<b>XI LOK SABHA DEBATES, <i> Session IV (Budget) </i> </b> XI LOK SABHA DEBATES, Session IV (Budget) Friday, May 9, 1997 / Vaisakha 19 , 1919 (Saka)
Type of Debate: PRIVATE MEMBERS' RESOLUTIONS
Title: Further discussion on the resolution moved by Shri Jagat Vir Singh Drona regarding the large scale illegal imigration into the country since 1975 and recommends that concrete steps be taken to identify all the illegal immigrants and deport them to the country of their origin. TEXT : 15.42 hrsMR. CHAIRMAN: We shall take up further discussion on the Illegal Immigrants Resolution moved by Shri Jagat Vir Singh Drona on the 13th December, 1996. The time allotted for this Resolution is five hours, the House has already taken four hours and twelve minutes, and only forty-eight minutes are left. Shri G.M. Banatwalla was on his feet.
Shri G.M. Banatwalla, you may please continue your speech.
SHRI G.M. BANATWALLA (PONNANI): Mr. Chairman, Sir, it is most unfortunate that the entire question of the presence of illegal migrants in the country has been politicised and a bogie is sought to be raised about for the so-called large scale infiltration in the country.
The very origin of this controversy lies in the electoral battle that was to be fought in Assam. Accordingly, a question was raised on the occasion of the by-election of Mangaldoi Parliamentary Constituency of Assam in 1978. An objection was taken to about 48,000 voters in Mangaldoi Parliamentary Constituency and to about 35,000 voters in Barpeta Parliamentary Constituency. So, we find that the origin of the entire political propaganda starts with the electoral rolls and the approaching of the by-election in Mangaldoi Parliamentary Constituency in 1978.
Sir, I must point out here that this large scale propaganda about the presence of the so-called illegal migrants in our country is going on incessantly.
This is obvious from the fact that during the period from January 1986 to July 1993, nearly 2,87,000 complaints were referred to the Tribunal in Assam to determine their status as to whether they were illegal migrants. Out of this 2,87,000 complaints referred to the Tribunal, hardly 8,000 were identified as illegal migrants and in other cases, the complaints were found to be frivolous. That itself shows the politically motivated propaganda that has gone on with respect to this particular problem. Also, I have already given the official figures given by the Home Minister with respect to infiltration cases in reply to an Unstarred Question here in the House. I will not repeat them.
But then I may point out another factor. Take the electoral rolls themselves for certain periods and examine the percentage rise in the number of voters in those electoral rolls. In order not to consume too much time of the House, I may concentrate on Assam. The Assam electoral roll of 1991 had 1,18,73,952 voters. By 1996, the number of voters were hardly 1,25,87,659. So what is the increase? You talk about the large scale infiltration. You talk about millions coming in and getting registered as electors, as voters, as electing to this particular House and having their impact upon the Ministries. But then, what is the percentage rise in the electoral roll between the years 1991 and 1996? From 1,18,00,000, the number has been increased to hardly 1,25,00,000 in Assam which is supposed to be the centre for all this controversy. In other words, the percentage increase in the electoral roll was hardly 6.01 per cent. I have figures here for all the States. They are there in the reports of the Election Commission.
Why should I take up the time of this House by giving all those figures which do not justify any such outcry as has been sought to be made? In Jammu and Kashmir there are certain other situations into which I do not want to go. But the percentage rise in the electoral roll between the periods 1991 and 1996 as given by the Election Commission is 5.65 per cent. However, there are various other factors into which I do not want to go. The point that I am making is that it is unfortunate that a bogey is sought to be created of large scale infiltration of the people entering the electoral roll so as to bring about the disenfranchisement of thousands and thousands and this has been sought by those who have politically vested interests.
Mr. Chairman, Sir, as I had earlier indicated, there must not be any harassment whatsoever of the minorities, particularly, the Muslim minorities on the pretext of identification of the so-called illegal migrants.
I have already dwelt on that particular aspect and will not repeat what I have already spoken last time. But it is shocking to find that the right to citizenship in our country is not a fundamental right. That is even against the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights.
I must take this opportunity to urge upon the Government for even an amendment of the Constitution so as to make the right to citizenship a fundamental right in accordance with the international thinking as embodied in the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights.
People are being harassed and those who are staying here for generations and generations are harassed despite the fact that the Citizenship Act was amended in the year 1985 to provide that those who came before 1st January, 1966 to Assam are deemed to be the citizens. Now, the question was solved and those who came by 1st January, 1966, were already given all the rights of citizens by an amendment of the Citizenship Act. Those who came between 1966 and 25 May, 1971 were given all rights except, of course, the right to vote which they would acquire after ten years. But despite all these provisions, people residing for generations and generations and who were born here were harassed. Such, therefore, is the situation that we have in this particular respect.
