No 7: Illegal Immigration and Passage of IMDT Act It is a standard practice all over the world that the burden of proving one's status as a bonafide citizen of a country falls on the accused. It is so for India as well under Foreigners Act, 1946. Political expediency forced the Government to make an exception for Assam. In one of the most short-sighted and anti-national moves, India passed the Illegal Migrants - Determination by Tribunals (IMDT) Act of 1984 for Assam. It shifted the onus of proving the illegal status of a suspected immigrant on to the accuser, which was a tall and virtually impossible order. Detection and deportation of illegal immigrants became impossible.
Whenever demands were raised for repealing the Act, the Congress, the Left Front and the United Minorities Front resisted strongly. Illegal immigrants had become the most loyal vote bank of the Congress. Worse, every protest against the Act was dubbed as 'anti-minority', thereby imparting communal colour to an issue of national security. The government's 'pardon' of all Bangladeshis who had come in before 1985 was another unconstitutional act that aggravated the problem.
The Act was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on July 13, 2005, more than 20 years after its enactment. The Apex Court was of the view that the influx of Bangladeshi nationals into Assam posed a threat to the integrity and security of northeastern region. Unfortunately, immense damage had already been done to the demography of Assam and the local people of Assam had been reduced to minority status in certain districts. Illegal immigrants have come to have a stranglehold over electioneering to the extent that no party can hope to come to power without their support. Nearly 30 Islamic groups are thriving in the area to further their Islamist and Pan-Bangladesh agenda. It is incomprehensible that a nation's leadership can stoop so low and endanger even national security for garnering votes.
Image: A Muslim woman, who was among 45 people arrested by the Mumbai police on charges of being an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh, displays her Indian passport outside a local court house in July 1998. Picture copyright AFP. Unauthorised reproduction prohibited.
First, all decisions were taken by the political leadership and the bureaucracy. The military leadership was neither taken into confidence nor consulted. As a matter of fact, it was deliberately kept out of the decision-making loop. Although the military is entrusted with the main role in maintaining India's nuclear prowess, it was not considered necessary to take it it into confidence while taking decisions of strategic proportions.
Both Tashkent and Shimla Agreements were preceded by bitterly-fought wars. They entailed negotiating the extent, scope and modalities of withdrawal from occupied areas. Even then, no need was felt to seek military advice and no service officer was included in the Indian delegations. Political leaders and the bureaucracy abrogated the right to negotiate military matters in the egoistic belief that they were more qualified for the task. The results were disastrous, as mentioned above.
The second common feature is that no political leader or bureaucrat was ever held accountable for monumental blunders made by them. On the contrary, every single bureaucrat made it to the higher grades and was even given lucrative post-retirement appointments.
It is an obnoxious sight to see the men guilty of the above blunders masquerading as foreign policy experts on TV shows and unabashedly offering their pearls of wisdom.
The above mentioned seven indefensible blunders have had an enormous impact on the security, standing and history of India.
Future generations will rue the fact that the Indian leadership failed the nation at critical junctures due to their incompetence, ineptitude and selfish interests. Their proclivity for perpetuating personal power made them shortsighted and egocentric. But for the historical blunders, the current Indian geo-political scenario would have been totally different.
Has India learnt any lesson?
Unfortunately, none whatsoever.
Even now, the military leadership is consciously and willfully kept out of all decision-making processes.
Even issues that affect security of the nation are decided by the bureaucrats who do not possess even elementary knowledge of military matters.
It is only in India that well-connected, retired bureaucrats are offered membership of the National Security Council (NSC) as a rehabilitation measure. Merit and expertise are of little consequence.
Further, India is perhaps the only country in the world wherein NSC does not have a single military member. Bureaucrats and ex-police officers have made NSC their exclusive domain, thereby depriving the nation of expert military advice.
Such recurring blunders will continue to cost the country dear.
Image: The Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh being received by the Three Service Chiefs on his arrival at the celebration of the 61st Republic day-2010, in New Delhi on January 26, 2010.. Picture courtesy PIB, New Delhi.