Reviewing The Enclave Exchange

                                                                                                                *Dr. Saumitra Mohan

            Boundaries between nation states are reflections of the interplay of the forces of history, politics and wars but oftentimes they could be simply a manifestation of a shoddy and hasty job as transpired in the wake of recommendations of the Boundary Commission led by Sir Cyril Radcliffe. The malformed borders between India and Pakistan became a curse for the people living in the enclaves between India and Pakistan or Bangladesh since 1971. Even though the enclave residents did not leave their homes and hearths, they, however, lost their countries. They lived in territories legally belonging to India, but never qualified as Indian citizens. The same happened to the people who lived on Pakistani and subsequently, Bangladeshi territory but would have none of the citizenship rights.

            They were not stateless people in terms of international law of territorial sovereignty, but that was merely a cold comfort for them. They had no access to the laws or services of the land to which they technically belonged. The piquant situation created an ontological crisis for these people sans the benefits of citizenship and sans the protection of the state. With the Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) of 1974 between India and Bangladesh finally coming into force on 1^st August this year, the historical hardship for the people living in 51 Bangladeshi and 111 Indian enclaves eventually came to an end.

            The enclaves were exchanged on the midnight of 31^st July this year. The Indian flags were hoisted at midnight to mark the historic moment.  A total of 111 Indian enclaves with an area of 17158 acres inside Bangladesh became Bangladeshi mainland and 51 Bangladeshi enclaves with an area of 7110 acres within Indian Cochbehar district of West Bengal became official Indian Territory. In practical terms, it simply meant that the boundaries around these little pockets of foreign land disappeared as they merged with the host countries.

            Against expectations of around 13,000 people in 111 Indian enclaves moving into India, only 979 or .02 per cent of the 37,000 dwellers in these enclaves inside Bangladesh plumped for the Indian citizenship during the joint survey conducted by the two countries. This was surprising given the attraction for Indian citizenship among Bangladeshi citizens. Many of these residents in Indian enclaves in Bangladesh who wanted to become Indian citizens were disappointed as they were allegedly threatened and intimidated against opting for the Indian citizenship by the Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh. In stark contrast, all the 14,854 people staying on Indian soil in Bangladeshi enclaves have sought Indian citizenship.

            Indian political leaders belonging to several parties have made strong allegation regarding several thousand residents in Indian enclaves in Bangladesh being unable to exercise their option freely owing to intimidation by extremist organisations. They have also pointed to a methodological hitch during the joint survey resulting in flawed results. A list of over 5,500 people, who were left out of the purview of the survey, has been submitted to the state government recently. Already, over 2000 of these left out Bangladeshi enclave dwellers who always wanted to opt for the Indian nationality but could not do so during the joint survey in Indian enclaves due to assorted reasons including extremist threats, recently submitted their applications to the Indian authorities praying for Indian citizenship.

            “But nobody knows what will be the fate of those people, who want to quit Indian enclaves and settle in India but failed to enrol their names during the recent census,” said an Indian official. Though the matter was discussed among the officials associated with the Joint Working Group (JWG) in the meeting held in Dhaka on 23^rd July this year, nothing has yet been finalised as to how this section of people will be able to register their names. A group belonging to the United Council for Indian Enclave (UCIE) helped in the collection of applications from those sufferers who want to settle in the Indian part but whose names don’t figure in the joint survey list.

            Members of the India Bangladesh Joint Working Group examined the complaints lodged by Indian politicians against the procedural problems as were faced during the joint survey in Indian enclaves. The survey conducted through 6-16 July, 2015 was part of the Land Boundary Agreement-1974 to exchange the enclaves. Officials of both the countries held a meeting in Dhaka on 23^rd July, 2015 to review and finalize the report as collected during the said joint survey in 162 enclaves. The crucial meeting discussed the modalities for exchanging information including the land records and the respective list of families opting for the two countries.

            Even as S K Chakraborty, the Assistant Registrar General of India and a member of the India-Bangladesh Joint Working Group, claimed that people in the Indian enclaves had no grievances despite reports that they were allegedly deprived of their right to choose their nationality, a human rights organisation has said that it has collected many examples of such deprivation and that it has intimated the matter through letters to the Prime Ministers of both India and Bangladesh. Copies of the same have also been forwarded to the Chiefs of the National Human Rights Commission of both the countries and other Indian officials.

