Why an SC judgment has riled up Arunachal's frontier people

Tens of thousands of public, including students, across the state took out massive rallies on October 14 to protest against the recent Supreme Court judgment dated September 17, to confer citizenship to the Chakma and Hajong refugees within three months. This was greeted with silence from the mainstream media as expected and anticipated. Precisely for this reason, the apex students body - All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union, that has been spearheading the agitation - is staging another massive rally from Jantar Mantar to Parliament Street on October 16 to express grievances and draw the attention of "all those who matter in power-corridor".

The huge resentment to this verdict is bound to cause massive political and law and order problems in days to come. This is not only a subject of the Constitution, judiciary but it has socio-cultural aspect that cannot be ignored.

To begin with, the judgment doesn't address the core contention of refugee numbers or cut-off date without which "eligibility" cannot be defined.

Fact is, between 1964 and 69, the refugees were recorded as 14,888 persons of 2,748 households in five sparsely populated towns - Chowkham, Miao, Bordumsa, Diyun and Balijan - of the then North East Frontier Agency (NEFA), now Arunachal Pradesh. These refugees were settled on humanitarian grounds after the communal tension borne out of India's partition and the construction of Kaptai hydro-electric dam. In 1979 as per the state government records, the number rose to 21,494.

However, according to a largely quoted White Paper released in 1996, population was pegged at a "contentious" 60,000 in 1995, but as per the Census report of 2001, the same ethnic groups were numbered 42,313 in Arunachal Pradesh. Further, according to Professor Nani Bath, a political scientist, there are four different categories of Chakma: first, the original refugees of 1964-69; second, Chakmas who shifted from one refugee camp to another within the state; third, those who have come/are coming from Assam, Tripura or Mizoram; and the fourth group consists of recent migrants from Bangladesh. Given such valid observations and past history of fluctuating head-counts, the time-frame is not only unrealistic but appears to be illogical.

The said SC judgment cited the joint statement issued by the prime ministers of India and Bangladesh in 1972, to confer citizenship on the Bangladeshi refugees under Section 5 (1) (a) of the Citizenship Act 1955, but this too is contested.  

According to Topi Basar, associate professor, National Law University, Assam, there are no specific provisions under the Constitution or in the other laws or Rules enacted by the central government dealing with granting of citizenship to refugees in India. "Hence, Article 5 of the Constitution is not applicable in this case as these refugees came much after 1950," she says.

Further, the SC judgment could be interpreted as "forceful" imposition on indigenous population. The Arunachalees contention is that the settlement of these refugees was not agreed upon by the people or legitimately elected government but by a third party. Further, these refugees entered India through Mizoram, Tripura and Assam. Hence, Arunachal cannot be made a dumping ground without its consent. If that wasn't enough, on October 3, 2007, Election Commission of India issued guideline for revision of electoral rolls for the inclusion of Chakmas and Hajongs with January 1, 2007 as the qualifying date. The apex students' body - All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union - filed a PIL in 2010 before the Guwahati high court which was dismissed. "Thus, the right to vote got conferred on them legally even when the complete procedure for conferment of citizenship has not been accomplished yet. Probably this is the first case in India where group of people were included in to the electoral rolls even while the formal conferment of citizenship had not been completed", laments Basar.

Legally speaking, the recent verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its direction, has questioned the legal and constitutional validity of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873 too. Dr Bath is categorical that post-independent India retained the Regulation of 1873 even when its certain provisions are in direct contravention to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. "To my understanding, the state government has plenary power to regulate the entry of 'non-native' as per the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. The government is also empowered to sanction acquiring of land or the product of land within the state," Dr Bath says while pointing out that the Supreme Court could have dealt on the legal or constitutional questions before directing the state governments for direct action.

In continuation with spirit of the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, we ought to take cognizance of the legal aspect and recognise the cultural impact on fragile tribal social structure.

Also, SC's recent quote of Puranic mythology to justify Hajongs Hindu lineage hasn't gone down too well with a section of society in a Christian dominated state. A fissure in religious line has been opened up by the highest temple of justice in a close-knit tribal structure that doesn't augur well for the SC at all because Chakmas are Buddhists, besides the Hindu Hajongs. Lest one doesn't know, the Arunachalees never contested the refugee problem through the prism of religion.

More than the contested number of refugees or onus to settle them in Arunachal Pradesh, it is Chakma refugees' criminal activities including thefts, rapes and their repeated attempt to terrorise locals over cultivable land, besides procurement of illegal arms which are well documented and on record that  is causing conflicts. According to the state government: They have not only caused large scale encroachment on forests thus affecting the customary rights of the indigenous people over forests adversely but were also found indulging in illegal activities such as commission of offences under various laws: collection of arms and ammunition, establishing contacts with extremist groups, encroachments of adjoining lands and straying in other areas for settlement etc. and even murdered Shri Nikkon Kimsing, Gaonburah of Sonking village (a much revered village chief) and also a circle officer of Diyun. (Government of Arunachal Pradesh 1996: 15)  A similar observation was made by D.C. Sankhla, Commissioner, Home and Political, Government of Arunachal Pradesh: ... it is a fact that in view of the criminal and anti-national activities of these refugees, the local legislators have shown their concern about the Central government accepting their [Chakmas demand for citizenship who have been endangering the sovereignty and integrity of the country by doing anti-national activities. (Rajalaksmi 1996: 39).

Therefore, let it be crystal clear that the people of Arunachal Pradesh are unanimous in their view that the displaced Chakmas and Hajongs may be granted Indian citizenship by the government of India but they will not be allowed to settle in the state of Arunachal Pradesh.