How the Hindu gives false idea about Oxom / NE India

[AFDAL]

UPA dividing Assam on communal lines
By Pranjit Agarwala
In 1979, the All Assam Student Union (AASU) started the anti-foreigners movement to detect, delete and deport illegal migrants of Bangladesh from Assam. All political parties except the erstwhile Jan Sangh now the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), termed the movement as anti-social and anti-national with parochial and communal overtones.

Besides the BJP on the national level, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) also realised the real gravity of the issue and mobilised its cadres to make the Indian public aware of the true nature of the AASU's anti-foreigners movement and the dangers the illegal infiltration from Bangladesh posed for national security.

However, opinions differed on the status of the illegal migrants from Bangladesh.

Muslims faced no persecution and their infiltration in such large numbers particularly to Assam was deemed to be a part of a sinister plan to change the demographic pattern of Assam thus making it a Muslim-majority state, which could be dangerous for the unity and security of the country.

These fears are not entirely unfounded if the present situation of Jammu and Kashmir is considered. Cross-border infiltration in this Muslim-majority state has incited separatist sentiments and terror tactics have been used on the Kashmiri Pandits who have been forced to abandon their age-old homeland and migrate to other parts of the country. The once prosperous community is today living in refugee camps in Jammu and Delhi in deplorable conditions running from pillar to post seeking justice. But the Government of India or the society in general has shown only helplessness in providing them justice or in alleviating their plight.

Backdoor enactment of the IMDT Act and its significance

The plan to change the population pattern of Assam along religious lines dates back to pre-Independence days. With the aim of making Assam a part of Pakistan during the Partition of India a mass migration of Muslims mainly from the Sylhet and Mymensingh districts of erstwhile East Bengal took place mainly to the Central Assam districts. However, due to the tough stand taken by Gopinath Bordoloi, Assam remained with India at the time of Partition. However, the plan was not abandoned and after Independence an unabated influx continued with the support of certain political parties who used these illegal migrants as vote-banks. These early illegal migrants from East-Pakistan identified themselves as Assamese at the time of the census and continued to increase their population in the decades that followed.

The indigenous people of Assam did not understand the political motive behind such large-scale trans-migration of population nor the implications of their multiplying numbers once settled there. By the time a conscious section of the Assamese became aware of the changing demographic pattern and its inherent dangers, it was rather late. As by then six districts of Assam had a Muslim majority and in 10 districts they had a significant presence.

While Assam's population increased by 52.44 per cent from 1971 to 1994 the number of voters increased by 95 per cent during the same period. In actual numbers the increase was from 62,96,000 voters in 1972 to 1,23,00,000 voters in 1994. An abnormal increase of 60 lakh voters. Translated into electoral politics out of 126 Assembly and 14 Parliamentary seats they were the deciding factor in 68 Assembly and eight Parliamentary seats, respectively. This large body of foreigners on the electoral rolls of Assam poses a real threat to the genuine citizens as they now have the strength to decide the fate of governments in Assam.

With Islamic terrorism spreading its tentacles globally the dangers of such a huge illegal influx cannot be under-estimated or ignored. In 1979, realising the dangers of this illegal infiltration and the changing population pattern, AASU launched the anti-foreigners movement to detect and deport illegal migrants of Bangladesh and to delete their names from the electoral rolls of Assam. The six-year-long anti-foreigners movement was unique in the sense that it was able to mobilise the active support of all genuine Indian citizens residing in Assam and the north-east irrespective of their language, religion or community.

However, vested political interests with an eye on the Muslim vote-bank gave the movement a religious tone and termed it as anti-Muslim and not anti-foreigners. To protect its minority vote-bank the Congress which was then in power both at the Centre and in the state promulgated the Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunals Act (IMDT) in 1983 to be effective mainly in Assam. The IMDT Act, instead of helping in detecting and deporting illegal migrants, made it more difficult because as per the Act the onus of proving a person a foreigner rested on the complainant and not on the accused. The Act further required that the complainant must reside within a specific radius of the accused and his complaint must be supported by at least two witnesses. In contrast, in the rest of the country illegal migrants come under the Foreigners Act where the burden of proof rested with the accused or the foreigner. Hence the IMDT Act became more of a deterrent in detecting foreigners as the process subjected the complainant to a lot of harassment.

The IMDT Act, instead of helping in detecting and deporting illegal migrants, made it more difficult because as per the Act the onus of proving a person a foreigner rested on the complainant and not on the accused. The Act further required that the complainant must reside within a specific radius of the accused and his complaint must be supported by at least two witnesses.

