing of special rules applicable in Assam for determining eligibility of NRC applications with respect to the stream of immigrants from East Pakistan entering Assam during 1966-1971. With the question of constitutional validity of this cut-off year for determination of citizenship with respect to NRC and Assam Accord being legally settled, the implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord for constitutional safeguards for Assamese people with 1951 as the cut-off year for protecting the indigenous people from existential threat will assume greater significance than before. The petitioner, Asom Sanmilita Mahasangha, sought 1951 as the cut-off year for updating the NRC and argued that the determination of eligibility of Indian citizenship with 1971 as the cut-off year based on the provisions of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is discriminatory and places the burden of illegal migrants only on Assam and incentivises illegal migration to the state. In 2019, an SC Division Bench ruled that final publication of the updated NRC is subject to order as may be passed by the Constitution Bench on petitions challenging Section 6A. The SC Constitution Bench, however, rejected the plea of the petitioners and held that had the law granted Indian citizenship to undocumented immigrants from another country on an ongoing basis without any intelligible criteria or discernible principle, it could have been susceptible to challenge. However, this is not the case here, and Section 6A conferred citizenship only upon certain immigrants who met certain specified conditions up to a particular cut-off date, adds the Bench in the judgement. The SC Constitution Bench, however, made an important observation on failure on the part of the government to identify and deport those who entered the state illegally post-1971. It pointed out that while the legislature had anticipated that the procedure outlined in Section 6A, along with other complementary statutes, would suffice to address the issue of immigration into Assam, this intention has not been realized. “Instead of adequately addressing the immigrants who entered the state before 1971 and timely identifying and deporting those who entered illegally post-1971, the respondents have not properly implemented this legal regime, leading to a scenario where the latter category of immigrants has been residing in Assam like ordinary citizens. However, this failure is not attributable to Section 6A but rather to its inadequate implementation,” adds the judgement. This corroborates the hard reality of illegal Bangladeshi migrants continuing to reside in the state, posing an existential threat to Assamese and other indigenous people due to the failure of the successive governments to detect and deport post-1971 illegal migrants. The India-Bangladesh border still continuing to be porous precipitates the apprehension of indigenous people of further marginalisation. Assam government accepting the recommendations of the justice (retd) Biplab Sharma committee on Clause 6 for 1951 as the cutoff year for defining who is an Assamese is a step in the right direction to protect the interests of Assamese and other indigenous people. Depending only on legal and administrative measures is not going to ensure safeguarding the political supremacy and economic interests of Assamese people, as the implementation of such measures entirely depends on the sincerity, willingness, and political priorities of the government of the day. A ruling party dependent on the electoral support of immigrant voters will never be keen to implement these constitutional safeguards. The Assamese people realising the importance of becoming self-reliant in all spheres, therefore, is crucial for protecting themselves from being overwhelmed by Bangladeshis and migrants of erstwhile East Bengal and East Pakistan origin. Assamese youths in rural areas migrating to outside the state, leaving paddy fields fallow, has made things worse. They must learn from immigrants how to build economic independencerough hard work, multi-cropping and aggressive marketing to dominate the markets. Farm fields become non-remunerative when the household income is limited to farming activities only and the number of family members dependent on income from farming increases. The pragmatic solution, as demonstrated by the immigrant population, is to diversify income generation from skilled or unskilled work with the primary objective of augmenting household income through engagement of every member, including women, in income-generating activities within the state. Without improving the economic condition of individual households, safeguarding the language, culture, and heritage of Assamese people will not only remain a distant dream; it will also push them to the wall. The struggle for economic self-reliance of indigenous people must go on parallel to legal and political battles for preserving language, culture, and heritage.