Secular volte-face astonishes all
Nowadays, when almost the entire opposition is up in arms against the reigning Modi government at the center, a old coinage is being heard increasingly – national commitment. Central Government is being decried for failing to attain the chronicle of national commitment. Now, what it is it? To any joe public, it means nothing but to better the country on the whole and hence, it should remain above strained, insular party lines. At times, political parties are found to move through their own parochial political prisms. Even national parties are not free from this disease and consequently, national commitment becomes the worst casualty and at the very outset. If one is in need of more content to grasp the same, the individual is humbly advised to concentrate on the Citizenship Amendment Bill – 2016. The promise, given to the minority communities of Pakistan during partition, is being fell off now thanks to the derisory political elite of India. Who will take the responsibility for this misdeed ? Why is the said bill so necessary ?
In accordance with the aforesaid Citizenship Amendment Bill – 2016, Hindus and Sikhs do deserve the special consideration i.e citizenship right . What makes these hapless people remain in the Indian mainland? Why have they been compelled to take refuge in India leaving their property, disconnecting the bond with the respective native place? Why does it happen? Where is humanity? It is very strange to see that there is no discussion on these vital questions. Only one discussion is going on around us———for polarizing the basics of Indian forever and a day, BJP has presented this bill in the Lok Sabha. To me, this is nothing but bankruptcy of intelligentsia.
Prior to move to any other section, it has got to be asked whether social condition of Muslims and religious minority communities in the three predominant Islamic countries viz Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are same ? Are the Muslims of Pakistan victim of religious persecution? Many learned people have brought another question forth, why the Ahamadiyyas of Pakistan are not included in the bill? To be precise, in India, Ahmadiyyas are not recognized as a separate religious identity. They are included in Islam. Above all, the Ahmadiyyas enjoy more power than the Hindu, Sikh, Christian minorities in Pakistan. No one can deny this fact. If someone feels that the Rohingyas of Myanmar, Muslims of China should also be given citizenship in India, then they can surely demand for it but separately. Why is it being mixed up with the present Citizenship Bill ? Several political parties including Congress and Communists have ignored the basics —- the said six minority communities are victims of unfortunate –unwanted partition and religious persecution.
Any foreigner can take shelter in our Country. But the reason of taking shelter must be reasonable. What is the procedure here? In the Long Term Visa procedure , it is mentioned clearly ———– details of the reasons for leaving the originating country and the manner in which he/ she has entered India would be elicited from the foreigner. In case, it is found that prima facie the claim is justified, (on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, sex, nationality, ethnic identity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion), grant of LTV to the foreign national will be considered.
But parties or their leaders, busy always in creating controversies on the said Bill without any reasonable ground, are never found to state this provision ever. Why Congress and Communists are opposing this bill, it is not clear to the nation. Perhaps, party politics is the main reason. Here, a few highly significant points are being mentioned, competent enough to unearth the double standards of our politicians behind it.
(1) Speech of one senior CPM leader Jitendra Chaudhary
‘The Bengali Hindus have not migrated to Tripura with pleasure. They were the victims of the instrument of partition. They have been compelled to migrate.’— It is a portion of speech of CPM MP (Tripura East) Jitendra Chaudhary. He said these while discussing on the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2015,—a private member bill moved by Meghalaya MP Vincent Pala on 24th March, 2017 in Loksabha. The Marxist MP Jitendra also said in the lower house ‘ As the fall out of the partition of India – Hindustan and Pakistan – thousands of Hindu Bengali speaking people had been compelled by their destiny to migrate from East Pakistan.’ (Sources: Lo k Sabha Debates)…Should we say Sri Chaudhary has lost his ‘ communist-secular’ identity ?
What feelings have we seen in the speech of Jitendra, it is worthy. Clearly he realized that the Bengali Hindus have not migrated for economic reasons. There is a crystal-clear distinction between who have compelled to come under threat of religious persecution and who have come for own economic prosperity. It is unexpected when learned politicians mixes these with each other for their narrow politics. It is evident on the ongoing controversy on the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016. Opposing the said Bill, CPM Party of Jitendra has been doing the same mistake.
(2) Speech of Late Sri Bhupesh Gupta, CPI MP.
Sri Bhupesh Gupta , CPI MP brought a motion on 4th March 1964 in the Rajya Sabha —————-‘That the situation arising out of the communal disturbances in East Pakistan and the consequences flowing therefrom and the policies of the Government of India in relation thereto, be taken into consideration.”
On that day, Gupta also said, At the same time, Sir, we cannot keep quiet because problems are there to be solved. We are also committed to the minorities in Pakistan. We have signed the Nehru-Liaquat Pact and other agreements. We cannot escape our responsibility in regard to this matter, Sir. But then we have to face that responsibility within the four corners of a peaceful policy, a policy treat is honourable, a policy that is decent and which answers the needs of human dignity as also attracts the attention of the world. Such should be our policy. I think we should agitate the international community over this matter, because this issue has international implications or implications which extend beyond the State. And we have this institution for agitating the world public opinion, the opinion of international community. I think we require there a very active and effective diplomacy in regard to this matter. It seems, Sir, since we signed the Nehru- Liaquat Pact, we went into some kind of sleep, became a little complacent, perhaps because there were no major riots. Bu’t it was a mistake. We should have always taken up the cause of the minorities. Sir, especially when the agreement, which has some kind of international force, the Nehru-Liaquat Pact, was being violated by Pakistan, it was our duty to have informed the world public opinion through the diplomatic levels and also otherwise. I regret to say that we did not do so. Maybe we had been mistaken out of good intentions or some miscalculations, being on the good side of things. But life has shown that we have been complacent in this matter and we should have functioned a little differently in this matter.’ (Sources: Rajya Sabha Debates).
