"Bangladesh's Foreign Minister M. Morshed Khan's outburst against this country on September 7, 2004, when he reminded Delhi that if Bangladesh was India-bound then the seven north-eastern Indian States were Bangladesh-bound
...
The allegation that this was done to protect the Congress's vote-bank politics, is reinforced by the fact that it followed threats by a section of Assam Muslims not to vote for Congress unless the latter neutralised the Supreme Court's scrapping of the IMDT Act, the fact that Muslims decide the outcome in 35 of 126 Assembly seats in the State, and the elections to the State Assembly are due soon. .."
--Hiranmay Karlekar/Poineer
(Highlights are mine)
By Hiranmay Karlekar
The Government's decision to amend the Foreigners Act 1946 to change the character of the tribunals provided for by it, ostensibly to enable people charged with being illegal immigrants greater opportunity to present their case, has a deceptive air of fairplay. In reality it is a blatant attempt to revive the impediments to the detection and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants that had been enshrined in the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act 1983.
Worse, while the IMDT Act applied only to Assam, the impact of the proposed measure will be felt all over the country as the Foreigners Act has a nationwide application. It will ensure that illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are as safe in Maharashtra and Kanyakumari as they had been in Assam until the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act on July 12, 2005. The effect on national security will be devastating.
Any possible doubt about the nature of the new tribunals proposed to be set up, was removed when Congress president Sonia Gandhi told a public rally at Barpeta, Assam, last Saturday, that these would provide the same protection to alleged foreigners that those set up under the IMDT Act did. Hence it is important to look at the latter's provisions. It put on the complainant the onus of proving that one was an illegal immigrant while the Foreigners Act requires the accused to prove that he or she was not one.
This made the determination of illegal status most difficult since important political leaders in Assam promoted illegal immigration from Bangladesh. Second, one cannot appeal against decisions by tribunals set up under the Foreigner's Act; one could appeal against a judgement by a tribunal constituted under the IMDT Act both to an appellate tribunal and a High Court that had jurisdiction over the area.
To compound matters, under the IMDT Act a complaint against an illegal immigrant had to be lodged by someone - and supported by another - living within a three-kilometre radius of the accused's residence. While this drastically limited the number of persons who could file complaints, the fact that the Act applied only to those arriving in India after March 25, 1971, ruled out the deportation of the enormous mass of people who had come earlier. Worse, the definition of an illegal immigrant as "one without being in possession of a valid passport or any other valid travel document or any other lawful authority", made conviction next to impossible.
One could always claim that one had lost one's passport and the onus of proving one's statement false lay on the complainant. It is then hardly surprising that the Act reduced the process of detecting and deporting illegal immigrants to a farce. In mid-1999, the Union Home Ministry admitted that inquiries had been instituted in 301,514 cases and 32,264 cases reported to tribunals since the Act came into force. Out of these, 9,625 persons were declared illegal immigrants and only 1,461 were actually deported.
Tribunals established all over the country under the amended Foreigners Act, would have the same procedures as those established in Assam under the IMDT Act. Any argument that this seeks to give those charged with being illegal immigrants a fair deal, raises the question: Why was not the Foreigners Act amended to make the proceedings uniform throughout the country when the IMDT Act was passed in 1983? Why was 'fairplay' extended only to those charged with being illegal immigrants in Assam?
The allegation that this was done to protect the Congress's vote-bank politics, is reinforced by the fact that it followed threats by a section of Assam Muslims not to vote for Congress unless the latter neutralised the Supreme Court's scrapping of the IMDT Act, the fact that Muslims decide the outcome in 35 of 126 Assembly seats in the State, and the elections to the State Assembly are due soon.
The argument that one need not get worked up about the proposed amendment because those arriving from Bangladesh are mere economic migrants looking for jobs, carries little conviction thanks to Bangladesh's emergence as a nursery and exporter of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism under the active patronage of the present coalition Government which is spearheaded by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and which includes the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh (JeIB). The latter's Amir, Matiur Rahman Nizami, is the Minister for Industries and Secretary General, Ali Ahasan Muhammad Mujaheed, is State Minister for Social Welfare.
The JeIB and its student wing, the Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS), constitute the fountainhead of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism in Bangladesh. The leaders of terrorist organisations like the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Bangladesh (HUJIB), Ahle Hadith Andolan Bangladesh (AHAB), Jamaatul Mujaheedin Bangladesh (JMB) and Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB), have risen from the ranks of either JeIB or the ICS or both.
