দ্বৈপায়ন সেনের নেওয়া সাক্ষাৎকার

 

Sukritibabu,

Amake please janaben anubad ta apnar ichhar mata hoyeche ki na.

Dhanyabad.

Dwaipayan

-

Question 1

Even though the CAA and NRC have been widely acknowledged as discriminatory towards Muslims in particular, there is an assumption that it will serve the interests of Hindus. Do you think this is true with respect to Dalits in West Bengal? Why, or why not?

It's commonly known that the BJP is a party driven by Hindutva ideology. In the Indian context, this means that the party is naturally anti-Muslim. But I'd like to begin this discussion with a reminder that the party is in equal measure anti-Dalit Hindu. If we forget this fact, then any discussion of CAA and NRC will be misleading, as in fact we can already see. We must not forget how the BJP's wishes to deceive Dalit Hindus by their calls for Hindu unity. 

The CAA 2019 is a useless and innocuous law. It is useless in the sense that it cannot give Indian citizenship to immigrants resident in India illegally. Especially Bengali immigrants who have been displaced from their original homeland in East Pakistan or Bangladesh cannot acquire citizenship by fulfilling the conditions of this Act. In fact, the issue of citizenship applies mostly to Bengali immigrants. It applies to Hindu or Sikh immigrants from (West) Pakistan or Afghanistan too, but their numbers are insignificant, and can acquire Indian citizenship under this law. It can be said that this law was designed with these numerically insignificant people in mind. 

The CAA 2019 is also an innocuous law in the sense that it does not actually harm anyone directly. It is not possible even for Muslims to lose any of their rights, now or in the future, under this law. It's not possible for the CAA to break the limitation of the earlier 2014 deadline. Hence it's incorrect to infer that this law is a significant step on the way to creating Hindu Raj in India.  

In essence, the CAA 2019 is an amendment of section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act of 2003. This section says that anyone (whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, etc.) who has entered India without a valid entry permit, or who has overstayed in India beyond the permitted duration, is an illegal immigrant, and will lose their right to acquire Indian citizenship. The amendment of 2019 removes the applicability of section 2(1)(b) to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians. In other words, those migrants into India from these religious groups who have stayed in India upto 2014 without official permission will no more be considered as illegal immigrants. The amendment says no more than that. But it can be (or is being) assumed that people from these religious groups will therefore (by virtue of them being not considered illegal immigrants any more) become eligible to apply for Indian citizenship once the amendment comes into force. The Home Minister of the time, Shri Rajnath Singh, stated in a press release that the purpose of the amendment was to enable Hindus, Sikhs, etc, to file applications for Indian citizenship). 

It is undeniable that the this amendment now closes off the route for Muslim immigrants to take advantage of the law. This is a policy question. The entire opposition regards it as the wrong policy, whereas the BJP, the Sangh Parivar and its allies considers it the right one. In my view,  rather than referring to them as Hindus, Sikhs, etc., it would have been appropriate to designate them as "victims of partition" or "displaced homeless", and grant them citizenship, thus freeing them from the stigma of being labelled as illegal entrants. I demanded as much, both orally and in writing, in my deposition to the JPC. I believe one should protest against referring to immigrants by their religious identity, but one should consider carefully how far to take the protest movement. Refugees, viz., Hindus, Sikhs, etc., who lost their homes as a result of partition have an undeniable claim to Indian citizenship. At various points in the Indian Constitution itself there are references to special rights granted to those of "Indian Origin". That "India" was the one described in the 1935 Government of India Act, in other words, the "India" that included present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These special rights were announced both by the Government of India of the time, and the national leadership, both within Parliament as well outside, in both government and private institutions, even acknowledged in some agreements. Never has the Government of India denied these rights, nor the responsibilities they entailed. The government has resettled lakhs of refugee families, and even where they have not, or where the refugees did not want to be resettled, the government never objected to the refugees settling in India. They were never forcibly displaced by the police, nor expelled outside the borders of India. On the contrary, the government has always assisted the refugees in various ways, giving them - legally or illegally - voter cards and ration cards, employment in some cases, even allowing them to acquire landed property and start businesses of their own. Of all the lakhs of families resettled, not even a single on was Muslim,  but the question of communal preferences was never raised for these resettled families. Why not? Because some Muslims left India for Pakistan, whose government accepted responsibility for their re-settlement, just as the Indian government did with Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan, or at least didn't deny their responsibility.  In 2003, the government added Section 2(1)(b), the amendment being passed unanimously in Parliament. Although the law was passed in 2003, it was put into effect from 19 July, 1948. This was an injustice against all refugees. What was needed under the circumstances was a law that would have regularized the de facto existence of refugees within Indian territories. 