Sri Gupta also said in the Rajya Sabha on 27th July , 1970 —
‘ I would once again appeal to Members on both sides of the House. Let us at least not try to capitalise on this problem, the refugee problem. I would appeal to my friend here— with his great erudition and wisdom, he will bring a human approach to bear upon this subject. To my friend Mr. Sundar Singh Bhandari also 1 would appeal—politics let us keep away for a while. After all, we are human beings living in this part of the country. Here they are coming. Let us forget our differences on purely party lines for the time being. Let us approach this problem in a human manner as human beings, as man to man, as brother to brother, as sister to sister. After all, those who are crossing into the frontier, they are not coming with political motives, they are not coming with the aim of supporting this or that party or of opposing this party or that party, they are coming here because of certain fears and apprehensions there, they are coming here in quest of life, in order to get settlement and rehabilitation. Let us treat them in a spirit of brother and sister taking brother and sister. Well, that is how, with a common national and human approach, we can correctly tackle and solve this problem.’ (Sources: Rajya Sabha Debates).
One of most distinguished parliamentarian of our country Gupta said in the same tone in the Rajya Sabha on 3rd December. 1974 –
‘ Sir. 27 years have passed since the country was partitioned. If you recall the speeches of the leaders of the Congress Party at that time, including in particular Jawaharlal Nehru, it will be known how at that time they gave clear assurance in their speeches, even before the country was partitioned, that they would fully meet the aftermath of partition and that they will do everything in their power as the Government to resettle and rehabilitate the displaced persons from that part of Bengal which as a result of partition went to Pakistan. It was a solemn assurance which was repeated not only outside or in press statements but also otherwise in many official statements of the Government of India. And if I remember, that matter had also come up in the Provisional Parliament at that time and the same assurances were repeated. But unfortunately today after 27 years whereas the people of erstwhile East Pakistan have solved one of the major problems, viz., the problem of asserting their own sovereign right and their right to their nation, the national right, we in India find that after so many years and so much of talk, the problem of East Bengal refugees as it is all remains largely unsolved. Sir, it is necessary for the Government to give an explanation to the nation why the assurances had been broken and how they came to be broken and who were responsible for it. Parliament must be seized of the matter, even at this late hour, for the sake of solving not only the problem of untold human suffering, privation and destitution but also for the sake of national economy, particularly the economy of that part of India where these people from erstwhile East Pakistan, as refugees, have taken shelter without being given a shelter in a proper way.’ (Sources: Rajya Sabha Debates).
The ‘very much secular’ leader Gupta also recognized the problems of minorities in Pakistan. How our Communists leaders have forgotten these historical facts? Now the question arises, what are the promises? Who have given the promises and to whom?
(3) Assurance of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, in the parliament on 5th November, 1950 –
‘The Hon. Member referred to the question of citizenship. There is no doubt, of course, that those displaced persons who have come to settle in India are bound to have the citizenship. If the law is inadequate in this respect, the law should be changed.’ (Source : Jawaharlal Nehru Selected Speeches: Volume-2 : 1949-1953) .
(4) Promise of Mahatma Gandhi –
Gandhiji promised in a prayer meeting in Delhi on 16th July 1947, ‘There is the problem of those who fear, imaginary or real, will have to leave their own homes in Pakistan. If hindrances are created in their daily work or movement or if they are treated as foreigner in their own land, then they will not be able to stay there. In that case the duty of the adjoining province on this side of the border will be to accept them with broth arms and extended to them all legitimate opportunities. They should be made to feel that they have not come to an alien land’. ( Source : Forgotten Promise : Nehru and the Bengali Refugee by Subhajit Ghosh)
Gandhiji delivered a speech at prayer meeting in New Delhi on July 21, 1947 –
A friend from Pakistan writes : “You in India are talking about celebrating August 15. Have you ever considered how we, the Hindus in Pakistan are going to celebrate it? Our hearts are full of forebodings for that day. Will you say something about this? For us the day will be one for confronting troubles, not at all for celebration. The Muslims here have already begun to frighten us. We do not know what the Muslims in India think. Will they also not be frightened? We are even scared that attempts may be made to convert us on a large scale. You will say that we must ourselves safeguard our faith. This may be possible for an ascetic. It is not so for a householder.”
Mr. Jinnah is now going to be the Governor-General of Pakistan. He has said that non-Muslims will be treated exactly as the Muslims. My advice is that we should trust him and hope that non Muslims in Pakistan will not be ill-treated. And also the Muslims in India will not be ill-treated. My feeling is that now that there are two States, India can ask for guarantees from Pakistan. I nevertheless feel that August 15 is not day for celebration whilst the minorities contemplate the day with a heavy heart. It will be a day for prayer and introspection. Only, if the two countries are to be true to themselves they should start being friends right now. Either all should together celebrate August 15 as brothers or it should not be celebrated at all. The day for rejoicing over freedom will be when we feel sincere friendship for each other. But this is my own individual opinion and nobody seems to share it. The same friend from Pakistan then asks me: ‘If all the Hindus of Pakistan or a very large number of them come away from Pakistan, will India give them shelter ?’ I think that such people should certainly be given shelter. However, if the well-to-do among them want to live in their old style, that will be difficult. In any case, they should certainly be given a place to live and they should be paid for their work. But I shall continue to hope that no non-Muslim will be forced to flee Pakistan out of fear and no Indian Muslim will flee his motherland.
