Tried (by many vested interested elements in the name of Assamese nationalism) but failed to mobilise the common people this time, as it was observed five years ago when the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) was presented in Parliament. Just before the Corona lockdown across the country, Assam witnessed a massive public outcry opposing the CAB in the Brahmaputra valley. Anti-national elements grabbed the opportunity to indulge in outspread violent activities in Guwahati, following which the curfew was clamped. Even five people from the city fell victim to the circumstances, as the police had to resort to firing to bring the law-and-order situation under control.

It may be mentioned that soon after the Union Home Ministry’s 11 March notification of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, many individuals and organisations in Assam pronounced uproarious statements against the CAA rules and urged the people to come to the streets demanding its immediate repeal. Some have already approached the Supreme Court of India to nullify the act, claiming that it’s unconstitutional. At least three state governments, namely West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala, have raised strong opposition voices against the implementation of CAA.

Advertisement

Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee urged the beneficiaries not to seek citizenship under the CAA as they would be labelled as refugees or infiltrators. TN chief minister MK Stalin termed the initiative an instrument to nurture Islamophobia only. Kerala’s Pinarayi Vijayan-led government has approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the CAA is against the basic structure of the Constitution. Assam’s Congress leader, Debabrata Saikia, also filed a petition in the apex court challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024. Most of the petitioners argued that CAA rules cannot ignore the Muslim refugees from neighbouring countries.

The argument against the CAA in Assam has a different perspective, where most of the agitators maintained that the Assam Accord must not be challenged by the new guidelines. The accord, signed after six years of historic agitation to identify and deport illegal migrants (read East Pakistani and Bangladeshi nationals) from Assam, reached a date of 21 March 1971, after which nobody should be offered citizenship in Assam. All Assam Students Union (Aasu), which was the prime party to sign the Assam Accord (1985) in the presence of the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, launched a series of protest demonstrations against the CAA implementation.

Aasu, along with 30 indigenous organisations, burned copies of the CAA during the protest rallies in Guwahati, Nalbari, Barpeta, Golaghat, Tezpur, Lakhimpur, Dibrugarh, etc. However, their programmes could not motivate the common Assamese even in the Brahmaputra valley (not to speak of the Barak valley). Facing the heat on the ground, the Aasu leaders moved to New Delhi and approached the SC to repeal the CAA. The petitioners are supported by the opposition political party leaders, who argued that the CAA was only a political tool for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party to win Lok Sabha polls in Bengal, Assam, and Tripura.

Meanwhile, popular Assamese singer Zubeen Garg, who was a star attraction in the anti-CAB movement, has faced criticism from his fellow musicians. Recently, Garg took to his social media space to reiterate his firm opposition to the CAA rules. He pledged to raise voices against the particular act according to his ways. Probably he could understand the mood of people and, hence, cleverly commented that no more deaths should be accepted because of any agitation. Garg did not forget to mention that in the 2019 anti-CAA agitation, five youths had to die. Now his critics have asked Garg to clarify his actual position on the CAA.

Amidst the developments, a forum of nationalist citizens came out with a statement where it appreciated the mainstream Assamese society for taking rational views on the CAA despite ‘provocative statements from some so-called intellectuals, journalists, and political analysts’. However, the Patriotic People’s Front Assam (PPFA) urged both the governments in New Delhi and Dispur to convince the people that the CAA deadline of 31 December 2014 will not be extended anymore. The forum also urged the Union government to strongly pursue cooperation with the governments of

Muslim-majority Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan to stop indulging in religious persecution against minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians, etc.).

The PPFA, which sent a memorandum to the Assam Governor supporting the CAB 2016 and subsequently faced uncivilised criticism from anti-national elements, maintained that the government-run publicity machinery should be engaged in divulging all sensitive facts (relating to the CAA rules) to the people respecting their anxieties. Moreover, the forum asked the group of Guwahati-based editor-journalists, which rejected the CAB outrightly and even organised a meeting with the Governor, just to clarify their stand, if they had accepted the CAA rules or bowed down to the authority and public sentiments, surfaced on social media in the last few weeks.

The forum opined that the SC verdict on the CAA would be obeyed by everyone, but it raised a pertinent question: Can a court in India repeal an act that was passed by both houses of Parliament and subsequently signed by the President, the head of state of the Republic of India? Some may refer to the case of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act 1983, which was struck down by the apex court in 2005, and hence, the CAA may also be repealed by the same court. But the major difference between the IMDT Act and CAA remains the exclusiveness of the former one to Assam.

The IMDT, enacted by the then Indira Gandhi government, was applicable to Assam only, whereas other states continued to follow the Foreigners Act 1946 to define an illegal immigrant in India. Moreover, under the IMDT, it was the responsibility of an accuser or authority to prove an individual is an illegal foreigner, whereas under the Foreigners Act, the accused has to prove his identity as an Indian. Moreover, the IMDT excluded the migrants who entered India before 21 March 1971 (this particular cut-off year has now been challenged in the SC).

The writer is a Guwahati-based special representative of The Statesman