A protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act in Assam


Binayak Dutta

A proposal to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, one of the key components of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s manifesto, was introduced for the third time on 9th December 2019 despite strong social and political opposition. The Bill sought to address the concerns of non-Muslim refugees who had come to India from East Pakistan. These people were conceived as an inalienable part of the Indian national consciousness, who had been forced to reside in a land that had become a foreign country after partition and who were forced to migrate to India from Pakistan since partition in 1947 and subsequently from Bangladesh post 1971 because of religious persecution. This engagement with partition and refugee-hood was part of a larger commitment of the Indian leaders engaging with post-colonial national reconstruction shared across the political spectrum in India since the years immediately after independence. This is reflected in the assertions of leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and also in the deliberations of the Provisional Parliament after independence. When the colonial government decided to transfer power in India it decided to partition the subcontinent into two states – Pakistan and India. While Pakistan and its Muslim League leadership envisaged itself as a theocratic state which claimed Islam to be the State religion, India imagined itself as a secular state where the state would not have any religion as its own. But the politics and the experiences of the people at the grassroots manifested in a violent partition of the subcontinent had a deeper impact on the construction of citizenship in post-colonial India, a process that has entered the construction of citizenship over more than seven decades in Assam reaching a recent crescendo during the just concluded process for enrolment of the National Register of Citizens, 2015-2019 and the notification of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in January, 2020.

Unburdening a divided legacy

While inter-provincial borders of the colonial era became international boundaries, perceptions about population migration also underwent a change. Inter-provincial migration which was easy and mostly unrestricted became restricted by the legal regimes. Though there was no restriction on movement of people from East Pakistan to Assam in the initial years after independence. Gradually the provincial governments and the Government of India began to discourage return migration of Muslims from Pakistan to India between 1948 and 1950. This is reflected in the correspondences between Jawaharlal Nehru and leaders such as Sardar Patel who pointed out that there was a rising discontent among Indians in general and refugees in particular about the inflow of Muslims into India from Pakistan. The East Pakistan situation was very critical as there was a steady exodus of Hindus who constituted 31 percent of the total population in 1947 and were reduced to 22 percent in 1951. As people migrated, the entire subcontinent was in flux, especially in the east and the west of India bordering the two wings of Pakistan. One of the epicentres of intense activity in the east was Assam which shared more than 885 km. border with East Pakistan. Nehru, in his letter to the Chief Ministers on 1st April, 1948 was quick to point out that, “the exodus of non-Muslims from East Bengal continues. We are naturally as much bound to help these refugees as any from western Pakistan.”
But despite utmost attempts from India, the conditions continued to deteriorate and hostilities between the displaced Hindu refugees, coming from East Bengal and the Muslim returnees from Pakistan had obviously grown despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister to downplay the differences between the Hindu refugees and the Muslims. As partition introduced the ‘foreigners’ dimension into politics the debate only became more intense and anxiety-ridden. The situation became critical as the initial trickle of people wanting to migrate to India from East Pakistan became a flood by 1949 as the political atmosphere in East Pakistan became increasingly hostile to the minority communities across the border. The hostile situation on the ground for the East Pakistani Hindu population was as much reflected in official correspondence between the ministers of the central government and other leaders of Congress party, who were located in the provinces, sharing a border with East Pakistan, in the local press and also as such in debates of the Constituent Assemblies of India and Pakistan.
As the Home Minister, Sardar Patel also endorsed the grim situation when in a debate on the refugee situation and rehabilitation in the Subjects Committee at the Congress Session he pointed out that,
…the problem of East Bengal is difficult. There are about 15 million Hindus there. They are weak and soft. The people of the Punjab were different. They were strong, they could assert themselves and fight.
The people of East Bengal are in a sad plight. Nobody wants to leave his own hearth and home without any reason. After all, in India they would have to starve. It is because of conditions in which they live there are bad that they migrate to India…

Though the Punjab situation had stabilized by 1948 as, in the language of Sardar Patel, “there was not a single Hindu or Sikh left in West Pakistan” indicating that the population transfer or exchange was more or less completed, in the east, it was a different scenario. This increasing hostility faced by the non-Muslims in particular in East Pakistan was at the core of public and political debates informing the refugee verses immigrant dichotomy emerging in the formative post-colonial years and reflected in the legal debates on citizenship in India through the deliberations and decisions of the Constituent Assembly, a representative body of 385 members representing both the British Indian provinces and the Indian princely states.

