Former Member of Parliament from the Raiganj parliamentary constituency, CPI (M) leader Mohammed Salim and CPI(M) polit bureau member lost the elections this time. But in January this year, he submitted a crucial dissenting note to the now lapsed Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 to the Joint Parliamentary Committee appointed. Given the key issues raised, and the fact that the second tenure of this regime is likely to see a renewed push for this piece of legislation that seeks to fundamentally alter the foundations of Indian Citizenship, Sabrangindia brings to its readers this Dissent Note.

Hopefully, even a fragmented opposition will be able to see through the designs of this regime and mount a sustained and well informed opposition to the proposed changes in India’s Citizenship Law.
 
Point One:  Functioning of Joint Parliamentary Committee
The tardy, even selective manner of functioning of the Committee is a matter of concern. The very purpose of such Committees –constituted to review and critique proposed amendments to Indian statutes– are meant to be consultative, not mere symbolic tokenisms that reduce the process to a farce. The Committee on such a vital issue such as Citizenship that draws its Rights and Base from the Indian Constitution and ought to have been treated with both substantive rigour and procedural correctitude..

For three years since its constitution, this Committee on the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016, never took the task seriously despite the fact that it was constituted on an all important issue. For months together, the Committee never met, when it did so in quick succession and abruptly like last 10 days during Winter Session.

Most Importantly, the discussions and consultations with stakeholders have been reduced to a complete farce. The states of West Bengal. Tripura, Jharkand, Orissa, Andamans were never visited. The visits to these states were required and the absence therein is stark especially given the fact that this is where, mainly Bengali speaking migrants live. There was one almost wholly aborted trip to Assam, a troubled visit, where in all the rest of the places internal Bengali migrant are being subjected to harassment. This will enhance this harassment especially the target will be Bengali Muslims as is possibly intended by a regime that is governed by a supremacist and majoritarian ideology.

The manner in which pre-Organised Memoranda,(copies and single page zeroxes) near identical, in their thousands (mainly from Assam, some from Kolkata) were collectively submitted by fly by night operators to make a show of the fact that people have been consulted further reduced the consultative nature of the committee to a mere farce. Given the grave nature of the amendments being sought, the Committee’s functioning ought to have been more transparent, consultative and pro-active: more meetings with stake holders and affected people were required and detailed talks and deliberations needed to be held. One visit to Assam (after much persuasion, and that too an aborted visit, given the protests) was not even followed up by a second visit as promised.

Point Two: Basic Fundamentals of Indian Constitution Undergoing Change/Shift
Indian Citizenship is a fundamental right and premise drawn from India’s Constitution that is republican and secular. Indian Citizenship is based on the Fundamental Premise of Equality of All regardless of Gender, Caste, Class, Community, Region or Language, principles enshrined in the
Preamble, Citizenship Provisions (Articles 5 to 11) and the Fundamental Rights.  

Besides the guiding principle of India has been the Principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (Sanskrit: वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्) that has meant that all persecuted peoples, be it Jews, Yemenese, Parsees (Zorastrians), Iranians, Afganis, Tibetans, Bangladeshis have all found home here. The phrase appears is engraved at the entrance hall of the parliament of India.  [It means:
 
Point Three: A Political Manifesto Not a Statute Change
The Machiavellean Aims and Ideology behind the proposed Bill as it Stands shows that these Fundamentals have Changed and are being Changed without Democratic Debate and Discussion by a Regime that has reduced Healthy Debate within a Democracy to a Farce.
Indian Citizenship flows from the Constitution of India that grants it as a Fundamental Right. Right cannot be Religion Specific or Country  of origin Specific.

This Amendment does not offer solutions to the issues and problems that the country is facing around but will actually create more problems. Divisiveness and Suspicions between Peoples and Languages will Mount. According to the proposed Amendments, Citizenship will now be determined on the Language and Religion (and Country of Origin) of the proposed applicants.

This actually meets the Ideological Persuasion of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that regards this move as “the Unfinished Agenda of Partition.” India and the Sub-Continent has already lived through one holocaust caused by religious divisions. This will create again the potential of several mini-holocausts of the kind Nellie, Assam has seen in 1983 and other parts of India have also witnessed.