            The Manabadhikar Surakhsha Manch (MASUM), a human rights organisation based in West Bengal, has alleged that the Joint Working Group had not functioned transparently during the survey. ‘They created a few procedural complications to exclude or include names whimsically,’ it alleged. ‘Procedural violations, omissions and commissions of duty have raised questions over the legalities and state’s accountability. It will again put thousands of enclave dwellers in a stateless situation’, they added. MASUM has also urged the authorities concerned to recall that India and Bangladesh both have taken a voluntary pledge before the UN Human Rights Commission to protect and promote human rights for all.

            Subsequent to the enclave exchange, many of these residents who opted for the Indian citizenship have been visiting India for an exposure visit on receipt of a multi-visa for their families from the Indian High Commission to make preparation for permanently settling in India as well as to interact with close friends and relatives here. As their citizenship related formality still remains to be completed, all of them are to pay over Rs. 500 taka against the travel pass issued to them at Changrabandha and Burimari immigration check posts in Cooch Behar as admissible for a foreigner. All these enclave dwellers who have opted for the Indian nationality are supposed to finally leave Bangladesh during November.

            Both India and Bangladesh have agreed to their exposure visit to India as part of their preparations for permanent settlement in India as has also been allowed for those who have opted for Bangladeshi citizenship. All these citizens are being issued travel passes to visit anywhere in India to finalize their settlement plan. As per the agreement, the Indian government will bear all the cost of transportation when they eventually arrive in November from different Indian enclaves, which have now been incorporated into Bangladesh.

            The local administration has been directed to provide with food and shelter for the new Indian nationals. The visits are also being facilitated by a non-governmental organisation called the United Council of Indian Enclave as it has maintained a liaison all along between the new nationals and the administrative officials. During their interactions with the Indian officials, these dwellers have pleaded for taking up the land sale matter with the Bangladeshi government for getting the right price for their lands.

            Having waited over six decades for the establishment of their citizenship rights, these enclave residents still have to grapple with many of the existential problems before finally settling down in India. The foremost among them is to find a reasonable price for their farm and homestead lands. Most of these problems arising out of enclave exchange between the two countries were discussed in detail during an interaction between the delegations of Bangladesh and India at Siliguri in January this year as well as during the Dhaka interactions as mentioned above. The Government of India is said to have earmarked Rs 3000 crores for the liabilities and responsibilities arising out of the exchange of enclaves. The fund shall be used not only for the rehabilitation of the people moving into India but also for carrying out various development works in these enclaves.

            These developmental works and activities will be almost like laying out a virgin country, for no government agency has ever existed in any of these enclaves. Schools, colleges, hospitals, police stations, roads – everything will have to be created for the welfare of the people in them. As per the Notification issued by the State Government, a land survey has been conducted in the erstwhile enclave areas to officially demarcate and delineate their geographical status vis-a-vis bordering Indian areas. In case of small patches of land accrued, these will be integrated into the existing mouzas, the smallest cartographical entity on India’s map. In case of big stretches, e.g. a big enclave, a new mouza will be created. This will be followed by their incorporation into the extant panchayat system.  The new areas will also need to be allocated police stations and post offices. In some cases new police stations or post offices will have to be formed.

            Another tricky area relates to the redistribution of land among the individual owners as per their entitlement as figured out during the joint survey done for the purpose. As they leave for their new country, they also seek corresponding return of their lands as owned in the erstwhile enclaves but have no supporting papers. Most of these residents have lived in enclaves with forged and false identity documents.  

            The basic principle of land allocation namely ‘possession backed by documents’ or ‘documents backed by possession’ may prove tricky, especially if one person’s claim is contested by another. Hence, a big challenge pertains to identity verification of the incoming Indian citizens. The residents in many cases don’t have any legal papers in support of their claims or to prove their identity.  The processing of identities will, therefore, be an onerous task which would require careful handling because the same has serious implication for the national security.

            The government will also need to keep some land aside for the sundry developmental activities including infrastructures, school buildings, anganwadis, health centres, roads, space for electricity lines and water supply. The same would also require the consent of the residents in these areas. The entire rehabilitation work is going to be a long-drawn complicated and humongous task, requiring intricate planning and execution. The Indian government shall also need to factor the concerns of the incoming young citizens whose educational interests would warrant safeguarding. The local administration would have to ensure continuation of their education in India as per their eligibility and requirements.

