Shahabuddin's Letter to Governor, 9 March, 1999

In your Report to the President on Illegal Migration into Assam there are a number of formulations with nuances which are not directly pertinent to the problem but articulate our lingering fears and apprehensions arising out of the Partition.

The essential point is that since March 1971 illegal immigration, overwhelmingly Muslim, is continuing exemplified by the higher rate of growth of Hindu and Muslim population in Assam during 1971-91, as compared to the whole of India. Your Report does not work out the estimated quantum influx assuming that the rate of growth of Muslim population was the same as for the whole country.

Electoral registration data and Bangladeshi population statistics are not prima facie acceptable Electoral registration has been a tortuous and legally controversial process and the influx from Bangladesh affects not only Assam but all surrounding States of the Union.

The next question is the futility of the IM(DT) Act, 1983 which is incidentally valid for the entire country and may be applied in any State/UT. Its procedural deficiencies can be rectified. The essential question is the burden of proof, in a situation when any one speaking Bengali or bearing a Muslim name or a Bengali surname is likely to be asked to prove his citizenship with the decision resting in the hands of a largely biased bureaucracy!

You have not referred to the identification for electoral revision undertaken 3 or 4 times in the past leading to electoral disenfranchisement of lakhs of electors. How many times is an Indian of Bengali origin living in Assam going to be asked to prove his citizenship?

Equity goes against people being place in another jeopardy.

You have also not referred to the Supreme Court Judgement which lays down that if a person's name appears on the electoral roll, electoral authorities must prove that he is not a citizen before striking out his name.

In the case of a fresh claim for registration, onus lies on the claimant.

The Foreigner's Act, a relic of World War II, goes against our basic jurisprudence that a person is not guilty unless proved to be so.

Therefore, I am for amending but not repealing the IM(DT) Act.

I am almost wholly with you on measures to seal the border and stop further infiltration. But you have suggested Identity Cards only for all nationals living in the border areas. This recycles the question. Therefore, the Identity Cards should be issued to all persons who are found to reside on a given date, say, 1 January 2000, in the border areas. This would mean that any infiltrator, after that date, can be more easily apprehended and brought to law. This card should be a document of identity, not of citizenship.

I also feel that massive statelessness will create its own problems and defeat its very purpose. Also how can the right of anyone born on the soil of India to Indian citizenship be nullified? This is an international norm I think we should persuade Bangladesh to enter into an agreement to facilitate deportation of those persons who are found to be Bangladeshi nationals by a competent judicial authority in accordance with laws which are equitable and meet international human rights standards.

Governor of Assam's Reply, 19 March, 1999

... I agree that IM(DT) Act was passed for the entire country but was made applicable to Assam only. This is blatantly discriminatory. If this Act is necessary to protect the interests of minorities, then why should it be confined to only the minorities of Assam and its "benefits" denied to the minorities in other States, particularly West Bengal and Bihar? ..

Lt. Gen. Jameel Ahmed who was GOC-in-C, Eastern Command once mentioned to me the threat to our national  security on account of the unabated influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh ... (In his) autobiography Shri B.K. Nehru who was Governor of Assam twenty five years ago has mentioned the problem of illegal migration into Assam ... Neither General Jameel nor Shri B.K. Nehru can be dubbed communal or being anti-minority.

 Shahabuddin's Letter to Governor of Assam, 30 March, 1999

The IM(DT) Act was not to 'protect the interest of the minorities 'but to devise a just and equitable method to identify infiltrators, whatever their religion and language. It is for each state government to decide whether to notify it and when to do so. Previously I have always asked the State Governments which report massive infiltration to use this Act. I have done so in the case of Bihar, Delhi, aharashtra and W. Bengal.

It is no one's case that infiltration has not taken place and its magnitude is such that it may be ignored. We have to tackle it in all seriousness. No state can adopt an open door policy. But the level of infiltration should not be exaggerated to cause alarm nor should the rule of law be forsaken.

The point is not who said and wrote what, but whether the measures which have been proposed are in accordance with reason and equity and do not impose unfair burden on innocent persons.