The proposed Amendments extending an open invitation to all Hindus from persecuted neighbouring countries and the underlying threat is that it is Muslims who can be sent off, or reduced to pathetic conditions in Detention Camps or face inhuman treatment as usual suspects.

Point Four: Assam on a Tinder Box and the National Register of Citizens(NRC):
The Joint Parliamentary Committee considering the bill decided on Monday to move ahead with adopting a draft report after all opposition amendments were voted down. The government has argued that the bill is intended for those fleeing persecution and is not for economic migrants seeking a better deal. The Bill proposes citizenship to six persecuted minorities — Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and Buddhists — from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who came to India before 2014. Dissenting Opposition members have argued for the inclusion of all refugees and persecuted persons whether from the abovementioned countries or even ‘Sri lanka or Myanmaar.’

The implications of the committee having cleared an amendment moved by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi seeking to drop legal proceedings against six persecuted minorities, is potentially disstrous and discriminatory. The amendment, if accepted, could mean that Bangladeshi Hindus lodged in detention centres in Assam, facing deportation or declared illegal foreigners would get relief while their compatriots, simply because they are Muslims, would face hardships and persecution.

In fact the proposed Bill will ensure complete institutionalised incarceration and persecution of the Rohingyas facing acute persecution from Myanmaar and not being offered any succour even by Bangladesh.

The proposed amendment, in its current formulation, seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants belonging to certain minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan (all majority-Muslim countries) — Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians—from the category of illegal migrants making them eligible to apply for Indian citizenship. The list of religious minorities, inexplicably, excludes Muslim groups like the Ahmadis, who are also among the most persecuted religious minority in Pakistan. This essentially means that, while non-Muslim migrants become eligible for Indian citizenship, Muslims are denied this right.

There has been a strong resistance to the Bill in the BJP-ruled Assam as it would pave the way for giving citizenship, mostly to illegal Hindu migrants from Bangladesh, who came to Assam after March 1971, in violation of the agreement in the Assam Accord of 1985. The BJP government in Assam is fiercely opposed to the Bill. The BJP’s ally Asom Gana Parishad too has been protesting against it and has threatened to walk out of the alliance if the Bill is passed.

Over 40 lakh people in Assam have been excluded from the final draft of the National Register of Citizens published in July 2018. Reports suggests that 33 lakh of those excluded have successfully re-applied. The underlying intent of the proposed Amendments is to ensure that those ‘Hindu Bengalis’ excluded from the NRC are promised (whether or not this is eventually legally or Constitutionally valid) to be brought in through the Citizenship Bill Amendments. The socio political outcome will be disastrous: People within Assamand Bengal if not elsehwere will be divided, again. between the ‘Hindu’ and the ‘Muslim.’

Betrayal of the Assam Accord
There is a deep rooted contradiction in the bill as regards the terms of the Assam Accord — which calls for repatriation of all migrants irrespective of religion who arrived after March 24, 1971 — and this remains unresolved. The terms of the National Register of Citizens will exclude Hindus from Bangladesh but they will be covered by the provisions of the bill. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to address a rally in Silchar on January 4, 2019 and given the tone and tenor of his and the BJP Leadership’s Provocative Exhorations on the issue, his speech is likely to create dissensions and divisions. The AGP in Assam has strongly protested this Bill with its Amendments.

The JPC’s decision to apparently ride roughshod over political debate and opposition is yet another example of this dispensation pushing through legislation without necessary political debate. In this instance, the ruling party appears unwilling and unprepared to engage in a serious public debate on an issue that involves how the membership in the nation is defined. Winning elections by any means necessary is its priority.

Assam today because of the controversial NRC process sits on a tinder box, a volcano. These proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act will only inflame the situation further causing unimaginable social turmoil and even targeted violence.
For the present central leadership of the Bharaitya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), this basic alteration of Indian citizenship is in line with what they see as the unfinished business of the Partition. They believe that Indian citizenship laws should recognize a right of return for Hindus from Pakistan and Bangladesh to India, similar to the right of Jews to return to Israel, or of ethnic Germans to Germany.