The correspondent further asks: “What will happen to houses and landed property left behind in Pakistan ?” I have already said that the Government of Pakistan should pay the market price of the land and houses. The practice in such matters is that the other Government also has a say. In this case it will be the Government of India. But why should I assume that the matter will go so far? It will be the duty of the Government of Pakistan to pay the price of such land and houses to the owners.
Gandhiji wrote a letter to Sri Krishna Das on 21st July, 1947 – ‘I have your letter. Jinnah Saheb has himself said that non Muslims will have the same place in Pakistan as the Muslims. But it remains to be seen whether or not such a policy is implemented. The poor Hindus who will migrate owing to oppression will certainly be accommodated in India. But this much is certain that they will have to labour for their bread.’ ( Source : Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol 96 ).
(5) Statement of Sri Guljarilal Nanda, Union Home Minister on 5th March, 1964 in the Rajya Sabha –
“Mr. Chairman, the House has discussed at length the motion moved by Shri Bhupesh Gupta. I find perhaps that it is for the first time that there is a great deal of agreement between me and the hon. Member, the mover of this motion, and in the highly emotional speech which he made, from which one could not make out everything, he has given expression to sentiments which are unexceptionable for the most part. But the ground that was traversed in the course of this discussion was covered already for the most part by me and by other Members of the House at the time of discussion of the President’s Address. Therefore, there is nothing very new that I can say on this subject on behalf of Government. However, there was special stress laid on some aspects of the situation of the issues arising out of it. to which 1 might, Sir, with your permission, give a little time. Sir, a great deal was said about Pakistan, about what is happening there, about the implications of the utterances of their leaders, about the writings in the Press, about the structure of that Government, about its internal problems, their intentions, and so on. There may be truth in the analysis and the assessment that have been put forward here but, Sir, I am not concerned with that. These are internal affairs of the people of Pakistan. It is for them to choose their way of life and the structure of their government, and so far as we are concerned they have our good wishes. But, Sir, what does touch us deeply is the repercussions of what happens there, the repercussions on our affairs. If some high dignitary of if some important leaders say something, maybe just a few words, the consequences can travel hundreds and hundreds of miles, and if some of the newspapers there give unrestrained expression in provocative language to things which are not true at all but which can affect and move the hearts of large numbers of people elsewhere, then we are affected deeply because there are repercussions, and it is on that account fiat this becomes relevant to us as to what they do or fail to do. It is specially so when the questions which have arisen have a historical origin— not very long ago but recent history. There are commitments, and whether© they carry out those commitments and implement them or not affects us, and therefore it becomes relevant for our discussion here also; and it is very” natural, Sir, that since the people of this country are affected deeply by what occurs there, the minds of Members of this House, of this Parliament, be exercised. Hence the contents of the various speeches made had a great deal of bearing on the events which flowed from certain things which occurred in Pakistan.
Sir, those minorities are their concern, they are their responsibility, they are totally, completely and entirely responsible for them, and as long as they carry out that responsibility and do their part, well, no question arises here, we need not talk about those people at all. But when that security fails, when the minorities in that country, for whom we have in the earlier years entered into some arrangements with that country, suffer, if those arrangements break down and the minorities there are subjected to atrocities and brutal treatment, the brunt of the consequences has to be borne by us ultimately. If it is only a question of suffering, well, their anguish and their pain may be communicated to us; we may helplessly look on because we cannot extend a helping hand to them. But something more happens to them, that is, those people find that it is not at all possible for them to stay on there; that is, their honour is not safe, their lives are not safe. Then, Sir, the situation becomes somewhat different. Then those people, because they are uprooted, because their houses had been set on fire, because there is arson and looting, find that it is impossible for them to stay on there, and then they struggle to escape to India, and the consequences flow for us. What can we do in order to help them and, secondly, what do we do after they come? Here is a question not of a few people but of large segments of the minority community. When they perforce have to come away, flee from that area, what happens? Of course, we would very much like to see that while they come away, they are not subjected to harassment, but there also we are helpless. As the House knows, the other day I believe the Prime Minister made a statement here about thousands of people coming into the Garo Hills— tribal people—and while they were fleeing they were fired upon—machine gunned; women and children suffered from bullets. We could not help them there. This is not something which is a matter of speculation or conjecture; this has been highlighted in the world all over, in the Press all over, by people who are not connected with us at all but by independent foreign sources of information. That is what we have before us, and this communal frenzy has now extended. It is not Hindus only but it is Christians also. But that is what happens, Sir, when people lose their balance, and when this kind of communal hatred seeps into the heart, then there is no restraint, no inhibition, and they take revenge on other people and subject them to miseries and hardships. It does not end there. It goes further, it goes deeper, and today it is against one community and tomorrow it is against another community. It embraces everybody, and then it is against one’s own community, sections and sub-sections.