They also have close links with sections of the BNP's leadership. To cite just one example, Mufti Abdul Hannan, Operations Commander of the HUJIB, who was arrested in Dhaka on October 1 last year, stated that he had not fled the country because he had been promised immunity from arrest by Altaf Hussain Chowdhury, then Home Minister - and now Commerce Minister - of Bangladesh.
The AHAB, JMB, JMJB were banned on February 23, 2005, on the eve, most significantly, of a meeting of donor countries in Washington DC called to review aid to Bangladesh in the context of the rise of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism and human rights abuse in that country. HUJIB was banned on October 17, 2005, after the statements made by Mufti Abdul Hannan had enormously embarrassed the Government.
Given their close links with the BNP and JeIB, it is hardly surprising that much of the action taken against these organisations is for the sake of appearance, and that no leader of the JeIB or ICS has been touched despite their connections with the banned organisations.
Needless to say, both BNP and JeIB are pathologically hostile to India. Bangladesh's Foreign Minister M. Morshed Khan's outburst against this country on September 7, 2004, when he reminded Delhi that if Bangladesh was India-bound then the seven north-eastern Indian States were Bangladesh-bound , and that he could wipe out India's 3 billion dollars worth of exports to that country by issuing one Statutory Rogatory Order, exemplifies the BNP's attitude toward this country, as does Prime Minister Khaleda Zia's statement, made when she was Leader of the Opposition, that secessionist rebels active in north-eastern India were freedom fighters.
It is hardly surprising that Bangladesh's intelligence agencies are providing the latter sanctuary, arms and training in collaboration with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.
JeIB's defence policy identifies India as the only country which can attack Bangladesh and urges that the latter's armed forces be given an anti-India orientation and be steeped in the jihadi spirit.
Terrorist organisations like HUJIB have strong links with outfits like the Students Islamic Movement of India (which is banned) and Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam and frequently cross over to India's districts bordering Bangladesh where they have established sanctuaries and support bases among increasingly large population of Bangladeshi infiltrators. Some of these areas have already become Talibanised, thanks to the role of madarsas, which have been mushrooming alarmingly.
Action is urgently needed not only against these bases which may become major staging grounds for terrorist strikes in India and other parts of South and South-East Asia but also to stem the continuing inflow of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
The proposed amendment to the Foreigners Act will have devastating consequences from this perspective. It will send the signal that electoral compulsions will prevent strong action against terrorist activities in districts bordering Bangladesh, and also that Bangladeshi infiltrators can continue to flood this country because the Government will not act against them.
The Government's decision to amend the Foreigners Act 1946 to change the character of the tribunals provided for by it, ostensibly to enable people charged with being illegal immigrants greater opportunity to present their case, has a deceptive air of fairplay. In reality it is a blatant attempt to revive the impediments to the detection and deportation of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants that had been enshrined in the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act 1983.
Worse, while the IMDT Act applied only to Assam, the impact of the proposed measure will be felt all over the country as the Foreigners Act has a nationwide application. It will ensure that illegal Bangladeshi immigrants are as safe in Maharashtra and Kanyakumari as they had been in Assam until the Supreme Court struck down the IMDT Act on July 12, 2005. The effect on national security will be devastating.
Any possible doubt about the nature of the new tribunals proposed to be set up, was removed when Congress president Sonia Gandhi told a public rally at Barpeta, Assam, last Saturday, that these would provide the same protection to alleged foreigners that those set up under the IMDT Act did. Hence it is important to look at the latter's provisions. It put on the complainant the onus of proving that one was an illegal immigrant while the Foreigners Act requires the accused to prove that he or she was not one.
This made the determination of illegal status most difficult since important political leaders in Assam promoted illegal immigration from Bangladesh. Second, one cannot appeal against decisions by tribunals set up under the Foreigner's Act; one could appeal against a judgement by a tribunal constituted under the IMDT Act both to an appellate tribunal and a High Court that had jurisdiction over the area.
To compound matters, under the IMDT Act a complaint against an illegal immigrant had to be lodged by someone - and supported by another - living within a three-kilometre radius of the accused's residence. While this drastically limited the number of persons who could file complaints, the fact that the Act applied only to those arriving in India after March 25, 1971, ruled out the deportation of the enormous mass of people who had come earlier. Worse, the definition of an illegal immigrant as "one without being in possession of a valid passport or any other valid travel document or any other lawful authority", made conviction next to impossible.