Fleshing the difference

One of the earliest debates to have a detailed engagement with citizenship, the impact of partition and the demographic upheavals of East Pakistan and the future of non- Muslim ‘displaced/refugees’ migrating from East Bengal/ East Pakistan to Assam resonated in the deliberations on the proposed electoral roll envisaged for the first general elections after independence in the arguments and proposals of Jawaharlal Nehru himself. Nehru, who was in favour of holding elections “as early as possible in the year 1950” and argued in favour of facilitating the obvious incorporation of ‘refugees’ into the electoral roll and therefore by obvious implication, into ‘citizenship pointed out in his reply to the demand by Rohini Kumar Choudhuri, a member representing a general seat from Assam, whether the rights of refugees should be protected even if by “ special provision” as against ‘vague migrants who may come in.’ Nehru pointed out that, “it was intended that they should vote…” This position is the first major assertion of the distinction that the Indian state had always maintained a pro-refugee position in post-independence post-partition. It was in view of the difficult situation that, Nehru and other leaders of the Constituent Assembly, while speaking on the issue proposed that, “…a person who has migrated into a province or Acceding state on account of disturbances or fear of disturbances in his former place of residence shall be entitled to be included in the electoral roll of a constituency if he files a declaration of his intention to reside permanently in that constituency.” Though the debate in the Constituent Assembly was primarily restricted to the necessity of the filing of a declaration by the refugees who would come to India after 31st March, 1948, on the question of refugee rights to secure a place in the voters list of independent India, there was no dispute. Though this provision on the gestation period prior to the refugee securing the status of the voter, was also adopted after much opposition and incorporated into the statute after much debates, there was a consensus that the refugee rights to secure voter-ship in independent India was on board. Seven months later when the Constituent Assembly met to debate on citizenship, it was Rohini Kumar Choudhury, again, who championed the citizenship claims of the refugees coming to Assam, more so the partition victims. Rohini Kumar Chaudhuri who represented a general seat from Assam in the Constituent Assembly was aware of the difficulties posed by partition on the lives of the non-Muslims in East Pakistan and its impact on India in general and Assam in particular. Its significant that in pressing his amendments to the draft of Articles, 5 and 6 he demanded citizenship for those persons who migrated from East Bengal to Assam,
because they found things impossible for them there….Can anyone imagine for a moment that there is no fear of disturbance in the minds of these East Bengal people who had come over to West Bengal and Assam?…Has that sense of security now after a period of two years been enhanced by the fact that Pakistan has been converted into a theocratic state?…The fear is latent in the minds of everybody. The moment any Hindu or a person of any minority community raises a protest against any action which is taken there, disturbances would immediately follow…. I want citizenship rights to this class of people who have originally belonged to Sylhet in the province of Assam, who long before the partition, have come to the Assam Valley as citizen ‘of that province and are staying in the present province of Assam… I want to make it perfectly clear that I want citizenship rights for those people of East Bengal who had gone over to West Bengal or Assam out of fear of disturbance in the future or from the sense of insecurity and – also for those people who have come over from Sylhet, who at the time of coming had no fear of disturbance or anything of that kind, but who on account of fear of disturbances now have decided to live here.