But when the present opposition was in power, they did not pass such a law. I met Dr. Manmohan Singh three times, and also the Home Minister several times, to demand this law. But none of them wanted to initiate the effort to pass it. Now the BJP has come forward with its arguments to pass the CAA, but it has attached three conditions that render the law a deception. While the BJP is trying to polarize the issue by adding words like Hindu, Sikh, etc., the opposition has, by its actions, facilitated the BJP's attempts at polarization. 

The BJP claims that 2-3 crores of Bangladeshi Muslims have entered India illegally. The charge  that the CAA discriminates against Muslims could only be sustained if this were true. But there is no question of discrimination against Muslims if they are absent to start with. I regard this claim by the BJP as false, as do all the opposition parties. Muslims don't migrate from Bangladesh to India, just as no Hindus nor Sikhs migrate from India to Pakistan. Till about 20-25 years ago, a few very poor, illiterate wage labourers who were Muslims used to cross over into India looking for work, and even return.  If any Muslims from Bangladesh have found work permanently in India, their numbers are negligible and can be ignored. More importantly, one never hears of Bangladeshi Muslims wishing to stay in India and become Indian citizens. Not even parties or institutions have been known to make such a claim. That is why the citizenship of Bangladeshi Muslims is not an issue in India. The opposition to the CAA is based on making an issue out of a non-issue. It is worth noting that whenever the CAA has been discussed in Parliament, no opposition member or party has ever demanded citizenship for Muslims from Bangladesh or Pakistan. No one has demanded that Muslims should be added to the list of six religious communities to whom the CAA permits citizenship. Nor did they demand that citizenship based on birth should be made free of other conditions. The Parliamentary opposition has only asked for the bill to be withdrawn, without proposing any amendment. After the Bill was passed into law, they brought a case for its repeal in the Supreme Court. All these give grounds to suspect whether the opposition has any interest at all in citizenship for refugees or indeed any other issues relating to them. 

The question of whether the CAA is contrary to the secular character of the Constitution is a complex one. To my mind there are many arguments both for and against this question. The matter can become somewhat clear to citizens after hearing both sides of the debate in the Supreme Court. But whatever the judgment of the Supreme Court, and whether or not the people accept, or are forced to accept, the outcome, the debate is bound to continue. And that is because the Supreme Court itself has become controversial. 

Bearing in mind that the citizenship of approximately 17.5-20.0 millions of homeless refugees is at stake, it is morally egregious to file a case in the Supreme Court for the repeal of the CAA. If for any reason the Court's judgment goes against the CAA, the path to the resolution of the citizenship question for these refugees will become so complicated that few future parties or politicians will wish to invest time and effort in it. They will cite the Court judgment as a defence of their refusal or reluctance. 

The Indian Constitution generally seeks to secure equality by forbidding discrimination, but also acknowledges the need for exceptions in the pursuit of equality. The Constitution does not pose obstacles to the adoption of special measures, or if required the writing of laws, intended to promote the welfare, progress or security of a community. In fact, the Constitution directs the promulgation of laws for such ends. Therefore it is not a breach of the Constitution to write laws designed to solve the long-standing problem of citizenship for refugees. Where is the problem in such laws if they do no harm to any other community or individual? The Indian Citizenship Act already provides for paths and methods for foreigners to gain citizenship in India. The Act is the same for both Hindus and Muslims, and applies with equal force to both. The CAA does not pose any obstacles even for a day on the path to acquiring Indian citizenship for Muslim foreigners.  So it is incorrect to maintain that the CAA is an anti-Muslim law. The CAA is an attempt to solve the problem of refugees entering India by unnatural means in unnatural circumstances. 