Point Five: Regime Unhappy with Rejection of India’s Rejection of Two Nation Theory
The proposed Amendments will do nothing short of foment Political, Religion, Linguistic and Ethnic Divisions. Those of this dominating persuasion are unhappy with the Indian Constitution’s unequivocal rejection of the two-nation theory. Today, based on the fundamentals of equality and non-discrimination within the constitution, Indian law cannot distinguish between Hindu and Muslim arrivals from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The real purpose of the citizenship amendment bill seems to be to introduce this distinction into India’s citizenship laws.
The BJP’s 2014 manifesto rather crudely states that “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.” Such a statement mimics the policy of only one other country, Israel—which sees itself as a sanctuary for Jews who are given an automatic right to enter the country and earn citizenship.

In February 2014, Prime Minister Modi (then on an election campaign) infamously said, “We have a responsibility towards Hindus who are harassed and suffer in other countries. India is the only place for them.” Israel, it is well known, has a dismal track record not just on the human rights of other peoples in general but of the Palestinians at the West Bank, in particular.

In the paragraphs preceding this ill-considered statement in its 2014 manifesto, the BJP praised its “NRIs, PIOs and professionals settled abroad” who are a “vast reservoir to articulate the national interests and affairs globally.” The hypocrisy is patent. These NRIs and PIOs are able to live in these countries because of the relatively liberal immigration policies of their countries of residence. The BJP’s concern, in its manifesto, is only for middle-class and upper-class professionals (they too, Hindu), and it provides no reassurances for the Indian workers across the world whose remittances support their families and Indian foreign exchange balances.

Point Six: India’s Compromised Refugee Policy
In the early 1980s, xenophobic utterances—fiercely anti-Bangladeshi statements—had catalyzed targeted pogroms in Assam, where BJP now rules, but dictated its political consolidation in other parts of “mainstream” India. This occurred even as the term “Bangladeshi” was deliberately collapsed at really meaning “Muslim,” just as the terms “Pakistani,” “Muslim” and “anti-patriotic/national” are potently expressed interchangeably.

It was in 1983 that the government in New Delhi enacted The Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunal (IMDT) Act, which was an Act of the Parliament of India implemented by the Indira Gandhi government. It was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2005 in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India. It described the procedures to detect illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and expel them from Assam. The Act was pushed through mainly on the grounds that it provided special protections against undue harassment to the “minorities” affected by the Assam Agitation. It was applicable to the state of Assam only whereas in other states, detection of foreigners is done under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The current chief minister who shifted political allegiances to join the BJP on the eve of the state elections was the petitioner in the case.
Operation Pushback and Operation Flush Out derive as much from xenophobic political pressure as from India’s lack of a refugee policy fully in line with international law.

Re-Look at India’s Refugee Policy
More than anything else, a closer look at India’s refugee policy is in order. We are neither a signatory to the United Nations’ 1951 refugee convention nor its 1967 protocol. The reasons why India did not join these is based on a genuine understanding of the state of affairs then — the 1951 convention defined “refugees” as Europeans who had to be re-settled and suggested that “refugees” were those who fled the “non-Free world” for the “Free world.”

It was in December 1950, at the UN’s third committee, that Vijaylakshmi Pandit (sister of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister) objected to the Euro-centrism of the definition of refugee.“Suffering knows no racial or political boundaries; it is the same for all,” she said.“As international tension increases, vast masses of humanity might be uprooted and displaced.” The refugee crisis across the world is now severe for reasons of war and economic distress. Three years later, the foreign secretary, R.K. Nehru, told the UNHCR representative that the UN agency helped refugees from “the so-called non-free world into the free world. We do not recognize such a division of the world.”

Despite of its reluctance to join these international conventions, India has obligations under international law. India has signed onto the 1967 UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum and the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. Even though it is not a member of the 1951 refugee convention that frames the work of the UNHCR, India is on its executive committee, which supervises the agency’s material assistance programme.