Sir, I will not take much time and conclude by making an appeal. Let us distribute what you may call residency cards or residency certificates in our border areas. I am not talking of citizenship certificates. I am only talking of residency certificates and they should be given to each and every one who is there right now at the border so that those who come later on - if that is the case they say - can be easily identified. But at least a beginning can be made and we can think in terms of residency certificates to be given to each and every person residing in our borders. But without any harassment, manipulation or discrimination, everyone, at present, at the border should be given the residency certificates. The question of citizenship, as I said, can be decided later on according to the law. Let there be no harassment, let the law take its own course. But that also does not mean that indiscriminately the people are sought to be prosecuted under all sorts of complaints, as we have found in the case of the working of the Tribunals in Assam. A large number of frivolous complaints are brought by the people and the authorities .
Now, it is high time that we address ourselves to important questions rather than raise such bogies for only political exploitation. I suggest that in view of the circumstances which are prevailing today, the Government must firstly amend the Constitution to make citizenship a fundamental right.
Secondly, as I have already indicated earlier, you amend the Foreigners' Act in order to provide that the onus or burden of proof whether a person is or is not a citizen lies upon the complainant or the complaining authority. Today we have an obnoxious rule that it is the accused who is asked to prove his own citizenship. This is a colonial legacy that we have had because of the World War situation that was then prevailing. This particular position must go and the Foreigners' Act must be amended.
Thirdly, in view of the discrimination that is there, the complaints that are there of harassment of the genuine citizens, I must say that the Centre must not delegate its authority for the identification of the citizens and illegal migrants to any State. The matter must continue under the Central supervision, under the Central guidance, through Central guidelines and without delegation of authority to any State whatsoever.
Such is the situation today, Mr. Chairman, that not only the question has been politicised but it has also been communalised. I will not go into the details pointing out how the non-Muslims coming from Bangladesh were called refugees and the Muslims coming from Bangladesh were called infiltrators. Such distinctions were made. We are victims of the unfortunate events and developments and the attitudes that were taken towards all this. The situation must, therefore, come to an end.
With these words I conclude with my fervent appeal to one and all and specially to the Government to see that in the process of the identification of the so-called illegal migrants no genuine citizen specially those belonging to the minorities is persecuted.
With these words I conclude.
I am sorry to say that the responsibility will be on the Government as to how to justify their own answer and to find a solution to it. I am not going into a debate. I will now narrate my viewpoints on the whole issue.
Sir, it is a fact that historically when India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were together during the days of freedom struggle, when we were all one against the British empire, our cultural, social, and political aspirations and our emotional ties were one.
16.00 hrs.
I do consider today that the ties are still similar and one. They are inseparable, be it a Tamilian in Jaffna or be it a Tamilian in Chennai, their common emotional ties are unbreakable and no Constitution of the world can break that emotional tie. Be it a Bengalee in Bangladesh, or be it a Bengalee in West Bengal, their emotional and cultural ties are unbreakable. Be it a Muslim in Bangladesh, be it a Muslim in Pakistan, their dreams for this sub-continent in the days of the struggle against the British and their cultural, religious, emotional passion, are the same today also. But ironically and historically, it is a fact that the country had to get its own sovereignty and identity, right after the liberation struggle, through different courses of history which, as a student of politics and as a student of the Constitutional history of the country, we must learn and understand. As a citizen of India, I feel proud to defend my territory, the cultural heritage of this nation and of supporting the constructive contribution made by our senior leaders while framing the Constitution of India. But I cannot just ignore and take a lopsided view as to what had happened during the days of partition and after.
Let us take stock of our border States and Provinces. Jammu, Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat border with Pakistan. Whether you like it or not, if anything goes wrong in these four States, a habit has developed in this country just to doubt and cast aspersions on the Muslims of this area, as the agents of Pakistan. This insult and humiliation has been going on not from today. I can cite from the pages of a number of important features and important letters outside the House during the last decade while I was a student of college and University as to how and in what manner and language they used to suspect even the bona fides of the Muslims of these four States which are bordering Pakistan. If there is a war again, the spies of the Government will start finding out whether the agents might not be anybody other than the Muslims. Let us try to understand in what manner we are cheating them day in and day out.