             The Indian law enforcing agencies including the Border Security Force (BSF) heaved a sigh of relief as the enclaves were finally exchanged between the two countries. According to sources, the Bangladeshi enclaves on the Indian side had become safe havens for the Indian criminals who would often take shelter therein after committing a crime in the Indian Territory. Technically being a foreign territory, the BSF and other Indian officials found it difficult to enter and take any action against these anti-social elements. The Indian law enforcing agencies including BSF and local police authorities are now relieved as they can crack down on the criminals in the enclaves now that these areas have legally come under total Indian control.

            Besides, there are many other issues which need serious attention of the two countries as discussed during the July conclave between the two countries.           The newly introduced quarterly meetings would now be convened on a regular basis at the levels of District Magistrate and Collector of the two countries bordering these enclaves. The flag meetings on a regular basis as per a mutually agreed calendar of the Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and BSF have also been institutionalized. The success in the enclaves issue has its lessons for leaders of both the countries. They need to realize that India Bangladesh relations should no longer be held hostage to their domestic politics.

            There are other issues that the two countries need to resolve. They inter alia include poppy cultivation in border areas, cattle smuggling, construction and improvement of land customs station and land port, movement of militants along the border, sharing intelligence to curb the menace of terrorism, women trafficking, illegal arms smuggling, exchange of prisoners languishing in each others’ jails, setting up immigration centres at the border, survey, construction and repair of missing border pillars, exchange of Cadastral Survey records (Some CS records of Bangladeshi Dinajpur district are in Indian South Dinajpur and some CS records of South Dinajpur of West Bengal are in Bangladeshi Dinajpur.), export-import issues, promotion of tourism, border management of common rivers and sharing of their waters including that of Teesta.  A new bus service between the two countries has already started.

            Both India and Bangladesh must continue to show more of the pragmatism that made the exchange of enclaves ultimately possible though it took the two countries 41 years to complete the job of enclave exchange has much to do with the changes in Indo-Bangladesh ties over the years. One hopes that the relationship between the two countries shall only grow stronger on the strength of the recent warmth as emerging in the wake of resolution of the enclave exchange issue. The flagging of a new bus service between the two countries is only one of the many positive breakthroughs waiting to be made as a result of the new-found bonhomie between them.

*The views expressed here are personal and don’t reflect that of the Government.

The Beef Battle: Nation-Building in Danger

                                                                                                *Saumitra Mohan

            I am a Hindu and I love to proclaim as much. My family taught me to relish Hindu non-vegetarian delicacies since my childhood and I continue doing so with lip-smacking panache. In my puerile iconoclastic bid to establish my credentials as an enlightened and liberal Hindu, I have tried my hand at consuming both the Indian political meat namely beef and pork. However, I failed miserably in my foolhardy gastronomic expeditions by throwing up every time I attempted. My own increasing disenchantment with non-vegetarian food notwithstanding, the fact remains that one’s affection for something as basic as food can’t be changed overnight. But as a sovereign citizen of a modern liberal democracy, it is me who has taken all my decisions regarding ways to please my palate.

            So, what has lately become fashionable in this country is not in order and definitely not legitimate. Article 48 of the Indian Constitution says, “...the State shall take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” So, the Constitution actually does not talk only about prohibiting slaughter of cows, but also of other milch and draught cattle whose meat is relished by the Hindus. So, those asking for banning beef because it is mentioned in the Constitution should demand equal prohibition for other milch and draught cattle including goat and buffaloes. A country whose citizens’ nutritional and employment status is already compromised just can’t afford to ban meat eating of one or the other kind.

            Pandit Thakur Dass Bhargava who suggested article 48 relating to cow slaughter in the Constituent Assembly had said, “I do not want that, due to its inclusion in the Fundamental Rights, non-Hindus should complain that they have been forced to accept a certain thing against their will.” As the founding fathers of our Constitution did not want to force a decision on citizens, the end result of the debate in the Constituent Assembly was Article 48 in its extant form as one of the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Supreme Court in several cases including Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1959 SCR 629), Hashumatullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Abdul Hakim and others v. State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 448) and Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh has ruled against a total ban on cattle slaughter on grounds of public interest. Though there is a lack of uniformity among provincial laws governing cattle slaughter, no state law explicitly bans the consumption of beef.

