Font size:

Against the backdrop of recent bomb blasts in India, a New Delhi judge has found a solution to escalating concerns over internal security. High Court Justice S. L. Bhayana has suggested that the solution is to identify and deport all Bangladeshis staying illegally in India. It must be a relief to the Indian security agencies and the general public to hear this.

In a judgment concerning Razia Begum, a Bangladeshi national who challenged the Indian court over a deportation order, the judge on Aug. 12 stated that illegal Bangladeshis in India are a threat to India's internal security. Begum and four of her family members will be deported.

Justice Bhayana is not alone in holding such a view. A similar judgement was handed down by the High Court of Assam a few days earlier, and the judge asked the state to take action to deport all illegal Bangladeshis in the state. It appeared a repeat of action taken in Assam with the Illegal Migrant (Determination by Tribunal) Act of 1983, which ordered the identification and deportation of all illegal foreign nationals. The Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional in 2005.

For six decades similar sentiments have echoed from a particular sector of the political spectrum. Fundamentalist Hindu political parties and their cronies have been singing the same tune since 1947. For them, of course, all non-Hindus are a threat to India and Indians. They have tried their best to solve the Muslim problem in their own way – by killing them all.

Even the recent unrest in Jammu and Kashmir is part of this game plan. As one Indian newspaper rightly said, Hindu fundamentalists have achieved what militants in the state were unable to do over many years – they have divided the Hindus from the Muslims.

I am not an intelligence or counter intelligence expert to comment on the actual threats to internal security in India or any other country. However, I have enough intelligence to understand that the judgment by the New Delhi High Court could promote illegal actions that would adversely affect the Muslims in India.

It is common sense to understand that in the name of identifying illegal Bangladeshi migrants many Muslims in India will face unwarranted troubles, causing a further dent in fragile Hindu-Muslim relations across India. The government of Rajasthan has already started its drive to identify illegal Muslims in that state, particularly after the bomb blasts in Rajasthan.

This policy raises many questions. How can the government distinguish an illegal migrant from a legal one in a country where a passport can be obtained without verification by paying a bribe? What guarantee is there that a move to identify illegal migrants will not be misused? In a country where law enforcement mechanisms are as lugubrious as one could imagine, where could a Muslim family go if it were reported to local police as “illegal migrants” by a neighbor who had his eye on the family's land?

Concerning internal security, the government should first address the problems of law enforcement. For starters, it might check whether all police stations in India have a functioning communications network. Would a single minister in any Indian state be able to guarantee that all police stations in his jurisdiction have at least a functioning telephone? Would a single state government confirm that all of its police officers have training in law enforcement and crime investigation? If it were so, the average criminal investigation would not rely on a confession extracted by torture, as is now common.

Can the government of India guarantee that its police officers are not corrupt? Which state government in India could promise to make police appointments on the basis of merit, and not political allegiance or corruption?

If a police officer is appointed after paying a bribe, how could the state expect the officer to be honest? It is too much to expect that, when he is offered a bribe, such an officer would first verify whether or not the person offering it was likely to be a threat to the nation. After all, most officers wear their uniforms not to serve the country, but to make a living. It is foolish to expect such an officer to refuse anything that is placed upon his table in cash or in kind to make his life a little easier.

There are some officers who have gotten fed up with the system and approached the courts of India seeking help – to salvage the law enforcement agencies from corruption, nepotism and unwarranted political influence. The Supreme Court of India has directed state governments to end the evil practices of politicians putting pressure on police officers.

The judgement delivered in the Prakash Singh case in 2006 was such an attempt by the court. The court ordered reforms in two areas: increased police autonomy – with more distinct boundaries between the police and the government – and increased police accountability. But is there a single state government in India that has implemented this judgement? In fact, the state governments approached the Supreme Court to review its judgement, even though it was asking only for an end to corruption and political interference.

The Delhi High Court has traversed the line of justice delivery and has entered the area of scaremongering. The observations made by the court against illegal Bangladeshi migrants is without any facts placed before it or argued. By doing so the court has reduced itself to be equated with the fundamentalist Hindu political parties in India.

It is common sense that no country is secure if its law enforcement agencies are corrupt to the core, inefficient, unprofessional and enjoy impunity. What is more easy is to blame illegal migrants in India for everything.

A divided society is never secure. Caste based discrimination is one such division that has divided millions of Hindus in India for some 3000 years. How about attributing that also to the foreigners in future?

--

(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Mr. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)