One could always claim that one had lost one's passport and the onus of proving one's statement false lay on the complainant. It is then hardly surprising that the Act reduced the process of detecting and deporting illegal immigrants to a farce. In mid-1999, the Union Home Ministry admitted that inquiries had been instituted in 301,514 cases and 32,264 cases reported to tribunals since the Act came into force. Out of these, 9,625 persons were declared illegal immigrants and only 1,461 were actually deported.
Tribunals established all over the country under the amended Foreigners Act, would have the same procedures as those established in Assam under the IMDT Act. Any argument that this seeks to give those charged with being illegal immigrants a fair deal, raises the question: Why was not the Foreigners Act amended to make the proceedings uniform throughout the country when the IMDT Act was passed in 1983? Why was 'fairplay' extended only to those charged with being illegal immigrants in Assam?
The allegation that this was done to protect the Congress's vote-bank politics, is reinforced by the fact that it followed threats by a section of Assam Muslims not to vote for Congress unless the latter neutralised the Supreme Court's scrapping of the IMDT Act, the fact that Muslims decide the outcome in 35 of 126 Assembly seats in the State, and the elections to the State Assembly are due soon.
The argument that one need not get worked up about the proposed amendment because those arriving from Bangladesh are mere economic migrants looking for jobs, carries little conviction thanks to Bangladesh's emergence as a nursery and exporter of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism under the active patronage of the present coalition Government which is spearheaded by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and which includes the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh (JeIB). The latter's Amir, Matiur Rahman Nizami, is the Minister for Industries and Secretary General, Ali Ahasan Muhammad Mujaheed, is State Minister for Social Welfare.
The JeIB and its student wing, the Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS), constitute the fountainhead of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism in Bangladesh. The leaders of terrorist organisations like the Harkat-ul-Jihad-al Islami Bangladesh (HUJIB), Ahle Hadith Andolan Bangladesh (AHAB), Jamaatul Mujaheedin Bangladesh (JMB) and Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB), have risen from the ranks of either JeIB or the ICS or both.
They also have close links with sections of the BNP's leadership. To cite just one example, Mufti Abdul Hannan, Operations Commander of the HUJIB, who was arrested in Dhaka on October 1 last year, stated that he had not fled the country because he had been promised immunity from arrest by Altaf Hussain Chowdhury, then Home Minister - and now Commerce Minister - of Bangladesh.
The AHAB, JMB, JMJB were banned on February 23, 2005, on the eve, most significantly, of a meeting of donor countries in Washington DC called to review aid to Bangladesh in the context of the rise of Islamist fundamentalist terrorism and human rights abuse in that country. HUJIB was banned on October 17, 2005, after the statements made by Mufti Abdul Hannan had enormously embarrassed the Government.
Given their close links with the BNP and JeIB, it is hardly surprising that much of the action taken against these organisations is for the sake of appearance, and that no leader of the JeIB or ICS has been touched despite their connections with the banned organisations.
Needless to say, both BNP and JeIB are pathologically hostile to India. Bangladesh's Foreign Minister M. Morshed Khan's outburst against this country on September 7, 2004, when he reminded Delhi that if Bangladesh was India-bound then the seven north-eastern Indian States were Bangladesh-bound , and that he could wipe out India's 3 billion dollars worth of exports to that country by issuing one Statutory Rogatory Order, exemplifies the BNP's attitude toward this country, as does Prime Minister Khaleda Zia's statement, made when she was Leader of the Opposition, that secessionist rebels active in north-eastern India were freedom fighters.
It is hardly surprising that Bangladesh's intelligence agencies are providing the latter sanctuary, arms and training in collaboration with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate.
JeIB's defence policy identifies India as the only country which can attack Bangladesh and urges that the latter's armed forces be given an anti-India orientation and be steeped in the jihadi spirit.
Terrorist organisations like HUJIB have strong links with outfits like the Students Islamic Movement of India (which is banned) and Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam and frequently cross over to India's districts bordering Bangladesh where they have established sanctuaries and support bases among increasingly large population of Bangladeshi infiltrators. Some of these areas have already become Talibanised, thanks to the role of madarsas, which have been mushrooming alarmingly.
Action is urgently needed not only against these bases which may become major staging grounds for terrorist strikes in India and other parts of South and South-East Asia but also to stem the continuing inflow of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.
The proposed amendment to the Foreigners Act will have devastating consequences from this perspective. It will send the signal that electoral compulsions will prevent strong action against terrorist activities in districts bordering Bangladesh, and also that Bangladeshi infiltrators can continue to flood this country because the Government will not act against them.
_______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