            Almost all the Committees and Commissions, formed from time to time, including Cattle Preservation and Development Committee (1947-48), Uttar Pradesh Committee (1948), Nanda Committee on the Prevention of Slaughter of Milch Cattle in India (1954-55), Gosamvardhan Committee (1960) and Special Committee on Preserving High-Yielding Cattle (1961-62) have recommended against the ban on cattle slaughter including beef on one or the other ground. The Nanda Committee felt that ‘measures like legislative ban on slaughter and cruelty or salvage of animals...will only be treating the symptoms and not curing the disease’ and recommended against a total ban on slaughter of cattle. It, inter alia, reasoned that, as India had little fodder and cattle feed, it could only maintain 40 percent of its cattle and, therefore, the remaining 60 percent should be culled.

            As a religion, Hinduism does not prohibit meat eating. Historians claim that ancient Hindus including Vedic Brahmins, Buddhists and even early Jains used to consume meat including beef. Old scriptures including Manusmriti and Arthashastra have been quoted to confirm this. Renowned historian D N Jha, in his book, ‘Myth of the Holy Cow’ has talked extensively about beef eating by ancient Hindus. Historians have suggested that the Hindus stopped eating beef as a cultural assertion and reaction to the presence of beef-eating rulers of the times than for any religious reason.

            Arguably, if beef eating is bad just because cow is treated holy by Hindus, then the same reason hold for many other animals treated as holy or non-eatable by other communities. If bruised sentiments of a section of Hindus could be the ground for banning beef, then eating meat of other animals including chicken, goat, buffaloes, lamb, pig et al should also be banned as they too hurt the sensibilities of the vegetarians. Stretching it further, we should also not eat garlic, onions or tuberous vegetables because the same is forbidden to be eaten by a section of the Hindus and Jains. And if the ground for ban is to stop killing a living being for food, we should actually not be eating any botanical products as they too have life if we were to believe Jagdishchandra Basu. So, if religion be the ground for banning one or the other food item, there would hardly be anything left for us to eat.

            One wonders whether these people approve of ‘animal eating animal’ or a ‘tiger killing a cow’ if we were to continue stretching the argument. After all, as per Hinduism every living being has God in it; so none is supposed to kill and eat anyone for food. Mind you we Hindus believe that nothing happens without God’s desire. So, the loony fringe has to understand that the nature’s food cycle has also been willed and designed by Him. Theologically speaking, if we were to believe that it is the Almighty God who has designed every detail in this universe, then it must be the God who made the human being a carnivore otherwise he would not have created the possibility of humans eating meat product.

            At a time, when we are talking about ‘minimum government, maximum governance’, venturing into prescribing food for the citizens would actually translate into ‘micro-governance’. Important political leaders and intellectuals including the Prime Minister have rightly denounced the intolerant behaviour of a section of Indians including the recent Dadri lynching. However, return of state awards by litterateurs and artistes is not the right approach; the intellectuals should rather speak up against such deviant behaviour by some Indians rather than indulging in tokenism and symbolism because the awards were actually given on behalf of the country that the government represents.

            The intemperate and revolting statements like, ‘beef eaters have no place in this country’ have the potential to balkanize this country because finding a country for more than 20 crore Indians (including many Hindus who eat beef) would be a herculean task. So we are left with no choice but to cut a piece from our body politic to create a new country. Maybe this is the unfinished agenda of partition that these people are referring to. Again, it is such intolerant statements and behaviour, as on display in recent times across the country, which create disaffection in a section of our citizenry and negatively compromise our doddering nation-building process. Thankfully, the ‘loony fringe’ remains what it is namely ‘loony’ and ‘fringe’; the predominant majority still remains embedded in the Constitutional ideals of liberal pluralism to cushion our ‘salad bowl’ culture.

            Amidst all this nonsensical controversies, if the self-proclaimed defender of the faith were to do something for our milch and draught cattle including cows, I would only request them to ensure that this country has more and more scientific slaughter house with hygienic conditions, something we sorely need. Battle of the beef, if at all it is to be waged, could be better fought scientifically and ideologically by proving the benefits of vegetarianism rather than dictating people what they ought to eat. For the moment, we definitely have much greater issues to be preoccupied with. The very fact that we are still mired in such mindless debates only shows that our nation-building project is still far from complete. India’s existence as a nation-state very much depends on the outcome of this ideological churning we are going through.