How effective the IMDT Act has been in fulfilling its stated purpose will be evident from the government record which states that since the Act came into force in December 1983 and up to January 1999, a period of 15 years, only 9,599 illegal migrants were detected and not a single one was deported. As against this, the flow of illegal migrants from Bangladesh has not only continued unabated but increased substantially. According to the Centre's own estimates the flow of illegal migrants from Bangladesh during 1951-1971 was 17.63 lakh, eight lakh during 1951-1961 and 9.63 lakh during 1961-1971. However, from 1971 to 1996 it increased to 34 lakh, 10 lakh from 1971 to 1981 and 24 lakh from 1981 to 1996.

Furthermore, the IMDT Act was discriminatory as it was applicable only in Assam while in the rest of the country the provisions of the 1946 Foreigners Act were applied in the matter of detection and deportation of foreigners. Moreover, the provisions of the Act were also discriminatory like the payment of money for lodging complaints, setting-up of separate tribunals to process the complaints, shifting of the burden of proof to the complainant, necessity of providing at least two witnesses by the complainant, in support of his claim and the requirement of the complainant to reside within five km of the plaintiff foreigner was in variance with the Foreigners Act prevalent in the rest of the country. Hence as the government's own statistics have shown the IMDT Act 1983 proved more of a hindrance in detecting and deporting illegal migrants and completely failed to serve the purpose for which it was enacted.

In 2000, Shri Sarbanand Sonowal (now an AGP MP from Dibrugarh) filed a petition in the Supreme Court praying for a repeal of the IMDT Act 1983. Finally on July 12, 2005, after much debate regarding all aspects of the Act the Supreme Court scrapped the IMDT Act 1983 and ordered the state and central governments to detect and deport illegal migrants in the country more specifically in Assam and the north-east region under the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946.

The repeal of the Act by the Supreme Court met with a mixed response from the public and political circles of the country more particularly in Assam. While the indigenous people and all genuine citizens of the region welcomed the Supreme Court's decision, a section of the minority community of Assam in particular, have protested against the scrapping of the Act. They fear that now all Muslims in the region will face harassment irrespective of their citizenship status. There is little doubt that this section represents the interests of the larger body of the illegal migrants settled here who with political patronage have been able to enlist their names in the voters list of Assam, thus giving them immense political clout. So much so that the UPA government is considering re-enacting the IMDT Act with amendments, unmindful of the fact that in this game of vote-bank politics and tussle for power the nation's security and interests are being jeopardised.

It is indeed ironical that 58 years after freedom from foreign rule, Assam finds itself overcome by another set of foreigners who have unobtrusively acquired the power to impose their will on its people by democratic means. Viewed in the context of the global phenomena of rising Islamic terrorism with an aim to create spheres of influence the changing population pattern in Assam is sinister and gives credence to the theory that this is a part of a plan to ultimately turn the state into a Muslim-dominated area. If such a plan succeeds, it can only prove detrimental to India and the Indians. Therefore, it is time that the people and more importantly their elected representatives realise and accept the real truth and motive behind this mass transmigration of illegal migrants into Assam. And all partriotic Indians irrespective of their caste, community, religion or political affiliations should unitedly expose and oppose all such forces that overtly or covertly threaten the unity, integrity and security of the country.



http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/mod...id=119&page=19


These are the views from the Communal Hindus and their media .
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT IN REALITY THE REGION IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT :cry:

[AFDAL]

Before Assam / Oxom / NE was a muslim majority region , but when the british left these region was anexed by India , but the muslims remain silent , but the things took a U turn , and today muslims have been reduced to less than 40 % . All these happen due to the uncontrol influx of Hindus from rest of India and also Bangladesh . Assam is three times larger than UK , and its population is 35 million .

[AFDAL]

Foreigners issue used to persecute Assam Muslims
By Our Special Correspondent

The Milli Gazette Online

Imphal: Shekhar Gupta, now the chief editor of The Indian Express, while covering the Nellie massacre back in early 1980s had witnessed it for himself: “A woman, with no more than a rag round her waist screams uncontrollably. Her breasts bear ghastly lacerations. Abdul Hannan, one of the few survivors now helping to collect the wounded, says she was in the sixth month of pregnancy – aborted - a spear-handle was thrust deep into her vagina, and she was left to die after the marauders spent a few minutes disfiguring her body. She now screams not with pain but with grief, and points to the pieces of a two-year-old, her first, who was drawn into two.” They grabbed his limbs, two from each direction and pulled him into pieces, says Hannan, and mumbles as an after–thought, ‘why she doesn’t die now” (Shekhar Gupta, Assam – A divided valley, Vikas, New Delhi, 1984, p.2).