But even at that critical moment of his exposition on the future of citizenship in India and Assam, Choudhury did not lose sight of the obvious distinction between the refugee and the immigrants as he opposed the inclusion of Bengali Muslim immigrants into the new citizenship register by declaring that,
“I would exclude those persons who came only three years ago, who set up the civil disobedience movement forcibly occupied land which was not meant for them and forced the benevolent and benign Government to have recourse to the military to keep peace in the province. …I desire to exclude those persons who surreptitiously introduced themselves into my province and who now having mixed themselves with their own brethren, now desire to have citizenship rights…I desire to exclude these people because they had not long ago set up the struggle for Pakistan, they had not long ago taken an active part in compelling the politicians in India to agree for partition…I only want that those classes of persons whom I have mentioned should be included and should get citizenship rights and those classes of persons whom I want to exclude should not get the right of citizenship…”
For Choudhury, the only Assamese Hindu representative from Assam who spoke on citizenship rights, his presentation was seminal as it was supported also by Mr. Dharanidhar Basu-Matari representing the Tribal people of Assam and Mr. Nibaran Chandra Laskar, representing the Bengali Scheduled Castes from Assam, representatives of three most important components of non-Muslim society in Assam. It was a spectacular joint front, unprecedented in history and steeped in the tenuous communal history of Assam, especially the anti-immigrant sentiments of the Assamese middle class and attempts by them to reconcile this history with post-colonial reality. It is important to remember that the Congress ministry in Assam which came to office after the elections of 1946 had launched a vigorous anti-immigration drive and had also had to resort to forceful eviction drives and counter measures against the Civil Disobedience that was launched by the Muslim League in Assam in March, 1947, a fact which resonated in the assertions of Choudhury.
When the Constitution of India came into force in 1950, the sentiments of the Assembly clearly reflected itself in within the Constitutional framework accommodating the interests of the displaced/refugees in post-colonial India, though the term ‘refugee’ exactly did not find a mention in the bulky constitution that came to govern the nation-state. But between 1947 and 1950, as India was giving itself the Constitution, East-Pakistan was in the throes of a violent conflagration which was singularly targeting the non-Muslim population. A summary of the incidents presented in a memorandum submitted by one of the Hindu members of parliament in Pakistan to the prime minister, Nurul Amin in December, 1949 drew his attention to
“indiscriminate requisitioning of Hindu houses, godowns, shops, educational institutions and other immovable properties all over East Pakistan. It pointed out that in Dacca alone 3 thousand Hindu houses had been requisitioned. The licence of Hindus holding fire arms were cancelled and the arms were seized. Large number of houses and lands throughout Pakistan were forcibly occupied by Muslims. Temples were desecrated. Large number of reports of crimes against Hindu women were brought to the notice of the authorities but were ignored. Forced conversions and forced marriages after abduction were also mentioned. Large number of dacoities during which attacks on women had taken place had become a feature of rural life in East Bengal. Muslim mobs on the pretexts of keeping an eye over disloyal Non Muslims raided Hindu houses. In the rural areas forcible removal of crops, plucking of fruits from trees, cutting of bamboos and catching fish from the tanks belonging to Hindus had become most common. The attitude of the Government and the police towards these complaints from Hindus was complete indifferent and some district magistrates openly preached against the Hindus. The Minority Boards agreed upon by the Neogy-Mohammad Pact were either not brought into existence or were not allowed to function. Local Boards and Municipalities where Hindus held the majority seats were arbitrarily suspended.
In February 1950, there was a repetition of the pattern of Calcutta killing in East Pakistan. Unfortunately, this was widespread. The atrocities which began in August 1949 all over East Pakistan continued almost for a period of 3 months.
These incidents led to a fresh wave of migration and thousands of Hindus poured into West Bengal, Assam and Tripura.”
The number of displaced almost touched about half a million people by April, 1950.But even in such a grave situation, while people belonging to the minority communities in East Pakistan poured into India, a large number of Muslims, who otherwise had no political threat to their lives in Pakistan also came into India. It was a scenario to which the Government of Assam drew the attention of the central government since 1948 and the Government of India was not prepared to overlook as it not only aggravated the economic pressures on partitioned India and Assam but also created a serious security scenario forcing the Government of India to promulgate an ordinance to prohibit the entry of such Muslim migrants from East Pakistan into Assam and India. While the non-Muslim migrants were classified as ‘displaced’ or referred to as ‘refugees’ the latter were clearly identified as ‘undesirable immigrants’ in official discourse, including the Ordinance that the central government promulgated to overcome the grave scenario, pending the passage of a bill in the provisional Parliament to that effect. Though the arguments came from diverse ideological backgrounds and different readings of history, this classificatory difference between ‘displaced’/refugees and illegal immigrants continued to dominate the debates on migration/immigration cutting across ideological lines.