*The views expressed here are personal and don’t reflect those of the Government.

How Civil is Our Civil Society?

*Dr. Saumitra Mohan

India has slowly and steadily been growing as a modern state. However, we are still far from being a country that our forefathers visualized, a vision aptly enshrined in the lofty ideals of our Constitution. The most sacred document of the Indian Republic envisaged India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular and democratic republic which would secure to its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. We have all these traits in the extant Indian state, but given the state of affairs today, cynics find each of them to have been hugely compromised.

            As citizens of the largest democracy, we desire them all but flinch from doing anything as are expected of its people. While government, politicians and bureaucrats are the favourite punching bags of almost everyone, we definitely lack the character to deserve the honour of living up to our Constitutional ideals by repeatedly engaging in conduct unbecoming of a ‘great nation’. Many observers hold poor value education to be the parent reason for a poor national character which focuses on self-aggrandizement at the expense of the community. A sense of duty is conspicuous by its absence in a predominant majority of our civil society. People are usually apathetic when it comes to their duties vis a vis the country.

            Today, venality and crimes as rampant in our society definitely don’t offend our sensibilities. This is very much reflected in the iterated returns of many lawmakers with criminal background as they are supposed to be treated as such till proved guilty. People see absolutely no problem with the same. In fact, such people are often admired and idolized. There is a general love for mediocrity or easy success which leads most of us to seek refuge in short-cuts through reservations or nepotistic politics as the movements of Jats, Gujjars or Patels demonstrate. While the Supreme Court, in a welcome judgement, recently quashed as unconstitutional section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) that protected the membership of an MP or MLA if he or she files an appeal within three months of conviction, there still remain many grey areas which compromise the said landmark judgement.

            While the common citizens often excoriate the powers that be for their involvement with various public wrongs, there are innumerable instances where citizens themselves have been found to be engaging in dubious acts given an opportunity. One has come across several instances where citizens unduly pocket wages under the employment guarantee scheme without any work, where government grants for housing are not utilized for the original purpose or where people granted government funds for a particular purpose seldom used the same for the purpose allotted. We regale ourselves by indulging in vandalism of government properties or by enforcing a crippling strike or ‘bandh’ to finagle a demand.

            Today, a mob of ten to twenty persons are sufficient to sabotage a positive initiative. There are organised cartels of middlemen who flourish on these systemic weaknesses by masterminding encroachment of government properties. They also ensure sabotage of a well-conceived government initiative in collusion and connivance with the entrenched vested interests. The system being opaque and byzantine, the common citizen has to run from pillar to post before she gets her rightful due but definitely not before a few palms have been greased. A common citizen still finds it difficult to get her way through the complicated mumbo jumbo in a government office to obtain a particular service. However, the same citizen would not forgo an opportunity to tweak the system if she has an opportunity.

            We have internalized spitting, littering, open defecation and urination as our birthrights. Someone rightly said, tongue firmly in cheek, that an Indian can’t resist the sight of a wall though observers would also point towards the dearth of sufficient number of public conveniences across the length and breadth of this country. But even where there are, we resist using them to save a penny or two. As a nation, we don’t want to be subjected to any regulation to prevent us from indulging in these civic improprieties though we are usually at our behavioural best while abroad.

            We admire better hygiene and better traffic discipline abroad, but would breach the same back home at the first instance. We condemn our system for churning out unemployed youths, but don’t like working hard to acquire knowledge. There have rather been numerous instances where students have demanded their right to copy in an examination. It is the same discards who later become a burden as they fail to acquire a skill with employability. Rights are forcefully demanded, but duties are detested.

            As citizens of a functioning democracy, we love populist policies and government bounties. Free electricity, free Wifi, free water, free books, free housing, free transport, free health facilities, free education and et al are some of the things we always desire the state to be providing its citizens and we take them for granted. One does not mind as long as they are provided to the deserving sections of society, but problem starts when undeserving segments try to corner these benefits through devious means. Not only that, after we get these government-provided benefits, we care two hoots for using the same responsibly. So wasting water, electricity or prostituting any free service is our favourite pastime. It is this want of deference for public resources that come back to haunt us through poor infrastructures as symptomatic of a backward country.  