Following this international human rights law, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that refugees could not be forcibly repatriated because of the protections to life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

India’s current refugee policy is governed by the Foreigners Act of 1946 that does not even use the term “refugee.” Without a clear-cut policy, Indian governments have, over the years, dealt with different refugee populations depending on their political worldview at the time. For example, India’s treatment of Tibetans conforms to its relationship with China.

It is this absence of a cohesive refugee policy that set the ground for Operation Pushback in the 1990s, which used the Bangladeshi refugees as a tool for communal politics. And today, this is dictating a political desire to fundamentally alter Indian citizenship law.

In the United Nations too, things have changed. The fundamental principles on which a universal and accepted regime on refugees and asylum has evolved is universality, under the UDHR or the 1951 Convention on Refugees that mandates that all people who seek refuge should be treated equally.

I strongly argue that India—by its standing in various international protocols—has a responsibility to all asylum seekers and migrants, and must treat them equally. To do anything less than that would move India to join the wave of anti-immigration hysteria that has taken hold in Europe and North America, and has been structured into state policy in Israel. Worse than anything it would be back-peddling on our own tradition of a visionary and inclusive international foreign policy.

It was not long after the deplorable Operation Pushback of the 1990s that the former chief justice of India, P. N. Bhagwati, chaired a panel to create a model law for India on refugee rights. Bhagwati—who had also served as regional adviser for Asia and the Pacific for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights — suggested that “an appropriate legal structure or framework” would give Indian states “a measure of certainty” in their policy-making and it would give “greater protection for the refugees.” Bhagwati’s model law defined refugees as people outside their country of origin who could not return there because of “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, sex, ethnic identity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

This was a very broad and important standard, which would greatly improve Indian refugee policy. Bhagwati’s report—like so many other well-meaning commissions—has made little impact. It was turned into a draft law—the Refugees and Asylum Seekers bill, but was unable to leave the home ministry for Parliament because of pressure from the Indian security establishment and various political calculations. Even before the extreme right-wing present government assumed power, earlier political formulations simply did not have the will to see the law through.

So today, in 2019, when India’s parliament seeks to fundamentally alter the very basis of Indian citizenship laws, and may even do this without honouring Indian federalism, the implications of the change are huge for the country and subcontinent.

The Indian Constitution’s rejection of the two-nation theory is crucially important for the status of Indian Muslims as equal citizens.
The proposed amendments will impact not only the sense of security of Indian Muslims, but also the future security of Hindus in Bangladesh, and the credibility of India’s historical position on the Kashmir question. A hard national question across the political spectrum is in order. The implications of the bill are far more profound, ill conceived and downright dangerous.

I therefore demand, in this Dissent Note,  that this Bill must be withdrawn.

Mohammed Salim, ed Member of Parliament, CPI-M
 

The post Why Opp MPs Strongly Dissented against the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 and How appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
The Northeast exploded with a bandh and other actions.Its first impact is the whole of the Northeast coming together against it, except some Bengali majority districts of Assam and of Tripura. The bandh was total all over the region. Normally each State has its own action. This is the first time in a long time that the whole region reacted together to what it perceived as a common threat. In Assam the AsomGanaParishad (AGP) that had led the Assam Movement 1979-85 pulled out of the coalition government, putting the BJP Chief Minister SarbanandaSonowal, a former AGP leader in a fix. The BJP tried to counter the opposition to the Bill by on one side announcing that six communities left out of the tribal schedule would be included in the schedule. Simultaneously the Centre appointed a committee to make suggestions for an amendment to the Constitution to protect the indigenous people of Assam. That does not seem to have assuaged the feelings. The committee was still born with nine out of ten members declining to be part of it. Voices of opposition to the Bill were heard from some BJP legislators in Assam. The BJP Chief Minister of Manipur declared his opposition to the bill and said that Manipur should be exempted from it. Also the Chief Minister of Meghalaya who has BJP as a coalition partner opposed it and threatened to walk out of the coalition. In Tripura the bandh was called mainly by the tribals who have been reduced to a minority by the Bengali Hindu influx.
 