Although the CAA is purportedly designed to solve the long-standing problem of Indian citizenship for refugees, in fact the law offers no such possibility to the Bengali refugees. The reason is that Indian citizenship is only available through application, and only under certain specific conditions. If the BJP government really had the wish or the intention to solve the citizenship problem for refugees, all they need have done is grant citizenship to all refugees who had entered India before a pre-announced base date. There would have been no need for refugees to enter the labyrinthine application process to acquire citizenship. 

In the case of Assam - uniquely in India - 24 March 1971 was taken as a base date for determining citizenship. Anyone who could present documents showing that they had been living in Assam since before that date could be counted as an Indian citizen. They don't need to furnish an application for acquiring Indian citizenship. The CAA has a base date as well, but that is for eligibility to apply for citizenship. This application route makes it very unlikely for a refugee to gain citizenship, at least within their lifetime. The government has no infrastructure to rapidly examine applications, investigate them and issue citizenship certificates. Moreover, among the documents stipulated in the CAA for submission with an application for citizenship is a certificate confirming that the applicant left Bangladesh or Pakistan either because of or fearing religious persecution - a document that will in fact be impossible for a refugee to submit. Furthermore, the applicant will have to submit documentary proof of residence in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan, and that he/she entered India before 31.12.2014. Since the rules have not yet been finalized, it is uncertain what documents the government will finally require in support of the application. 

The Ministry of External Affairs has deposed before the JPC that simply furnishing documentary proof in support of an application for citizenship will not suffice. No decision granting citizenship will be made before investigative agencies - including RAW - have tested the truth of any claims in support of citizenship applications. This is not a workable process. 

The foregoing discussion represents a common understanding. The upper caste Hindus, the educated, the wealthy and the generally aware will be able to overcome the problems we have discussed. That's because of the caste and class character of the Indian state. The Dalit Hindus and Muslims will face much more serious problems. The Muslims will find themselves treated unfairly, while the Dalits among the refugees will find themselves ensnared in legal traps. 

Of the refugees who came to India from East Bengal, the upper caste refugees came much earlier, the Dalits later. The considerable numbers of refugees who came after 1971 were almost entirely Dalit. They represent half of all refugees who came to India, but the government has no record of them. Basically, these refugees will be the ones in greatest difficulty, along with other Dalits who had come much earlier. The choice of 1971 as a cut-off year may just be a conspiracy to leave Dalit refugees in a limbo, while granting citizenship to the rest. 

Q2. Why do you think certain sections of the Bengali Dalit peoples are in favor of these measures?

Many Dalit refugees (among other refugees) believe - despite many hesitations and dilemmas - that the CAA makes it possible for them to acquire Indian citizenship. In fact, no other party or government is saying anything about solving the problem of citizenship for refugees. The opposition is only asking for the repeal of the CAA, and don't even have an alternative proposal. The only hope the refugees have - however tenuous - is in the BJP. Section 2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act identifies the refugees as illegal immigrants. But the CAA frees them of this label. Many of them believe - correctly - that the CAA saves them from arrest or being sent to a detention camp. Many refugees view this positively, and hence support the CAA. To the refugees, any demand by the opposition to repeal the CAA sounds as if the opposition is agitating for the refugees to be confirmed as illegal immigrants again, as required by Section 2(1)(b) of the original (unamended)  CA.  It is for this reason that the refugees see no alternative to supporting the BJP. Moreover, the refugees are irritated by the opposition parties demanding repeal of the CAA only on the basis of the exclusion of Muslims. The opposition is therefore losing the support of the refugees, and the BJP's strategy of polarization between Hindus and Muslims is thus proving to be successful. 

Q3. What do you think is the true agenda behind the passage of the NRC and CAA? If they proceed as intended, what could be the consequences for West Bengal in particular?