Therefore, we in this country have to beware that we do not allow communal passions and communal hatred to spread here at all and take possession of the minds of the people. The world knows about it more and better now because the Christian missionaries have brought into prominence the fact that 35,000 Christians have been affected. Maybe, they might not have given so much heed and attention to this situation if it were not so. But here is the proof; here are the people, the Christian missionaries, who go and render succour to them, and they know what has happened to the Christians and they also know what has happened to others. And their number is 75,000 or more. How many lives were lost during the communal disturbances, there is no precise figure. We cannot ascertain that. Pakistan gives a snail figure, ridiculously small. It is through other sources, from impartial sources, that we know that it is many times that figure but even that is incomplete. But there is at least some information of the outcome or consequences or the result of this which, at any rate, cannot be hidden. It is the people who come alive into India, and their number is some indication of the stress under which people have been living and functioning and suffering there.”
Sri Nanda continued , ” An hon. Member said that we should have an open door and let everybody come in, almost invite them to come in. And there was another view expressed that this would create for us intractable problems; large numbers being injected into the population here when we have got difficulties unemployment and so on; and where the cultivable land is scarce—would naturally create further complications upsetting the economy of this country. This has to be realised. Now, therefore, what is the conclusion? If it is said that, therefore we should not let them in, that is not a stand which we can maintain. If there was a way of preventing their exodus, their influx, into this country we should try to find out. But if there is no way, then the door has to be kept open for these people. And there are the difficulties that it entails. The hardships will be for them and for us. Those who come away from their homes and hearths leaving all that they had, a settled way of life, have to face unsettled conditions of life here in camps not because there is lack of will to do the. best for them but because there is not that capacity to adjust ourselves immediately to these things—reclaiming the lands and putting them in normal occupations. That has to he understood and realised. Therefore, there will be trouble and hardship for them and we will have to do a great deal, make a great deal of effort, in order to see that they are accommodated, that relief is provided to them and that arrangements are made for their rehabilitation. I may at this stage—regarding what not only the hon. member but others also said—say that this human problem must be thought of as a non-party issue altogether. If, after having striven to do our best, something is not to the satisfaction of everybody, it should not be made a party issue. That would make things more complicated and difficult; it will not help anybody at all. But, as I said, we are trying to do our best. On the one side, we cannot shut them out we have to allow them to come in. But we also realise that the warning has to be heeded—the warning given by some of the hon. Members here that when so many people come, when you liberalise migration to that extent, then you have to face a difficult situation inside the country. And I am also reminded of the fact that while these people were being pushed out, squeezed out, almost hunted out, it was also being said by some persons in Pakistan—by some of their leaders —responsible people, that India was tempting the minorities to come into their country.
How can that be? To say such a thing is heartless, is cruel, on the top of all the injury that is being done. We have got this dilemma before us. We cannot say ‘No’, nor can we take the stand that it does not matter; let them come even if it would be possible for them simply to stay on. The question will arise only when it becomes impossible for them even to stay on. Our effort now always has to be to see that they are able to remain there in safety and honour, and, therefore, everything possible has to be done towards that end. And several suggestions have been made in that regard. And we have to consider what are the various ways open to us for the purpose of making the position of the minorities in Pakistan more secure—less uncertain. Again and again, from the speeches there was one suggestion which emerged, and that was cultivating world opinion. That certainly we should do, we are trying to do, and the fact that so many Christians were affected has lent an edge to the grimness of the situation in Pakistan; it is now being felt more than otherwise it would have been. There are two other things. One is that we become strong; it is the strength of the country which will be a solution to that larger international problem of which this is an off;.hoot, and it will be again that same strength which is going to exercise a healthy influence on the minds of the other people who are concerned on the other side. We have to do all that and we should all unite for that purpose. And the other thing, the second thing is that so far as we are concerned, our behaviour, our policies, our actions should be above reproach altogether.
I am very glad that this attitude has received strong expression in this House and also in the other House. Whatever Pakistan does, in spite of the total lack of justification for their conduct, in spite of the fact that their official class also, their leaders, their Press— they all contribute towards incitement and therefore they are responsible for the consequences, in spite of the fact that large numbers of their people—the minorities in Pakistan—suffer indescribable torture, misery and all that–yet, that is not going to be at all, not in the least, not even in the remotest way, any kind of excuse for anything being done to injure—as the hon. Member Shri Bhupesh Gupta put it—a single hair of the Muslims here, and I think that everybody will echo that sentiment, that feeling. Therefore, we are determined about it, and with that determination if we carry it out, with purpose, with vigour, with a sense of mission, we will be also able to assist; the minorities in Pakistan to get back their sense of security, not immediately but, at least some time later. We may have to live with this problem for some time, but I have faith that our conduct in this matter is going to help them in course of time. Therefore, we have got to take a very strong stand. (Sources: Rajya Sabha Debates).
The above-mentioned statement of Sri Nanda states clearly that the (then) Congress leadership was not in favour of shutting the door of the border for the Hindu refugees. He promised in the Rajya Sabha ‘they are not subjected to harassment.’ The sole question remains – where has the promise gone now? What makes Congress backtrack?
(6) Letter of Sri Prakash Karat on Bengali refugees
Sri Prakash Karat, CPI(M) General Secretary, had written a letter to Prime Minister Sri Manmohan Singh on May 22, 2012 regarding the citizenship problems of the Bengali refugees. Full text of the letter has been enclosed for minute inspection.
“This is to draw your attention to the citizenship problems of the large number of refugees from erstwhile East Bengal and then even after the formation of Bangladesh who had to flee their country in particular historical circumstances over which they had no control. Their situation is different from those who have come to India due to economic reasons. While we advocate a humane approach to all sections, on the specific issue of citizenship we share the opinion you had strongly advocated as leader of the opposition when it was debated in parliament in 2003.