The second impact is deepening of the communal divide. There is a strong feeling in the Northeast against what are called illegal Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants. But in Tripura the immigrants are predominantly Hindus who have occupied much tribal land. Also the Barack Valley of Assam has Hindu immigrants. Even the Hindu-Muslim divide is an outside introduction. The local people are concerned more about protecting their land, culture and identity from immigrants than about their religion. But the Bill speaks of granting citizenship to all members of persecuted minorities of the three neighbouring Muslim majority countries. However, in his speech at Silchar the PM is reported to have said that the bill would strengthen Hindus. The remaining minorities seemed to be only a facade to hide this objective. That introduced a Bengali-Assamese divide in Assam in addition to the Hindu-Muslim division. In Tripura it strengthened the tribal-Bengali divide. Thus, the ethnic tension increased in the Northeast.
 
However, the BJP was deaf to these voices. That increased the sense of alienation between the people of the Northeast and peninsular India. A feeling has grown in the region that the exercise is part of the Hindutva agenda ofthe ruling party and that it is ready to lose the 22 seats of this region in order to present itself as the saviour of Hinduism in the Hindu majority states. Some leaders of the movement like Dr Hiren Gohainare reported to have warned the Centre that it can strengthen the voices of people who demand independence of Assam. For this “crime” a case of sedition was thrust on him and two other persons. That cannot but further alienate the region from the rest of India.
 
That is where the rest of India needs to wake up to the reality of the “divide and rule” policy in the Northeast and the feeling of alienation in the region. TheNortheast cannot be allowed to be alienated further. People in the rest of India have to take up the challenge of preventing this downslide by opposing this bill. A whole region cannot be sacrificed to the electoral needs of one party.
 
(The Hindi version of this article was published in DainikJagaran on January 20, 2019)
 
Related Articles:

1. Exclusive: Indian Citizenship is a Fundamental Right, can’t be Religion, Country of Specific: MP’s Dissent Note
2. Bring Citizenship bill or Assam will go to Jinnah’s: BJPs HimantaSarma
3. Scrap the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, it is UnUnconstitutional, Illegal and Immoral: 70 People’s Organisations of Assam
4. How India’s Right-Wing Government Is Trying to Institutionalize Discrimination Against Muslim Migrants

The post Does the Northeast even count in the Regime’s Cynical push to the Citizenship Amendment Bill? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Image Courtesy: PTI
 
Guwahati: If the assembly elections in 2018 were any indication, BJP could risk losing its power in the North East in the upcoming Lok Sabha Elections this year. BJP was confident about winning 20 of the 25 Lok Sabha seats from the seven North-Eastern States in the general elections this year. After winning almost all North Eastern states in the assembly elections with the help of alliances, it was assumed that the sentiment will be mirrored in the upcoming 2019 polls. By getting a massive victory in these states, it hoped to allay the challenges being faced in western and central India.
 
Everything changed in a split second after BJP took a strong position in favour of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). Its stronghold, the state of Assam is seeing the most resistance since the proposal of Citizenship Amendment Bill was initiated in 2016.
 
Assam was the lone resistance against the bill and the other NE states were maintaining a measured silence because of the cordial relationships of big regional parties and social organisations with BJP. After CAB was passed in Lok Sabha, growing public discontent compelled parties to break their silence and revolt against the Bill reconsider their partnership with BJP. Since JPC gave the clearance to CAB and the Prime Minister declared India a natural home for Hindus around the World on Jan 4 at Silchar, Assam was engulfed in rage. The people and authorities in Assam found the declaration nothing but an attempt to jeopardize the ongoing NRC process which is being updated to detect, detain and deport foreigners in Assam.
 
The day Citizenship Amendment Bill was tabled in Parliament, 14 youngsters from Assam protested naked just 15 metres away far from the main entrance of the Parliament. The Left Democratic Forum (LDF) brought out a massive rally in the heart of Guwahati and other district headquarters in the State. The writers, artists and intellectuals of the State organised a massive rally at Guwahati “Save Assam, Save Constitution” under the leadership of eminent public intellectual Dr. Hiren Gohain. All these protests were ignored by the ruling BJP Government in Assam and at the Centre, as they thought the protest of Assamese people will be short-lived and thus the Citizenship Amendment Bill was hastily passed in Lok Sabha.
 