I would like to mention that one Shri Suraj Ali Khan was a Member of the Legislative Assembly of Bengal from a Constituency called Tihatta Nadia district long back in 1967. He was arrested under Defence of India Rules being a suspect of Pakistani spy during the days of war with Pakistan and then the Chief Minister was helpless to do anything. Later on, I discovered from no less a person than the mother of Shri Sidhartha Shankar Ray that Shri Suraj Ali Khan was the co-prisoner of Shri Deshbandu Chittaranjan Das Party and Shri Deshbandu Chittaranjan Das used to go with his family for campaigning for the country's liberation struggle and he had been in India for long enough. This is the plight of things that happened to many important leaders of the minority community who stood by Gandhiji's call, responded to Gandhiji's appeal and stood by the secular fabric of the Indian National Congress. Now the partition history is one. I am coming to it a little later. The States which are bordered with Bangladesh, Tripura, Assam and West Bengal have phases of history. Phase (a) is the part of partition, (b) onslaught of refugees coming and going, (c) the poverty-stricken districts in the border and (d) the constant poverty both in West Bengal, Tripura and Assam border and of the border of Pakistan, the border which is name's sake border in map, the border which has a routine and notional concept of the border, but the border which was neither guarded from their side with an iron gate nor from our side with iron gate.
Thirty years ago, a daily wage earner of the agricultural field, may be his name is, Shri Ramatulla Khan, could not thrive in his own part and maybe on the side of Tripura or West Bengal or Assam, the big landlords whether Hindu or Muslim, asked Shri Ramatulla Khan during agriculture season to come and work in the field and to give support to agricultural production. Shri Ramatulla Khan went and stayed there for long with his family and children. Now when the time has come to identify, we do not go to the background as to how Shri Ramatulla Khan came in.
We go straight to the child and tell like this: "Look here, your father came here as an illegal immigrant. We have enough documents because Rahmatullah used to stay in a village till 16th August 1947 or till such and such a date of August 1950 or August, 1960. You are his child and get out from here." This is the kind of an attitude we have always adopted throughout the country.
I was born in Bangladesh. I was a student of Class-I at that time. I remember the day when I came out on the street, I heard a slogan in Bangladesh. At that time, I did not know anything. One fine morning, I found that some leaders came and told us that the school was closed. We ran in the street and heard some leaders who raised the slogan of "Rashtra Bhasha", that is, the language of the State should be Bengali, nothing else. That was finally the slogan of Sheikh Mujibur Rehman at a later stage.
One night I came out and found that there was a trouble. My father, mother and sister were staying in the House and the house with all the property was lit. The next day morning, I found that the gentleman and his brother, who escorted us safely to cross the border, were Muslims. After having successfully crossed the border, myself, my mother and my sister arrived by train at the border of India. After seven days, we gathered the news that the great Muslim family which helped us had been killed at the hands of some fanatics. I still remember it.
When I became a Minister, I went to visit their family. What a contribution they have made for promoting brotherhood! But, if some of the people came for treatment in India, could not go back and stayed for 10 or 20 days for various reasons, I had to approach somebody in the Government of India to help them. It was in 1954 or 1955. I had to ask the Government to accommodate the man who saved our lives. Suppose the situation stablilises and such a person stays in India. The point is that the law of the Home Ministry and the provisions and regulations describe that such a person is a foreigner and the authorities ask him to get out from this land. Yes, logically, he is a foreigner. But historically neither was he responsible to escort me nor my parents responsible to bring them. The particular situation which we witnessed was a grave one. What was the situation that we witnessed on the night of 15th August, 1947? Who was responsible for that? Should I bring the late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the late Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the late Mahatma Gandhi to dock for trial? Or, should I accept history and the reality as it is and accept that man's identity? Should I accept him as a fellow traveller, a friend of mine and ask him to stay here or not?
Having said all these words, still if they try to say that let us find out the genuine infiltrators, I could understand the logic. But a campaign is carried on in this country in such a manner that some people are in fear. Who are the Chakmas who are in Tripura? They are not Muslims. They are not Hindus. They are Buddhists. Why did they come from the Chittagong border to Tripura? Whenever I used to go to Tripura for election campaign, I used to see at a distance of three yards the tents of the Chakmas, the Buddhists, the poorest of the poor who could not stay in the Chittagong hill tracts because of the oppression and suppression of one regime. Well, now efforts are on to shift and transfer them. But if they are there, if some of them get married with some of our people and get mixed in our society, should we go there and ask them to get out? This is what is happening in Tripura also. I do agree that there is a reasonable fear which arose in the minds of the people in Assam and Tripura. I fully share their fear. The fear is that if the influx is more than the expected number which is invisible, the fear of losing one's cultural identify is there. The social identity of the tribes of Tripura who are the original claimants of that land is in danger. The fear of the Assamese about the Ahom culture is there. They are not only the masters but also the people who did preserve their land by shedding blood. There is a reasonable apprehension in the minds of the people who live in the Brahmaputra Valley that one day or the other they would be asked to go out. I fully share their concern.
[NEXT PAGE]