You will kindly recall that under the NDA government the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2003 was placed which did not differentiate between the different sections that would be affected by the Bill. At that time you had stated “… with regard to the treatment of refugees after the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh, have faced persecution, and it is our moral obligation, that if circumstances force people, these unfortunate people, to seek refuge in our country, approach to granting citizenship to these unfortunate persons should be more liberal. I sincerely hope that the Hon’ble Deputy Prime Minister bears this in mind in charting out the future course of action.”
In response to your appeal, the then Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani had said “what the leader of the opposition has said, I am fully in agreement with the views expressed…” This should have been followed with a suitable amendment to Clause 2(i) (b) of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2003 in relation to the minority community refugees from Bangladesh. However, in spite of the consensus on the floor of the House, this was not done. For nearly a decade the matter has been pending. In the meanwhile, the insecurity felt by the refugees is heightened since in the present drive of Aadhar they are excluded and considered illegal migrants facing the constant threat of deportation. Lakhs of families are affected, the majority of them from Scheduled Caste communities like Namashudra, Pondra Khatriya, Majhi etc.
I request you to consider the issue and take the steps which you consider are necessary, including the amendment to the law referred to, so as to bring relief to these unfortunate families, living across India.” (https://archives.peoplesdemocracy.in/2012/0603_pd/06032012_7.html)
(7) Adopted at the 20th Congress of the CPI(M), Kozhikode, April 4-9, 2012
For Rights of Bengali Refugees –
This Party Congress calls upon the Central Government to honour the assurance given by the Prime Minister to sympathetically consider the legitimate demand of the large numbers of Bengali refugees to recognize them as citizens of India. They had fled their country erstwhile East Pakistan and then Bangladesh. A large number of these refugees belong to the Scheduled Castes, mainly Namashudra communities and are living in different parts of the country.
This Party Congress recognizes that the heightened insecurity of these communities is because of their exclusion in the current Aadhar drive of citizen identification which makes them even more vulnerable.
At the time of the Parliament discussion on the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003, all political parties from across the spectrum had supported an amendment to protect these citizens who are victims of historical circumstances. Yet even after so many years the law considers them illegal migrants. There are cases where they have been treated like criminals.
This Party Congress demands a suitable amendment in Clause 2 (i) (b) of the said Citizenship Act in relation to the Bangladesh minority community refugees. This must be done while protecting the Assam accord which is relevant to the specific situation in Assam. It demands that the Central Government bring such an amendment in the forthcoming budget session of Parliament. It assures these communities the support of the CPI (M) in their struggle for their genuine demands. (https://cpim.org/content/rights-bengali-refugees)
Why has CPM changed its stand-point? If CPM favors the cut off date i.e 25th March, 1971, how citizenship can be granted to the Hindu refugees? This cut off date for detection and deportation of illegal Bangladeshis is applicable not only in Assam, but also throughout the rest of India. Anyone can go through the judgements of Patna (Patna High Court Malik Astur Ali vs State on 1 March, 2012 , Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3218 of 1990) , Gujarat (Gujarat High Court Rajesh vs State on 22 April, 2011 Special Civil Application No. 497 of 2010 ) and Meghalaya High Courts (Shri Nityananda Malik And Ors vs The State Of Meghalaya And Ors on 15 May, 2014 ,WP(C) No. 235 of 2010 ) then it will be cleared that the said cut off date is applicable in the all states.
(8) A Communist Blunder –
The Communist Party simply refused to accept the existence of the hapless victims of communal hatred. As epr pundits, the basic blunder of the Communist Party of India or CPI, following the partition, was the decision that there would be one Party for both Dominions. Naturally the Party directed its Pakistan comrades not to migrate to India. It warned that if any comrade violated the party mandate he would be expelled from the Party. It was also decided to send veteran party members from India to set up a sound organizational apparatus in Pakistan. Accordingly, Sajjad Zaheer was sent to West Pakistan, and Krishnabinode Roy and Mansur Habibullah, to East Pakistan. The veteran Communist leader, Abdur Razzak Khan, objected to Mansur Habibullah being sent to East Pakistan as he belonged to West Bengal and had no command over the East Bengal patois. These three communists were arrested within a month of their arrival in Pakistan. Other important Communists of East Pakistan were sent to jail. Many of the well-known party members who came over to West Bengal disregarding the party mandate were promptly expelled. Other migrant members who were less known did not disclose their identity. Even Sajjad Zaheer, Krishnabinode Roy and Mansur Habibullah were expelled from the Party when they came back to India after their release from Pakistan jail.
The Party had accepted the partition of India but was unprepared, like the Congress, to push the logic behind partition to its inexorable issue. The Congress swallowed the bitter pill, for there was no other way to reach their goal — power. The Communists accepted it as the only way to settle the vicious communal problem which appeared to them to be the greatest single factor inhibiting the spread of communism among the masses, specially among the Muslims. The Party felt that once the panacea of partition was implemented, the communal virus would be completely eradicated from the Indian body politic.
