Citizenship and its discontents

In its 4-1 ruling on Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, the Supreme Court considered a slew of questions, varying from the constitutional validity of the provision to the powers of Parliament to amend the citizenship law to conclude in favour of the said section. This, hopefully, will settle a major debate that has roiled Assam for decades. Section 6A, which allows people who came to Assam on or after January 1, 1966, and before March 25, 1971, and residing in the state to register as Indian citizens after a hiatus of 10 years, was introduced after the Assam Accord was signed in 1985. But it remained a point of contention and provided fuel for militant groups to keep the fire of insurgency alive.

The majority view in the case has rightly located the provision in a geopolitical moment, read it against the political contingency that influenced Parliament to make an exceptional clause with regard to Assam in the citizenship law, and held that the provision is constitutionally valid and a necessary legal tool for the administration to address illegal migration and its impact on the social and cultural dynamic of Assam.

Migration has been a contentious subject in Assam for decades, of course. The British rulers had facilitated migration to Assam when tea plantations needed labour, and to fill the lower rungs of the administration. The Partition in 1947 led to the exodus of people from East Pakistan. In later years, economic distress and the political chaos in East Pakistan, especially the 1971 war, influenced migration upstream of the Brahmaputra into parts of Assam, triggering fears of cultural, economic and political upheaval. Many of the migrants also got political agency by managing to register as voters. This is the backdrop in which the Assam Movement emerged in 1979. Elections in 1983 saw massive violence and poor turnout. This forced the Centre to negotiate with the agitators leading to the Assam Accord, which set March 25, 1971 (on this day the Pakistan army launched a genocidal crackdown on the people of East Pakistan, which declared itself an independent nation) as the deadline to consider a migrant from East Pakistan/Bangladesh for inclusion in India’s electoral rolls and citizenship. Section 6A institutionalised this promise. With the apex court’s endorsement, persons who have entered Assam after March 25, 1971, will be treated as illegal migrants and their extradition will be initiated. In his minority view, justice JB Pardiwala has held that this provision has only encouraged illegal migration. The situation in Assam during the anti-foreigners stir called for a political solution, and the Centre negotiated the Assam Accord. Later, Parliament provided an enabling provision to implement the Accord. This is the right procedure to follow and the exceptionalism in law is justified in view of the circumstances in Assam.

Going forward, the SC’s validation of Section 6A may have a bearing on its reading of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which is under challenge. In this context, it should be remembered that Section 6A is a secular provision rooted in Assam’s unique historical experience and doesn’t exclude anyone based on his/her faith. It emerged as a response to concerns about demographic change and the pressure on natural resources and public goods. In contrast, CAA makes a communal distinction when it privileges non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan for citizenship. It is also important that these debates do not encourage anti-migrant sentiments, for societies and cultures have been the beneficiaries of migrations.

Unlock a world of Benefits with HT! From insightful newsletters to real-time news alerts and a personalized news feed – it’s all here, just a click away! –Login Now!