BJP leaders everywhere tried to undermine the movement against CAB and called it a tactic by leftists, left intellectuals and backed by Congress. Himanta Biswa Sharma, one of the most powerful ministers of Assam attacked Dr Hiren Gohain by saying, “The movement against Citizenship Amendment Bill is not a movement by Assamese people but a movement by Left intellectuals who want Assam to turn into Pakistan. Their only objection to the bill is that Muslims are not given opportunity to get Citizenship under the bill. If Muslims were given an opportunity to get Citizenship, then neither the Congress nor Dr. Hiren Gohain will oppose this bill.”
Assam State BJP spokesperson actively attacked the united movement by saying that the expenditure of the movement was borne by Congress.
 
Assam State BJP President Ranjit Das said, “The Citizenship Amendment Bill is in the interest of Assamese people. The bill will open an opportunity to give Citizenship to Hindus only to save Assam from the aggression of Muslims.” While BJP leaders were trying to pacify the public discontent by stoking the Islamophobia fire, Congress, Maoists and the people of Assam largely rejected all types of false propaganda.
 
As time passes, the growing dissatisfaction of the general masses is demanding an answer from BJP alliances and are demanding clarification about their support for BJP and opposition against the Citizenship Amendment Bill.
 
Opposition from BJP allies
On January 7, while the discussion on CAB was happening in the Parliament, several political leaders and Assam intellectuals started criticizing the bill and BJP one after the other. Even the alliance partner of BJP in Assam, the AGP, was not spared from criticism in eminent Guwahati power circles.
 
At the massive gathering of “Save Assam, Save Constitution” movement, eminent Lawyer of Assam, Arup Barbara, who has had a long association with BJP, spoke against AGP saying, “the AGP, which was born from the womb of the Assam Movement, is being opportunistic about the Citizenship Amendment Bill. If they do not reconsider their relationship with the BJP after so many protests, people of Assam should strongly oppose AGP too.”
 
A few minutes after this warning, the Working President of AGP and Minister of Assam, Keshab Mahanta declared in Delhi, “After so many efforts, we failed to convince BJP. The party is firm in passing the Citizenship Amendment Bill. In this situation, the coalition between AGP and BJP can’t continue. AGP has decided to be with the people of Assam. We are withdrawing our support for BJP. All Ministers and Chairman’s of various departments and boards are going to submit their resignation. We will go to the streets so that the Citizenship Amendment Bill can’t be passed at any cost.” Two days later, three Ministers of Assam resigned from BJP led Government in Assam.
 
Opposition from Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland
In Meghalaya, the NPP led Government, which was part of the North East Democratic Alliance (NEDA), a united front under BJP, declared its opposition against Citizenship Amendment Bill. After AGPs departure from the BJP led alliance, Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma declared that the NPP led Government in Meghalaya will not allow CAB to pass. He claimed that if the bill is passed, the NPP led Government in Meghalaya will cease all relationships with the BJP and NEDA. Later, the Meghalaya Cabinet and Assembly passed a motion against CAB. Two BJP MLAs in Meghalaya also opposed CAB.
 
In Mizoram, the Mizo National Front, which is also a part of the BJP led NEDA, also registered a strong opposition against the Citizenship Amendment Bill. MNF is the party in power in Meghalaya. It said that the Citizenship Amendment Bill is not acceptable to the Mizoram Government. It assured that if the bill is accepted by the Parliament, MNF will cease all coalition with BJP. In Meghalaya, there is a coalition Government led by Nationalist People’s Party (NPP). NPP has 20 members in the 60 members Assembly house in Meghalaya, where 7 other parties including 2 BJP MLAs are coalition partners of NEDA. In the 40 members house in Mizoram, MNF has 27 MLAs and BJP has one MLA.
 
In Nagaland, the Nagaland Democratic Progressive Party (NDPP) led government also decided to oppose the Citizenship Amendment Bill. In the 60 members Nagaland Assembly, NDPP is the largest party within NEDA constituents. NDPP has 18, BJP has 12, NPP has 2, JD(U) has 1 and one other independent MLA are constituents of NEDA Government in the State.
 