            We want the State to be prompt and efficient in its service delivery but conscientized citizens of the same State, we ourselves would not do our bit wherever applicable to ensure the same. They forget that it is the people who make the country and not the other way round. We resent nepotism and favouritism in government service delivery, but would not mind peddling influence to seek undue favours through communitarian favouritism or in other inappropriate ways as are usually experienced in an underdeveloped country. The proposed plans to develop smart cities would prove still-born if we don’t have smart citizens who would be willing to make expected sacrifices for a dignified living.

            We underreport our income and consequently underpay our taxes but we resent it when the government complains of resource crunch to provide for the basic amenities. Digging the road for a private purpose, piling building materials or shop stuffs on public roads, tapping of water sources or electricity is a common sight in this country but the same people would complain of congested roads, contaminated water or load-shedding without realizing that it is their selfish actions which are affecting the qualities of many of these services.

            Observers feel that notwithstanding a huge number of laws and rules, the corresponding enforcement continues to be problematic. While you pay a hefty 1000 dollar fine for littering in a developed country or for a traffic violation, you can get away without any penalty in India through various ‘desi jugad’ (influence-peddling). Sometimes, the systemic imperfections also hamstring the functioning of rule of law in this country as the law-abiding citizens have no ways to get their rightful dues. Today, hundreds of thousands of applications for a fire license or a building plan are allegedly pending in different government offices for aeons, unless you decide to pass on the speed money to those in the gravy train.

            Many services in the government today are rightly being outsources for the inability to deliver the same to the citizens in a timely, transparent and efficient manner. Similarly, many other critical services with substantive time and cost overruns including passing a building plan or issuance of a statutory license should also be outsourced with detailed oversight mechanism. Information technology need to be suitably harnessed for provisioning of most of these services as already being done for various types of government services. E-governance is definitely the way to the future.

Till the citizens understand and appreciate their responsibilities, as a country, we shall continue to grovel in the dust. One only hopes that we shall soon awaken as a nation by acting as responsible citizens of a great nation that we want to be otherwise the time may soon run out on us.

*The views expressed here are personal and don’t reflect those of the Government.

Living in Intolerant Times

                                                                                                                *Dr. Saumitra Mohan

                We Indians don’t tire of boasting about our democratic credentials including our proud civilisational history and a salad bowl co-existential culture. And there are strong justified reasons for doing so. After all, it is India which has given many progressive philosophies and theories of peaceful co-existence to the world. Most of the leading religions have germinated in Indian soils and have grown up to provide muscular ontological cushions for human civilizations. However, lately there have been many disturbing developments which go against the very grain of our vaunted culture of tolerance and respect for divergent discourses.

                Indians appear to be increasingly intolerant of dissenting perspectives. These trends have the potential to balkanize our country by warping our nation-building processes. There have been umpteen instances in recent times when there have been attempts of cultural policing by the self-appointed guardians of Indian culture. Be it booking unmarried couples from Madh Island and Aksa beach in Mumbai, banning 857 porn sites, plan for imposition of prohibition, banning of books, films, art exhibition or valentine day celebrations, Indians have been increasingly orchestrating a regressive mindset.

                John Stuart Mill was right when he said, “My freedom to move my hand stops where your nose starts.” We may not like a particular idea or act but there are legitimate ways to express our reservations or revulsions rather than acting in a way which shames our existence as a civilized society. And, all this is often done in the name of stopping people from hurting the sensibilities of other individuals or communities. After all, how can one justify prohibiting an artistic expression if the same does not violate a particular law or rule. The subjective interpretation of the said rule or law has often been the reason behind such objective acts of cultural policing. Today, if we have one religious extremism rising in reply to another, we go nowhere. After all, two wrongs never make a right. Gandhi was right when he said, “Eye for an eye and the entire world will be blind.”

                The recent quashing of section 66A of the IT Act which allowed arrests for objectionable online content or striking down of porn site ban by the Apex Court is a step in the right direction as the same infringes citizens’ fundamental rights of expression or privacy. There have been further instances of vigilantism when the Group Admin of a ‘What’s App’ group has been arrested for undesirable posts or knifing of the Group Admin by a member. The members always have an option to opt out of the group in case of revulsion or of making a separate group rather than indulging in disproportionate reaction. The recent killing of the noted Kannada litterateur MM Kalburgi or the bloggers in Bangladesh or violence against some expressions or acts in social media is yet another example of growing intolerance in our society.