When the Government brought in the bill to regularize the ordinance through the Undesirable Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Bill 1950 to the Parliament to “provide for the expulsion from Assam of undesirable immigrants”, as distinguished from “persons who on account of disturbances or disorder in Pakistan’or any other country have come to take refugee in Assam…”, almost all the members of parliament dominated by the Congress party joined ranks. Almost all the members speaking on the bill especially those from Assam, prominent being Shri Rohini Kumar Choudhury, Shri Surendranath Buragohain, Shri Dev Kanta Barooah, and Shri Kuladhar Chaliha supported the bill and desired its passage into an Act. There is no doubt that the Bill, on becoming an act with the title Illegal Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 promulgated on the 1st of March, 1950, contributed to create a legal foundation for a differential between Non-Muslim and Muslim migrants into Assam based on a difference in understanding the causes of migration distinguished on religious lines, the focus on violence or apprehensions about it and its diverse manifestations on the non-Muslims in East Pakistan and its resultant insecurities and apprehensions. Members were extremely concerned with the fate of the migrants who had come to Assam from areas which formed part of East Pakistan as the situation was not as favourable for the refugees in East Pakistan. Apart from Rohini Choudhury, Mr Surendranath Buragohain took to the floor to assert the difference between the refugees and immigrants. Rohini Choudhury led the debate by asking the Minister,
“to make it clear by a clause that the word ‘immigrant’ in the Bill does not include the refugees who have come to Assam…But I may say that for a single refugee who has come to Assam three times that number have come from Eastern Pakistan who cannot by any means be called refugee…who have come in for economical reasons or for the reasons of exploitation.”
Considering the location of Assam as the third partitioned province of colonial India, it was perhaps important to make the difference considering that the minority Hindus from Sylhet would naturally want to come to India, more so to Assam as the displaced. It was not to any surprise that Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani was quick to point out that “it is very natural that these people, Hindus who were formerly people of Assam and who are now citizens of East Bengal, when they are persecuted they would try to enter our land.” Perhaps the most vociferous was Mr Deb Kanta Barooah, also from Assam, who was even more categorical to point out that,
“although the dictionary meaning of the word ‘immigrant’ is anybody who comes from one country to another, in this particular case the word ‘immigrant’ means only Pakistani Muslim immigrants from Eastern Pakistan and does not include the refugees of whom a census was separately taken in Assam. We have learnt from Shri Rohini Kumar Choudhury that 1,20,000 displaced persons, who left East Bengal for fear of persecution have come to Assam. We must draw a line between these two types of people-People of Pakistani origin and nationality who owe no loyalty to our country and to our State, and people who for their love of India and patriotism have been persecuted in Pakistan and have taken shelter in Assam.”
These interventions from the debate led the Government of India to insert a proviso into one of the sections of the bill that sought to make the distinction between persecuted displaced minority community person/refugee East Pakistan and illegal/ undesirable migrants from East Pakistan who had ‘subsequently come to reside in Assam’. The mover of the bill, Gopalaswami Ayyangar, in his reply was firm in pointing out that, the sword of eviction and the clause of ‘undesirability’ under the Act, when promulgated, would not apply to people, “who subsequent to the partition of the subcontinent on the 15th of August, 1947, have migrated in fear to Assam, because of disturbance in Pakistan or their fear of their being badly dealt with in Pakistan.” Therefore when the Act came to be promulgated, the proviso to Section 2(b) read,
‘Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of Pakistan has been displaced from or has left his place of residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in Assam.’
Though most Indian leaders including Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel were generally opposed to the migration and settlement of refugees from East Pakistan in India, on principle, trying to talk to their east Pakistani counterparts or on many occasions making insensitive statements about East Bengal refugees, with the hope that these refugees would not migrate to India or even if they had migrated, they would go back to Pakistan, they also fell in line with the dominant pro-refugee and anti-immigrant sentiments of their political compatriots turned fellow Members of Parliament.
When the aggravation of violence on non-Muslims in East Pakistan and against Muslims in some provinces of India led the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan to meet in April 1950 it forced the Government to bring a motion in Parliament to discuss the critical situation in East Bengal in Parliament. Probably for the first time, Jawaharlal Nehru, initiating a discussion on the motion Re: Bengal Situation on the 7th of August, 1950, stood in Parliament to point out that,
my opinion is that the Hindu minority in East Bengal feels – it is an important fact how they feel- insecure and , therefore they cannot settle down, you might say and there is a tendency to come away or even if they remain, they do not know how long they will remain. That is a fact…,
and further pointing out that,
…10 million people, nearly a crore of Hindus are still in East Pakistan. It is a very large number. It is true that a large number of middle class people have come over; it is also true that specially after these February– March disturbances, people like teachers came over. Schools were closed; educational institutions ceased to function, so that the normal life of the minority community was completely upset there. There were children without schools and school masters without children and so on…
But that was only the tip of the iceberg. As the Hindu middle class left their homes in East Pakistan, the brunt of violence fell on the lower classes and the Dalits who were still holding on to their homes which came to be detailed in the resignation letter of the Dalit leader Jogendranath Mandal of East Pakistan from his post of Cabinet Minister of Pakistan and subsequent statement on his migration to India who pointed out that,
“neither the East Bengal Government nor the Muslim League leaders were really earnest in the matter of implementation of the Delhi Agreement…Commission of thefts and dacoities even with murder is going on as merrily as before. Thana officers seldom record half the complaints made by Hindus. That the abduction and rape of Hindu girls has been reduced to certain extent is due only to the fact that there is no caste Hindu girl between the ages of 12 and 30 living in East Bengal at present. The few depressed class girls who live in rural areas with their parents are not even spared by Muslim goondas. I have received information about a number of incidents of rape of scheduled caste girls by Muslims. Full payment is seldom made by Muslim buyers for the price of jute and other agricultural commodities sold by Hindus in major market places. As a matter of fact there is no operation of law, justice or fair play in Pakistan, so far as Hindus are concerned.”
The situation in East Pakistan was not a secret and the Government of India was aware of the situation on the ground across the border as the Prime minister in a statement on the exodus of people from East Pakistan between 1947 and 1949 had pointed out, in March, 1950, that, “1,600,000 people had thus been forced to come away from East Bengal to West Bengal during the period ending on 31st December, 1949.” While Nehru was keen to present a sober and a balanced picture of the background for the incessant migration scenario in the subcontinent by 15th November, 1950 when he rose to speak on the President’s address to Parliament and pointed to the refugee situation he assured the members of Parliament that,
…the hon. Member referred to the question of citizenship. There is no doubt, of course, that those displaced persons who have come to settle in India are bound to have their citizenship. If the law is inadequate in this respect, the law should be changed.
The Government of the day had indeed come a long way since April of the same year when the Prime Minister was steadfast in advocating the repatriation of the refugees from East Pakistan and was reticent to ensure their rehabilitation in India.