The Party directed its Pakistan cadres not to migrate to India. As far as West Pakistan was concerned, the directive meant little or nothing. For there were only two party member’s in West Pakistan at this time. There were roughly a thousand party members in East Pakistan on the eve of partition. Indeed, it can be said that the Communist Party hardly existed in Pakistan before 1938. No doubt Communists like Gopal Basak (Dacca) and Dharani Goswami (Mymensingh), Gopen Chakraborty (Tipperah district) and Muzaffar Ahmed (Noakhali district) were involved in the Meerut Conspiracy Case. But very few people in East Bengal knew that they were Communists. It may therefore be said that the Communist activity in East Bengal began after the members of Yugantar and Anushilian groups who had converted to communism in jail were released. Most of them were middle class Hindus. ( The Marginal Men , P K Chakrabarti page 39-40.)
Let’s concentrate on a portion of the book ‘Mukti: Free to Be Born Again’ by Sri Sachi G. Dastidar ——–Many communal leftists go even further to warn Bangladeshi Hindu, Buddhist and Christian minority and secular Muslims not to raise the issue of oppression at all as it exposes their own hypocrisy and racism. In 2001 when the anti-Hindu pogrom was raging, a group of Bangladeshis went to meet CPM Party Secretary Biman Bose, the head of the ruling Communist Party-Marxist in West Bengal. As a Bangladeshi-Hindu-living-in-India Bose said, ‘Bangladeshi Hindus must not behave irrationally (to protect themselves and protest their killing). Communal (read Hindu and secular) forces should not be allowed to benefit from this.’Should leaders be allowed to benefit from expulsion and mass murder? In July of 2005 Bose told a group of visitors at West Bengali Convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City where he came to attend, ‘There has not been any attack on Hindus in Bangladesh. Hindus are not persecuted.’ When the group was shocked at this extreme communal position, especially when he chose not to live in his Muslim-majority homeland, he roared back, ‘It is attack on (pro-secular) Awami League Party. Hindus vote for that party. Thus Hindus are attacked.’ When he was asked, ‘Can you show one single all-Muslim, all-Awami village, of which there are thousands, where the village was torched, girls and wives abused and mosques destroyed?’ To which he proclaimed, ‘There will be killings there. Likhey rakhun (write down) 3′ July 2005-a aami ekatha bollam, (I said this on July).’
Is the same pratfall being repeated by the Communists ?
(9) Resolution adopted by CPI at Amritsar in 1958
The extraordinary Congress of the Communist Party of India views with grave concern the wanton repressive measures which the Government of West Bengal has recently launched against East Bengal refugees to suppress their legitimate demands for rehabilitation and terrorise them into submission to the discredited anti people rehabilitation policy of the government . This action in itself is the greatest condemnation of this policy. Overwhelming majority of the four million displaced persons from East Bengal has not been at all rehabilitated and the unaccountable agony and suffering of these unfortunate men , women and children continue to grow everyday. Their plight cannot but evoke the deepest sympathies of all and their problem is one that is eminently human as well as national.
Yet these refugees are today subjected to frequent tear gassing and lathi-charge, mass arrests and imprisonment at the hands of the government. The leaders and workers of their organizations as well as of the Communists and other Left parties who have taken up their just cause are being indiscriminately arrested . Many of them have already been detained under the Preventive Detention Act. The extraordinary Congress condemns this repression and appeals to the whole nation to raise its powerful voice in protest.
Expressing its full sympathy for the just cause of the refugees , the Congress calls upon the government to change its present attitude and policy towards the displaced persons from East Bengal and accept their just demands. It demands immediate release of all those who have been arrested in connection with the movement of the refugees. The congress , in particular expresses its indignation at the use of the Preventive Detention Act. It seems that by so attacking the Left parties, the government wants to wreak its vengeance on them for the political and moral defeat it has recently suffered at the hands of the democratic opposition following the resignation of the judicial minister.
The extraordinary Congress urges upon the government to convene a conference of the representatives of the refugees and the leaders of all political parties to discuss urgent question of rehabilitation with a view to working out a correct rehabilitation policy which above all must be acceptable to the refugees themselves and inspire confidence among them. (Documents Of The Communist Movement In India Vol. 8 , page 231-232)
Is the same sympathy perceived these days? If not, why? What is the difference between the refugees of sixties and these days? Are not the present refugees displaced persons? It means a person who is forced to his/her home country because of war or persecution; a refugee.
(10) Views of renowned Marxist thinker Dr. Hiren Gohain
The Partition also brought in its wake the problem of the refugees. Vast numbers of Bengali Hindu refugees were either driven away forcibly or compelled to leave by humiliation and terror. The majority of them entered Bengal , but many lacs of them also came to Assam, where the climate and environment were not dissimilar. Except the opposition parties no one seemed to be particularly concerned about them. The Government of India neglected them unlike the refugees from Western Pakistan. Neither was there any campaign to create a suitable climate of opinion in favour of giving them shelter in states like Assam. Congress leaders in Assam chose the cowardly alternative of smuggling them in, so that while the Central Government was appeased the local Assamese were not antagonized. Hence there was no real and serious consideration of the policy of settling the refugees. Should they be allowed to retain their identity and thus add to the vicious nationality problems of the state? Or should they be persuaded to merge themselves into the mainstream community? In the towns and more advanced villages anti-Bengali disturbance which affected the Bengali trader and shop-keeper and petty official became rather common. On the other hand certain refugee elements played into the hands of the remnants of Bengali chauvinism of the colonial period and created a pressure group for protecting the national rights of the Bengalis. ( Source : Assam: A Burning Question by Hiren Gohain , page 151 )
I quote here a few lines from “You Do Not Belong Here: Partition Diaspora in the Brahmaputra Valley” by Sm. Moushumi Dutta Pathak———-Hiren Gohain with abiding respect to this group of people , as a part of commitment to the principle of humanitarian laws and social justice, says that ‘ as for people who swear by the Constitution of India, let us not forget that as legatees of the freedom struggle we are duty-bound to protect the lives and interests of the displaced from East Pakistan….People with a shred of decency left in them must indeed be deeply concerned about the fate of those people’.