                We call ourselves the proud torch-bearers of an enlightened civilization but we still have obscurantist thinking shaping our outlook thereby negatively influencing our behaviour to certain societal developments. As Indians we don’t like amorous expressions in public including kissing, smooching or canoodling but conveniently wink at domestic violence including beatings of wife on the plea of it being a private affair. What else is an expression of love as represented by an embrace or a kiss? But we still have intolerant societal reactions to such expressions as exemplified by ‘Operation Majnu’.

                We are so intolerant and disrespectful of a divergent opinion that we immediately brand someone to be a quisling as was recently on display when the ilk of Salman Khan made some sympathetic statements for Yakub Menon. While none doubts the justification behind Yakub’s comeuppance, but as an individual, he definitely had his friends and admirers who were entitled to their convictions and viewpoints whatsoever they maybe. If at all they made some statements of sympathy for a friend, why should a section of our society be so perturbed about the same? Mind you this country still has sympathizers for Nathuram Godse, the assassin who killed Mahatma Gandhi. A vibrant debate is a desideratum for a vibrant democracy as it is through clash of ideas and opinions that truth always emerges.

                Voltaire was right when he said, “I do not agree with what you say, but I would defend till my death your right to say it.” As citizen of a democratic country, we have every right to express our views howsoever wrong they may be as long as the person concerned does not do something to violate a rule or law. So, some Indians were right in expressing their disagreement with Salman’s tweet, but they definitely had no business to agitate against the same by indulging in arson and vandalism. There are views of many great thinkers with whom the society does not agree but we still admire them. As a mature democracy, we need to be more restrained in our reactions otherwise we would be no better than those banana republics who believe in kangaroo courts and instant justice a la our ‘khap panchayats’.

                After Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi threw shoes at the former US President George Bush in December 2014, several similar incidents were reported in India thereafter, the most celebrated being the ‘shoe-throw act’ by Jarnail Singh at a former Union Minister. Similarly, the face-blackening incidents involving some politicos and activists have also occurred in this country from time to time. Violence against RTI activists or media-persons is the reflection of the same ailing mindset. Now, in all these cases, the perpetrator is often a small-time bumpkin who mostly undertakes such adventures to claim his 20 seconds of fame but the very fact that such acts transpire is only because of the vicarious pleasure we derive out of such incidents. But for a silent societal approval, such acts would never recur. The extremism of a minority is often due to the passivity of the majority.

                As we all know, intensity of recurrence of a societal vice is conditional upon society’s permissive value system. If corruption, crimes against women or violence against public property keep recurring, it only means that societal conscience is still not greatly shocked by the same. Our value system somehow approves of speed-money, short-cuts, dowry, violence against women, nepotism, violation of traffic rules, littering, vandalism of public property et al and hence, their continuance. We continue to be a mute spectator as long as it does not affect us but we protest the moment they start hurting us. So a political party today decries and criticizes opposition for immobilizing the legislature but would not mind doing the same if the roles are reversed.

                Isn’t it high time that we start addressing such existential contradictions of our individual and corporate value systems? Most of these problems would go once our rules and laws are duly enforced as the half-hearted homeopathic enforcement of our laws is the prime reason behind recrudescence of these societal pathologies. One just hopes that these signs of being mired in history, to use the expression of Francis Fukuyama, would fade as we mature as a society. The government and administration have to be as much watchful as the citizens themselves to secure their individual and community rights otherwise we would soon be ruing the destruction of the civilisational leviathan called India.

Dr. Saumitra Mohan is an IAS officer presently working as the District Magistrate, Burdwan in West Bengal. The views expressed here are personal and don’t reflect those of the Government.

Rise of the Common Man

*Saumitra Mohan

With the mainstream national political parties losing to a greenhorn Aam Admi Party (AAP), a political coup d’état has been witnessed in the just-concluded Delhi Assembly elections. AAP has actually overshot its own expectations by bagging as many as 67 seats in a 70 member Assembly. Many established, mainstream parties were decimated in the process. It was a fictional David vs. Goliath battle where the former always wins the day owing to latter’s arrogance. The truth, however, remains that a few months back few political pundits were willing to believe that AAP would ever win even a respectable number of seats after Arvind Kejriwal resigned as Delhi’s Chief Minister last year, not to speak of being in a position to form the government for the second time in a row.