In lieu of a conclusion

While many individuals and organizations have charged the present Government and the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill with the violation of the Constitutional spirit, mandate and the principle of secularism that was far from the truth for it was as much the realization of the Nehru’s promise to Parliament of 15th November 1950 as also the wishes of the founding members of the Constituent Assembly and the Parliament belonging to Assam itself. The protests that followed the passage and notification of the Act probably reminded the Indians that despite the passage of time, the wounds of partition and the antagonisms of an earlier era have not healed. Probably the promise of the midnight hour and the sentiments that nurtured the Constitution making and the provisions of the basic documents according to which the country would be governed had long been forgotten. Though the attempts of the post-colonial government has been to move beyond the predicaments of partition of India in 1947 it is something that we are yet to reconcile with.

The writer is a faculty member at Department of History, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong. Opinions expressed are personal

Please follow and like us:
A graveyard on the outskirts of Shillong, Meghalaya. PHOTO: CALVIN LYNGDOH 

5 points to ponder


Distressing news about the coronavirus pandemic has come out of Shillong in the past few days. The news of the first case in the state being detected has been followed almost immediately by news that the patient had died. Tragedy was heaped on tragedy as his last rites could not be performed for the better part of two days. The bereaved family, already dealing with the shock of a loved and respected elder being afflicted and dying, had to deal with trolling from strangers who blamed them for bringing the disease to the state, and the shocking aftermath in which different localities refused to allow both cremation and burial of the deceased.
Dr John Sailo Ryntathiang, 69, was director of the Bethany Hospital in Shillong, and had spent his life as a medical practitioner serving the people. His wish to be buried on his own land near Nongpoh unfortunately could not be fulfilled because the public there, perhaps being instigated, refused to allow this. Christians are normally buried in the burial grounds of their own church denominations, but this too did not happen. The government’s proposal to cremate the body and bury the ashes in the place he had wanted also faced a hurdle because society leaders of the Jhalupara crematorium objected to the corpse being taken to their locality. Now, when the country’s Vice President has commented on this, and the national media has reported it, individuals and communities are busy bickering and blaming one another for the mess. As if the coronavirus pandemic is not a big enough problem already, the situation is being made worse by the introduction of a communal angle, surrounding both the infection, and the incidents of denial of cremation and burying.
We had seen this tendency towards communalisation already earlier at a national level when news of the Tablighi Markaz cluster of cases emerged. The case in Shillong was a senior doctor, a tribal and a Christian, just not one from the local tribe. Had the patient been a Bengali Muslim or even a Hindu non-tribal, I shudder to think of what the reaction might have been. The main reason for such a reaction, to my mind, is fear. People are afraid and they are reacting in fear which soon turns to hatred and anger. Since they cannot see the virus, the anger turns on the unfortunate afflicted. This is probably a natural reaction given the shock of realising that the dreaded disease has finally found its way to their vicinity. However, it is based on a failure to understand or remember a few basic facts:

1. Meghalaya and Shillong were extremely fortunate for a long time

The first case in India was detected on January 30 in Kerala. The first case in Meghalaya was reported on April 13. By then, every state in India except Meghalaya and Sikkim had reported cases. All other Northeast states including Arunachal Pradesh, the remotest of the Northeast states, had cases. Even the Andaman and Nicobar Islands had cases. It hardly needs to be said that all major communities had cases. Shillong is arguably far more connected at a global level than any Northeastern town or city excepting Guwahati. Given that the coronavirus has spread literally to the ends of the world, it was a bit too hopeful for Shillongites to think the disease would never find its way there.

2. Meghalaya and Shillong were extremely unfortunate when it hit

Manipur’s first case was detected on March 24. It was a young student studying in London. She was safely quarantined, and recovered. Mizoram’s first case was detected on March 25. He was a pastor who had returned from the Netherlands. In both of these cases, the first patient to show symptoms was not someone who had wide physical contact with a large number of people. Mizoram had already suspended church services a week earlier. Shillong’s luck was truly rotten. The first case itself happened to be a senior doctor. A lot of people are going to hospitals even under lockdown, because they have to – other diseases have not ended since coronavirus began. A lot of people also work in the hospital. Doctors and medical staff have to touch patients, in many cases. From no suspects the state went directly to having thousands of people calling in to be tested because they had visited the hospital and therefore had possible contact with the doctor directly or indirectly.

3. A lot of infected people are asymptomatic

It is not necessary that an infected person will show symptoms. The dangerous thing about the disease is that around 25 percent of the cases are asymptomatic, meaning that the infected person shows no symptoms, Dr Robert Redfield, the Director of the US Centers for Disease Control, told NPR in an interview. In case of Shillong, Dr John Sailo, the deceased patient, is the first known case. It was unfortunate that he happened to be an elderly man with existing health conditions, which caused him to pass away soon after he was diagnosed. How he got the disease is still a matter of speculation. His son in law, a pilot, who flew back from New York on March 14, was suspected of being the carrier, but he had no symptoms and tested negative thrice. Is it possible for someone to have the disease and test negative? Yes. Scientists have expressed concern that the most common type of covid-19 test, the reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, is showing false-negative results about 30 percent of the time. Moreover, the accuracy of any test depends on it being properly performed. This is a new disease and ground level staff, who are themselves terrified of it, are also inexperienced in dealing with the sample collection and testing. There are chances of errors, although thrice would be highly unlikely.

4. Illogical beliefs are making things worse

Part of the widespread fear is being fuelled by illogical and unscientific suspicions. In the case of Shillong, it was irrational on the part of those who denied Dr Sailo cremation and burial to have done so. The mere passage of a coffin through an area should not be enough to panic a neighbourhood out of its humanity. Dead people do not cough, sneeze or even breathe. Whatever viruses are inside the dead body would remain there. Some viruses might be present outside, on clothes or skin, but once the casket is sealed the virus should not normally be propelled outside. Burning the body in case of cremation would also destroy the virus. A wash of the place and some thorough hand-washing by those who handled the body after would have sufficed – and indeed, this is more or less what finally happened. It is understood that thoroughly washing hands with soap is sufficient to wash away the virus. That is why the whole world is busy washing hands all the time these days – because washing hands washes away any viruses that might be on the hands. There was no need to panic.

5. The disease is probably here to stay

This is the hardest realisation that not just Shillong or Meghalaya but India and the world have to come to. The coronavirus is probably here to stay. It is not going away next week or next month. It has now spread to 210 countries and territories, which is more than the membership of the United Nations. It can no longer be isolated or contained. The genie is out of the bottle. The only way this pandemic is going to end is when a sizeable part of the world’s population develops what experts call “herd immunity”, meaning immunity as a group. This immunity can be developed in one of two ways. A person can become immune by having the disease and recovering from it, or by taking a vaccine once it is invented, tested and available in the market. However, please remember that no vaccine exists yet, and even when one is invented, all countries around the world will try to grab it, and rich people everywhere will scramble to buy it driving prices up beyond reach of the poor. It may be years before it is available at affordable prices all over the world.