What Gohain had said in eighties , it is to be taken seriously by the Communists. It is unfortunate that Gohain is also campaigning against the Citizenship bill now.
(11) Statement of CPIM leader (Bengal) Sri Gautam Deb
“The Indira-Mujib treaty in 1971 was considered the cut-off date on the grounds that there will be no religious discrimination in the two countries. But it didn’t work out after Mujibur Rahman’s murder. There are instances that the minorities (Hindus) in Bangladesh are facing religious persecution. The government has to provide them shelter.” (source The Times of India,19th October 2014 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bangla-infiltration-back-on-Bengals-political-agenda/articleshow/44871719.cms ) The Hindu reported dated DECEMBER 28, 2010 under the title of @When rivals shared a platform@—- Mr. Deb termed the congregation a “historic event” and said it should serve a lesson to all political parties that narrow political divide should not come in the way of serving people.
“Today we are in the government and tomorrow someone else will be. So it is not desirable to politicise every issue. We should all work towards the development of the State, irrespective of political colours,” Mr. Deb said. Manas Bhuniya, president of the WBPCC, and Tathagata Roy, senior State BJP leader, concurred with him.
The Matua community mainly comprises people from the Other Backward Classes who had sought refuge in India following the Partition and during the Bangladesh Liberation war in 1971.
The demand to grant citizenship to all the refugees was raised at the rally and was supported by all the parties present. (https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/When-rivals-shared-a-platform/article15611963.ece)
Has Gautam , member of the Central Committee of CPM and a Secretariat member of the party’s West Bengal State Committee , violated the so-called secular principle ? By opposing the Citizenship Bill 2016 , Congress and Communist leaders make themselves answerable to the nation .
12) Demand of CPM MPs in the Parliament
Sri Basudeb Acharia on 25 April, 2012 in the Lok Sabha –
Mr. Chairman, Sir, I am raising an issue pertaining to lakhs of people who came as refugees to our country from erstwhile East Pakistan and Bangladesh because of their persecution as minorities.
These refugees have settled and are staying in different parts of the country and in different States like Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Orissa. They are staying in these States for years together. In spite of staying here for many years, these refugees have not been granted citizenship in our country.
Sir, an assurance was given by no less a person than the Prime Minister himself that the granting of citizenship of these refugees would be considered favourably but the Central Government, till today, have not considered granting citizenship to lakhs of Bengali refugees.
Sir, when the Citizenship Act was brought before this House in 2003, an amendment was moved and that amendment was supported by all political parties. In spite of the support from the political spectrum of this House, the amendment was not accepted by the Government to grant citizenship to these hapless people. As a result of this, there are Namashudras living in Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Uttarakhand. They are recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of West Bengal but they are not recognized as Scheduled Caste in Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. I have already introduced a Private Member’s Bill in this regard.… (Interruptions)
- CHAIRMAN: That is another issue. Please speak about the refugees.
Baudev continued … Sir, it is the same issue pertaining to the refugees. They are belonging to the Namashudras who are recognized as Scheduled Castes in the State of West Bengal. Although the Government of Uttar Pradesh recommended them for inclusion under Scheduled Caste, that has not been considered. The problem has been accentuated when these people are being excluded by other identification. Now, uncertainty is prevailing in the country.
I demand that Citizenship Act should be suitably amended. Sub-Section 1(b) of Clause 2 of the Act should be amended accordingly to recognize and grant citizenship to the Bengali refugees who migrated from erstwhile Pakistan even before Indira-Mujib Agreement. They have been staying in the country for years together without having a right of citizenship. This uncertainty should be ended. The persecution of lakhs of Bengali refugees should be ended.
I demand that Citizenship Act should be amended to grant citizenship to these Bengali refugees.
- CHAIRMAN: Shri P.L. Punia and Shri Khagen Das are allowed to associate with the issue raised by Shri Basudeb Acharia. (source http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Debates/Result15.aspx?dbsl=6723)
I here place the demand of two CPM MPS who also favored the citizenship right of Bengali refugees.
Sri Shyamal Chakraborty, MP & Sri Prasanta Chatterjee, MP (RS) of CPI (M) raised the issue through special mention on 27th April, 2012 as follows :-
“The Citizenship (Amendment ) Act,2003 has declared all the foreigners who have entered into India without a valid passport etc. , as illegal migrants. No cut off date for the purpose is mentioned in the said Act., 2003 and naturally the cut off date becomes 19th July,1948.
The minorities of the erstwhile East Pakistan were victims of partition and compelled to leave that country for the fear of persecution. A huge number of minorities of Bangladesh were forced to seek refuge in India. The Citizenship (Amendment ) Act., 2003 has declared lakhs of refugees as illegal migrants which is not justified. It is also to be noted that overwhelming majority of those people belong to the dalit community.
Considering the fact when the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2003 was moved in the Rajya Sabha on 18th December, 2003 by the then Home Minister Shri L. K. Advani, the then Leader of the opposition Dr. Manmohan Singh appealed for a special provision in the proposed Act. so that the refugees who have come from Bangladesh may be granted citizenship of India., and the hon’ble Home Minister agreed to that. But unfortunately there has been no positive amendment of the clause.