The main opposition, Nagaland People’s Front (NPF) is the single largest party with 26 MLAs. When the main opposition party of Nagaland has strongly opposed the Citizenship Amendment Bill, the ruling NDPP led NEDA Government has followed suit. The Nagaland cabinet in their resolution said that the Nagaland Government will not accept the Citizenship Amendment Bill at any cost.
 
Not just the coalitions, but the BJP led Government in Manipur and Arunachal Pradesh has also resolved not to accept the Citizenship Amendment Bill. Thus, other than the BJP led government in Assam and Tripura, all other five States, where either BJP is leading the government or is a coalition partner is opposing the Citizenship Amendment Bill, which is being seen as a huge embarrassment for the BJP in North-East.
 
Situation in Assam
With all the seven sisters united against CAB, the house of cards seems to be falling at a rapid pace for BJP. The situation in Assam is deteriorating rapidly. With the CM and other Assam political leaders backing CAB, many others are against it. The bill has caused a huge rift across party lines.
 
In a statement issued Jan 10, Assam Assembly speaker and the BJP MLA from Jorhat said, “People of Assam have strongly opposed the Citizenship Amendment Bill. When all the people who love Assam from their soul can’t accept the bill, my heart and conscience can’t accept it either. The government must respect the sentiments of Assam people.”
 
Not only the speaker of Assam Legislative Assembly but senior BJP MLA Padma Hazarika, Atul Bora and first time MLA of BJP Rituparna Baruah from Lahowal, also opposed CAB. On January 14, Rituparna Baruah in his media briefing said, “Citizenship Amendment Bill is not acceptable for us.” He even criticized the sedition charge against public intellectual Dr. Hiren Gohain and said, “Dr. Hiren Gohain is the conscience of Assam. There is a greater conspiracy within the home department to defame Dr. Hiren Gohain.”
 
Not only a few MLAs but Assam State BJP spokesperson Mehdi Alom Borah left primary membership of BJP on January 8 a few minutes after the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha. The biggest wound to BJP in the CAB row was inflicted on October 10 when the most respected BJP leader of Assam, Chandra Kanta Das, a former IAS, left the primary membership of the party. At the time of resignation, Chandra Kanta Das was serving as the Vice-president of BJP in Assam.

The post Seven sisters against big brother over Citizenship Amendment Bill appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

 
Guwahati, 9 January: While addressing a huge rally at Ramkrishna Nagar, Silchar, on January 4, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made two announcements that sent the entire North East, especially Assam into a tailspin!
 
First, Modi announced that the Citizenship Amendment Bill-2016 will be passed immediately. The second assurance was to pacifying the Assamese nationalist group that, implementation of sixth chapter of Assam Accord, 1985 for Socio-Economic and Political safeguard to indigenous people of Assam. The twin declaration created huge controversy not only in Assam, but entire North-East India.
 
Just after this, prominent intellectuals, writers and thinkers of the state, cutting cross socio-political lines, assembled in Guwahati and decided aim for long term movement to save Assam and save the Constitution, under the leadership of eminent thinker and public intellectual Dr Hiren Gohain.
 
Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS), in association with 70 other ethnic and civil rights organization promptly organised a press meet at Guwahati, and appealed for united movement to pressurize the State and Union Government so that Citizenship Amendment Bill-2016 can’t be turned into a law.
 
On the other hand, All Assam Student’s Union (AASU), which remain close to BJP for long time, in association with 29 other organizations, refused to accept the lofty implementation of 6th para of Assam Accord, in exchange of scraping 5th para of Assam Accord, that deals with detection, detention and deportation of any foreigners, who entered Assam after 24th March, 1971. AASU Advisor, Dr Sammujjal Kumar Bhattacharyya, briefed the media that, “the Citizenship Amendment Bill-2016, once becomes law, it will allow all Bangladeshi Hindus to enter into Assam, without any time limit. Thus, killing 5th para of Assam Accord, the 6th para of the Accord will be meaningless. So, AASU and 29 other organizations, associated with AASU, can’t accept it.” 
 