It is going to be a long haul. People of Shillong, Meghalaya, and the world will have to overcome their fears and rally together to courageously help one another in this crisis. Panic, recriminations, and communal hatred will not help. They will make a bad situation worse. In order to successfully fight this pandemic, we have to find, if at all they exist, the better angels of our nature.

Please follow and like us:

The worrying thing for all Indians is the bigger picture. The way things are going, the BJP’s dream of a “Congress-mukt Bharat” no longer appears fanciful. This is a problem for the entire country, and even for BJP supporters, because democracy requires checks and balances. With the only existing national alternative in disarray and key institutions appearing hollower by the day, what is at stake is the character of Indian democracy.

It is true that ‘national interest’ is paramount. Yet as eminent political scientist Rajni Kothari put it: an aggressive approach to the establishment of one central authority and the suppression of all plural identities provides a ready recipe for disintegration rather than integration. The challenge lies in keeping the country intact and of creating, out of its disparate parts and varied elements, a nation with a broad vision and consensus.

Since the ruling BJP-led government’s official stance was that it would absorb and give citizenship to all Hindus originating from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, one may assume that Hindu Bengalis excluded from the Assam NRC will eventually be absorbed as citizens; but then what would happen to the non-Hindus? The ramifications of this widening groundswell of public apprehension (that the NRC drive is mainly ethnic and more exactly against minority communities in Assam) were taken seriously enough by the government. Sheikh Hasina raised the matter personally with Mr Modi in New York, reportedly for the first time. Despite soothing noises by Mr Modi, the sense of disquiet remains.

Dr. S.C Jamir, a veteran politician, famously known as the architect of modern Nagaland, served five times as Chief Minister of Nagaland, was a Member of Parliament during which he served as Union Deputy Minister of Railways, Labour & Rehabilitation, and later as the Union Deputy Minister of Community Development & Cooperation, Food and Agriculture. In later years of his political career, Jamir served as Governor of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa and Odisha. During the tenure of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Jamir was appointed as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and represented India as a member of UN delegations.
East Wind publisher Nona Arhe sat down with him in his home in Dimapur, Nagaland to hear his views on his state, Nagaland, his political party, the Indian National Congress, and the country’s Act East policy, which has special relevance to Northeast India.

Animal rights activists alleged that the Assam Forest Department violated the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 by according out-of-turn “captive” status to the two sub-adult elephants, which they say were caught from the wild. What, they ask, was the Assam Forest Department’s “compulsion” to accord out-of-turn “captive” status to the two sub-adult elephants caught from the wild?

What is most likely to follow is a painful process of going through the legal grind for the excluded who are not saved by the Citizenship Amendment Bill – assuming the Bill will save anyone at all. That too remains a matter of doubt as there are legal and procedural issues.

At the end of it all, thousands of poor people will be further pauperised by the costs of legal fees. Some may die in detention camps or commit suicide. India’s close ties with Bangladesh will be severely tested. The Assamese jatiyobadis may earn an international reputation for xenophobia.

It is also important to note that the fundamental legal bases of the two Registers, viz the NRC of 1951 and the NRC of 2018 are distinct and separate. While the NRC, 1951 was completed under the Census Act of 1948 which makes the register a contemporaneous document prepared by field staff engaged in course of census operation and was legally “not open to inspection nor admissible in evidence” (ALR 1970 (A&N) 206 para 15), admittedly the current NRC is being prepared under the Citizenship Act 1955 read with the Citizenship Rules, 2003. To the best of our knowledge, the Courts and the various orders and judgement have not as yet constructed any legal framework to reconcile the two Acts which have distinct origin and purposes. Neither has any legal framework been evolved to legitimize the use of the NRC,1951 as evidence in matters governed by the Citizenship Act by any amendment or an enabling clause.
The matter is more complicated now as we know that the district offices have not maintained the NRC-1951 data for all the districts as was mandated in the Census of 1951 and the matter is today admitted by the government of Assam as well. While the government was forced to rely on other documents produced by the people, from those districts where the NRC 1951 was absent or fragmentary, to enlist their names in the NRC, 2018, it therefore raises serious questions on the legality or legitimacy of ‘updating’ NRC,1951 in the province of Assam as a whole.