Therefore, my appeal to the hon’ble Prime Minister of India to convene an all party meeting to arrive at a consensus to pave the way for making a special clause in the Citizenship Act, 1955 in favour of those refugees so that they may be granted citizenship and proper rehabilitation
SHRI PRASANTA CHATTERJEE (WEST BENGAL) : Mr. Vice- Chairman, Sir, I associate myself with the Special Mention made by my colleague.” [copy enclosed]. (http://rsdebate.nic.in/rsdebate56/bitstream/123456789/604151/1/ID_225_27042012_p278_p279_28.pdf)
While opposing the IMDT Bill Sukomal Sen, CPM leader described the plight of refugees, came from Bangladesh, on 30 March, 1988 in the Rajya Sabha – Sir, at the very outset, I very strongly oppose the manner by which the Illegal Migrant (Determination by Tribunals) Amendment Bill, 1988 has been handled by the Government side. Sir, it is a very important Bill and the Government wants to play with the fate of lakhs of people who are hapless victims of the partition of the country. Now you are going to pass this Bill in one hour and after bargaining you have said hours…….. Anyway, I rise to strongly oppose every sentence of this
Bill. I know that I may have differences with many of our colleagues in Opposition particularly with my friends in AGP. I have no personal quarrel, no personal difference on the ground of principle.
Sir, when this Assam Accord was signed on 15 August, 1985, from our party, we were very much critical about this Accord and we expressed our apprehensions about the ultimate consequences of this Accord. Now, experiences of these 21 years have strongly vindicated our stand. If we go back to the days of partition, it is not possible to go back to the days of partition because time is so short, but I want to remind this House that when the country was partitioned, at that time there were some national commitments to the people who suffered because of this partition. Those commitments were made by no less persons like Mahatma Gandhi, Sri Jawarharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallahbhai Patel. They guaranteed the security and safety of the people who were the victims of the partition that if you are forced to come over to this side of the subcontinent, you will be protected, you will be given shelter, you will be given food, you will be given citizenship. All these assurances were there right from Mahatma Gandhi to Jawarharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.
Then, there Was 1956 Migration Citizenship Act of Assam, in 1983 Migration Bill was there. Then, came the Assam Accord. Now, we are bringing this amendment Bill on the illegal migrants. Then, you say that this is in accordance with clause 5.9 of the Assam accord.
Sir, simply I would say that when the country was partitioned what Mahatma Gandhi said. I would like to quote simply a few sentences. He said: “My friends ask whether those who being mortally afraid or otherwise leave Pakistan will get shelter in the Indian Union. My opinion is emphatic on this point. Such refugees should get proper shelter in the Union and vice versa.”
I can go on but I stop here.
Now, what Sri Jawaharlal Nehru said? He said and I quote: —
“We think also of our brothers and sisters who have been cut off by political boundaries and who unhappily cannot share at present in the freedom that has come. They are of us and will remain of us whatever may happen, and we shall be sharers in their good and ill for tune alike.”
Then, Sir, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel said and I quote: — “But let not our brethren across the border feel that they are neglected or forgotten. Their welfare will claim our vigilance and we shall follow with abiding interest their future…” Sir, all these messages were there. These were commitments made by our great national leaders and I deem them as national commitments. I do not know for this present generation of Congress men, who claim to inherit the tradition of Congress, whether they will stand by these commitments, whether they have any iota of honour for these commitments made by Mahatama Gandhi, Jawarharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. I do not know and I am afraid that they do not stand by these commitments because, Sir, not only those leaders said it in 1950, but it was said in the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 in clause 24. However, so far as ‘the immigrants from Pakistan were concerned, a proviso was incorporated in Section 2 of the said Act in the following terms: —
“Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any person who on account of civil disturbances or the fear of disturbances in any area now formling part of Pakistan has been displaced Or has left his place or residence in such area and who has been subsequently residing in Assam. It means due to communal violence or the cavil disturbance, if they are forced to leave their homes, this section of illegal immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 will not be applicable to them. Sir, these were the follow-up of the commitments that were made in 1947-48 by our national leaders. The 1950 Act contains that commitment. It stands by that commitment. But, Sir, when in 1983, when this Assam movement started, we got this Bill passed, the Illegal Immigrants Act. It was passed in 1983 under the pressure of the movement that went on in Assam. (Interruptions). In that background only, you brought out this Bill and got it passed and it was a gross departure from the 1950 Act. That Act was a Central Act. It was a gross departure from that Act to this Act and that is why, I am saying, it was done in the background of movement that was going on in Assam at that time. ……………
Anyway, it was a gross departure from the 1950 Act. Now, Sir, in 1983 itself, there were certain amendments. What are the amendments? The amendments are mainly that reduction in the number of members of Illegal Immigration Tribunal from 3 to 2. Apparently, it may appear that it is a minor amendment. Then there is residence restriction and deduction of fee in case of private complaints. Some other amendments are there. They say that this Bill has been finalised after detailed discussions with the State Government of Assam. You are playing with the fate of lakhs of people. Have you ever discussed with the organisations of these people?
Last but not the least, the Citizenship Amendment – Bill 2016 is presented in view of granting of citizenship rights to these persons. Strangely, we are yet to hear a single word from the ex-Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh in this context.