Shortly after the announcement by Modi in Silchar, Association of 70 organizations under KMSS, started hunger strike all over the state. On the next day, before taking the initiative to pass the Citizenship Amendment Bill, the Union Government hurriedly formed a High-Powered Committee for implementation of 6th para of Assam Accord, for formulating the safeguard of indigenous people of Assam in regards to Social, Cultural, Economic and Political rights. The initiative of Union Government could pacify the much created unrest in the State. The AASU and its allied organizations called a North-East Bandh on 8th January at the eleventh hour.
 
The day, the JPC report was submitted in Parliament, a strong reaction rocked Assam. On 7th January, the time was fixed for tabling the JPC report in Parliament, simultaneously, 15 youth from Assam, under the call of protest by united forum of 70 organizations, protested against Citizenship Amendment Bill-2016 by marching in the nude. At the same time, Left Democratic Forum (LDF), a common platform for 11 political parties marched for Deputy Commissioner’s office at Guwahati against Citizenship Amendment Bill. All District headquarters of also witnessed march of hundreds of people against the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB), in response to the call by LDF, an association of 70 organizations and “Save Assam, Save Constitution” movement under the leadership of Dr Hiren Gohain. When the protest rally was on all over the state, the prominent intellectuals, writers, artists gathered at hear of Guwahati city to observe black day as per the call given by “Save Assam, Save Constitution” Movement.
 
Eminent thinker and Educationist Dr Hiren Gohain hoisted the black flag in presence of huge gathering. In the rally Dr Hiren Gohain, Former DGP Dr Harekrishna Deka, Prominent Advocate Arup Barbara, Former Additional Chief Secretary of Assam and noted Historian Dr Lakshmi Nath Tamuly, Former Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi and Prafulla Kumar Mahanta, Eminent writer, Poet and Actress Maini Mahanta, Singer Loknath Goswami, famous Neurologist Navanil Baruah besides others strongly criticized BJP for it’s more to breakdown the secular ideals of Indian Constitution and violating the Assam Accord. Each and every speaker called on for continuous statewide campaign so that BJP can be defeated each and every constituencies of the State. Most vocal in this regard was legal expert Arup Barbara and Lakshmi Nath Tamuly, who backed BJP in the last Assembly election in the State. Nationally re-knowned singer and Lyricist Jubin Garg and most popular Actress of Assam, both of them known to be close to Chief Minister of Assam and BJP leader Sarbananda Sonowal, also declared their eagerness to involve themselves in active campaign against CAB and BJP. All of them, who spoke in the gathering was critical to AGP for the party still have not break alliance with BJP. When one after another speaker was criticizing AGP for remaining alliance partner of BJP, the AGP President and Minister, Atul Borah declared that the AGP has withdrawn support from the BJP led Government of Assam and also break the alliance with BJP.
 
Throughout the day, hundreds of women gathered in front of the BJP state headquarters. The Assam Police used batons to vacate the door of BJP office. 
On 8th January, Assam witnessed an unprecedented Bandh against the Communal action of BJP. Even the Bandh was total in all North-Eastern State. In Tripura, 7 tribal youth, who came out in support of the Bandh called against CAB, were injured in police firing. In Dhibrugah, Golaghat and Morigaon District of Assam, hundreds of Bandh supporters came out into the streets and attacked District head office of BJP in their respective districts. By the evening on 8th January, when the Lok Sabha passed the Citizenship Amendment Bill, the anguish of the people increased all over the State. 
 
In response to the people’s anger, the State Spokesperson of BJP, Mehdi Alom Borah, tendered his resignation from primary membership of BJP. Speaking to Sabrang India, Borah said, “The Citizenship Amendment Bill is against the interest of Assam. It will encourage further infiltration to the State and it will marginalize Assamese People in their Homeland. It also violated the basic principle of our Constitution.” He further stated, “Basic ideals of Assamese Society is secularism. So, the Communal agenda of BJP doesn’t suit with the ideals of social harmony of the State. BJP will have to suffer a lot for ignoring the basic teaching of Assamese Society.”
 

The post Citizenship Amendment Bill: NE denounces BJP’s Communal Agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.