About 3000 persons (more by some accounts) were killed in that massacre, and so far no action has been taken against the perpetrators despite the “minority-appeasement” policy of the ruling Congress government. The fear generated by the massacre and the intimidations that followed in the following years, continue to haunt the Muslims of Assam. It is against this background that we should look at the Muslims’ fear which pushed them to flee their homes in Upper Assam last May.

A consistent approach shaped by the anti-Muslim attitude (founded on hatred and prejudice) to label the Muslims of Assam as “Bangladeshis” has been the main feature of Assam politics for years.

This approach was re-enacted in an ugly devil-dance on May 11 when an SMS reading “no job, no cloth, no shelter to Bangladeshis” flashed on mobilephone sets across Upper Assam. The campaign for the boycott of Muslims (“Bangladeshi”, as it has become, despite denials, a synonym for Muslims in Assam) was launched purportedly by a previously unheard group, Chiring Chapori Yuva Mancha. It started a day after the tripartite talks between Assam government, AASU and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

For four days most people were in complete darkness as to what actually had taken place. The move seems to be a well-planned strategy to cleanse the area of what they claim are “Bangladeshis”. Indeed the boycott of Muslims has already become a favorite game for certain forces in India. Gujarat is an example.

Ghulam Osmani, a minority leader and an MP, says that 10,000 to 15,000 have been deported to Dibrugarh district and another 20,000 have been marooned in Tinsukhia district after rioters burnt down their houses. All Assam Students’ Union’s (a frontal organization on the foreigners issue) adviser Dr Samujjal Bhattacharya, commenting on the drive of the Yuva Mancha, says: “This is a spontaneous action as ordinary people have lost faith in the Government, bureaucracy or politicians on the foreigners’ issue”.

But Muslims of Assam are convinced this was not a “spontaneous” action of the people. Far from it, they feel, constant prodding and incitement led to such a turn of events. The Muslims do not accept AASU’s explanation, despite its frequent protestations of neutrality on the foreigners’ issue. In fact, Muslims have a different students organization, “All Assam Minority Students’ Union” (AAMSU), which was formed in 1980 mainly as a reaction to AASU politics and attitudes when large sections of religious and linguistic minorities were harassed during the AASU-sponsored agitation for detection and deportation of foreigners. Shekhar Gupta wrote, then, “…thanks to the lack of political pragmatism among the AASU leadership, the RSS elements have been able to operate at a different and more political level, succeeding in solely influencing some of the leaders in mofussil towns. These can be made to play a key role in whatever future scheme of things the RSS has for Assam and Northeast. The AASU leadership, jolted by Muslim revolt within its own ranks, has failed to check this drift and, if it continues, in five years from now (1984) the RSS in Assam will have the clout to do the kind of stuff it has been credited with during February 1983” (1984:122).

In fact “Hindu to arak**** hai”(the poor Hindu is unprotected) was the common refrain among the RSS circles then. Affiliated members of this fascist formation have carried on this “philosophy” faithfully. Members of this formation seek to distinguish between “Hindu refugees” and “Muslim infiltrators”. After the recent attempt at “boycott”, BJP leader Kalraj Mishra said in Silchar on June 1, 2005, that the Hindus coming from Bangladesh should be treated as “refugees”. To protect the Hindu refugees, he said, the BJP was advocating the introduction of the Citizenship Act of 1950 and repeal of IM(DT) Act. Is this a “majority appeasement” policy of the Sangh Parivar?

Before the recent anti-Muslim campaign the Assam Tribune reported on April 27, 2005 that the government has conceded that the infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals belonging to Hindu community was continuing unabated inspite of checks and control at the international borders. Thus it appears that under the shrill slogan of deporting “Bangladeshi infiltrators”, it was only the Muslims who have been targeted.

Recent persecution of Muslims is taking place within this politico-ideological framework that has been refined over a long period of time. Muslims of Assam want the foreigners to be deported as soon as possible without religious discrimination. But they continue to be the victims of the two-nation theory championed in India by certain forces who decry this theory when it comes to Pakistan and Partition. How is that when the call to boycott “Bangladeshis” was SMSed only Muslims fled to safety? Is it because the “unprotected” sections from across the border find protection in the arms of the chanters of “Hindu-Muslim” division mantra? «