The NRC should have been implemented nation-wide much earlier, but wasn't. It's not an argument that it can't be introduced now because it wasn't earlier. A necessary process that should have been started earlier needs to start. BJP now claims to have started it. 

In our country, and perhaps in others too, whenever those in power introduce certain necessary measures for the people, they keep in mind the interests and advantages of both the state and the nation, but do not neglect the interests of their own political parties. The BJP does this too. Through the NRC process, they would like to disenfranchise a certain number of Muslims and Dalit Hindus by denying them citizenship, because neither of these two groups are their natural allies. The NRC process offers the BJP a legal and documented means of denying citizenship to the poor, the illiterate, the politically unaware and weak. Disenfranchising 1-2% of the population is enough to intimidate many others. Especially because Dalits across the country are raising the slogan "Vote hamara, raj tumhara, nahin chalega!" (We won't accept an order where we have the vote and you have the power!), it becomes necessary for the BJP and other upper casteists to find a way to threaten them. That's why they wish to destroy the Dalit's incipient desire for power at its very root. 

The NRC and CAA also offer a process for religious polarization. They have started to disrupt plans of Dalit-Muslim unity that were gradually gaining ground. Creating a cheap source of labour may also be an economic motivation behind such measures. The ability to negotiate better working conditions for a disenfranchised working class will be weakened, as will the ability of the regular working class (with citizenship rights) as they compete with the disenfranchised. It is in the BJP's interest to keep the people of the country in a permanent state of pressure, as it helps to distract their attention from real economic issues. 

The opposition claim that the CAA and NRC are complementary, but the BJP denies that. I too believe that the CAA and NRC are two completely distinct matters. They can be implemented and used separately. The two laws were created sixteen years apart. The task of implementing NRC preceded the composition of the CAA. It's meaningless and unnecessary to link the two together.  If the NRC were to be implemented in WB exactly as it was in Assam, there would be many more deprived of their citizenship than in Assam. This is because the number of refugees in WB is much larger. Especially those who came after 1971 remained mostly in WB. In Assam, the refugees were discriminated against, harassed and continue to be harassed on the basis of their ethnicity (Bengali vs Assamese). In WB, the discimination will be based on caste (Dalit vs Upper Caste) or religion (Hindu vs Muslim). In Assam, the cutoff year for proving citizenship was 1971, whereas it was 1948 in WB and the rest of the country. Consequently, it will be much more difficult for residents in WB to submit documentation to prove their citizenship. But it's my impression that it's possible to agree on a common cutoff year for the entire country. Many are likely to request 1971 to be agreed as the cutoff year. If that year is eventually chosen, then the Dalit refugees will be trapped by that base year, and the rest will escape. On the other hand, the reassurances of citizenship being offered to refugees on the basis of the CAA are in fact false. Bengali refugees will not receive citizenship on the basis of the CAA. The subject will become clearer once the Rules are published. To what extent the BJP or the opposition will benefit from the implementation of the CAA will depend on how the Rules are drawn up. If the BJP can convincingly deceive people on the basis of the Rules, then the party has some chance of an electoral victory in the next  state elections. Thereafter, with the passage of time, people may come to realize the extent of BJP's deception. 

Q4. Do you believe the BJP’s Hindutva program has proved, and will prove, successful in West Bengal?

Contrary to widespread belief, of all the states in India, the Hindutva ideology has its greatest influence in WB. This is an unprecedented success for the Manuvadi system of education and for the media. The practice of the Hindutva agenda has for a long time its most successful practice in WB.  Here, the ideological strategy of Hindutva and the manifestations of casteism are quite separate. For example, when the Abolition of Untouchability Bill was proposed in Central Legislative Assembly in 1933, it was Bengal that led with the most opposition, much to the surprise of even the British. 

Now the question is: will the BJP meet with electoral success in WB? It doesn't appear as if the upper class Bengalis would accept the kind of direct confrontation that Hindutva supporters would favor. But the BJP does favor such an approach. To spread Hindutva ideology, upper class Bengalis would prefer to continue the current strategy of hiding behind the curtain of progressivism, even if it means that the BJP does not come to power in the state. Adopting the BJP's hard-line Hindutva in WB runs the risk of precipitating a rebellion against it, which might be difficult to control. This is because unlike in other states, the upper caste population in WB is relatively insignificant, far exceeded by the combined Muslim and Dalit populations (around 65%). Despite this, it can be said that Hindutva strategy has meanwhile succeeded in WB. It has achieved complete polarization between Hindus and Muslims. Which party remains in power, now or in the future, is a secondary concern. 

Q5. How successful has the BJP been in earning the support of Bengali Dalits?

The ordinary Dalit in the state supports the BJP. In the past, this was because of the Hindutva agendas of the Congress, the Left Front and the TMC, and because of the discipline demanded by the respective parties. Dalits have never received justice in the past. They have been discriminated against in all fields - whether sharing power within the party, participation in government, opportunities in education, in the administration of justice, in propaganda and in questions of political power. In every single field, the BJP has succeeded in deceiving them by raising their hopes with promises of progress and dreams of revenge. Many Dalits have thus been entrapped by the BJP. I don't know if this too is a new strategy of the Brahminists. 

Q6. What do you see as the main prospects for resisting the BJP’s efforts to make inroads into West Bengal?

In West Bengal, the medicine itself is poisoned. How can the BJP be stopped when every party shows cryptro-Hindutva tendencies? The INC, the CPI(M), the TMC all believe that Kashmir is an integral part of India, they are all happy at the passing of the triple talaq law, they all believe and propagate the myth that the 1946 riots were a criminal conspiracy by Suhrawardy to massacre Hindus, they all believe that Muslims and the Muslim League were responsible for the partition of India and Bengal, that it's the oppression of Muslims that's driving Hindus out of hearth and home, that Muslims are evil. All parties believe that Muslims are terrorists, that Swami Vivekanada represented the ideal man, that (caste-based) reservation is a bad policy. They all believe that the bhadralok class are the bearers of Indian civilization, and that others are inferior and uncivilized. So how do they differ from the BJP? How can these parties fight the BJP? They are effectively all silent because whatever weapon they bring against the BJP boomerangs against them. It's a walkover for the BJP. The past activities and decisions of the opposition parties are obstacles in their own path. The only way to stop Hindutva or the BJP in Bengal or in India is to forge a political alliance and unity between Muslims and Dalits. But this is a very difficult task. Because the Brahminists in every opposition party recognize the threat from that one source, all parties and the media actively and collectively seek ways to do everything in their power to concoct conflicts between Dalits and Muslims, and disrupt any move towards their unity. 

Despite this, in the present circumstances, the struggle to stop the BJP must continue. If the opposition parties cannot unite to achieve this aim, it's for the people to put up candidates strongly opposed to the BJP, and cast their votes in their favour. 32% of the electorate in WB is Muslim.While this makes it difficult for the BJP to seize power in WB, it also leaves an opening for the BJP to harp on Muslim strength, movement and organization, thus stoking fear among Hindu voters to win their votes. 

Q7. Do you see any promise in the long-awaited hope for Dalit and Muslim political unity and/or cooperation in the state? 

Conditions are not favourable for forging political unity among Dalits and Muslims. Whatever little there was has now disappeared. But changes in political situations and contexts do not follow the mathematical laws. Hence the efforts to that end should continue. We may find light if we can pierce through the depths of the surrounding darkness. But let there be no doubt that a deep darkness has descended on both the country and the state [of WB]. 

Q8. What, in your view, are the best strategies to undo the NRC and CAA?

I think the demand to repeal the CAA and the NRC is mistaken. In the present circumstances, we need a movement to declare 2014 as the base year for issuance of national identity papers and completing the NRC. In other words, another CAB should be introduced to pass a CAA that will provide citizenship and national identity papers to all those - both original Indians as well as displaced refugees - who can furnish satisfactory documentary proof that they have lived in India since before 2014. I believe such a demand will have the support both of popular opinion as well as the force of logic. Both the BJP and the Opposition will have no alternative but to lend their support to the proposal.