Everyone felt that AAP should have consolidated on its gains before quitting prematurely or before plunging in parliamentary politics all over the country without also consolidating its organizational base. But it is here that the mainstream parties were missing the wood for the tree. They refused to see the writing on the wall when AAP won 28 seats during the last Assembly elections in Delhi and they continued doing so thereafter. While everyone had his calculations, AAP had its own. Learning from its mistakes, it slowly but steadily picked up the thread to do a grueling ground-work to achieve the jaw-dropping feat while others allegedly took the voters for granted. 

                The Indian political landscape has been slowly changing with a conscious and a much mature Indian voter refusing to eat out of hackneyed political palms. The voter has always responded to the needs of the time and returned a government which it found most suitable to represent its interests. The time of the one-party dominant system (also called the Congress system by the ilks of Rajni Kothari and Atul Kohli) was long replaced by the multi-party coalition politics in the late eighties, reflecting the plural character of the Indian society. This system continued for quite some time till the voter got real disgusted. The coalition governments were often found deficient in delivering on the various developmental goals. Hence, the reversal to the single-party system in the search for good governance.

                The thumping victory handed to AAP by Delhi voters irrespective of caste, language, region and religion gives a lot of hope for the future of our democracy as the latter has been found on discount in recent times. While we have had a democratically elected government at all levels, the ‘demos’ and its interests were often sacrificed at the altar of political constraints which was nothing but a euphemism for selfish political conveniences. A democratic India was actually undemocratic at all the levels beyond its governments at the Centre, states or local bodies because once elected, most of the parties or formations in power would usually not care two-hoots for the interests of the people. The mainstream political parties have been alleged to treat the voters with utter contempt. The lip service paid to the people’s welfare seldom got translated to actual public service. And where it has been, voters have also returned them back to power.

                The common voters have been fed up with the populist politics to cater to a particular vote bank thereby throwing the larger interests to the winds. The politics of divide and rule no longer finds favour with the new-age electorate or neo-Indians. The neo-Indians are thoroughly fed up with the cantankerous divisive and disruptive politics of the day. The voter has been equally pissed with the monarchical, dynastical and feudal manner in which some political parties have been running their business. In fact, it has been one of the biggest criticisms of post-independence Indian party system that it has never been in sync with the political system of the country. While our political system is democratic, most of the political parties running the democratically-elected government are allegedly undemocratic with no system of regular intra-party elections to the various party positions.

                The various party positions in most parties are allegedly filled by the so-called ‘High Command’ or ‘Party Supremo’ through a decision-making mechanism which has always been opaque. And more often than not, these positions have allegedly gone to the kins or trusted courtiers, who have evinced the ability different from those required for running a system of governance. In fact, a criminal record, a penchant for vandalism and such other negative qualities are often considered the desideratum before you could think of entering Indian politics. And this was why, the common man was slowly moving away from participatory politics, not to speak of a saner person deciding to contest or ever making it to the portals of parliament on his own given the massive play of money and muscle-power.

                Even though the monarchy ended long back, the same made its come-back through democratic politics where some families and dynasties evolved their ‘democratic fiefdoms’. Just because they happened to be close to the dominant political family, things were easier for the scions of these families. The common man never knew how to make it to the rarefied precincts of politics even if one wanted to do so. The common man lives with an impression that either you have to be in the ‘good books’ of the dynasts or feudal lords or you should be having oodles of moolah before deserving a political party ticket to contest. Of all the electoral reforms effected by the Election Commission of India or by the subsequent Supreme Court judgments, the reforms in the Indian party system has been long overdue.

                Be it the parties or the candidates, the mainstream dramatis personae have often forgotten the voters once they have won the elections, with the voters left high and dry. Once elected, these leaders allegedly do a ‘Houdini’, being nowhere in sight. The voters keep running from pillar to post to get even her rightful work done and feels crestfallen when confronted with the irksome bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo.

                It is here that AAP made a refreshing difference. They were seen to be visibly working among the people. Most of AAP workers are young educated voters who don’t threaten voters into voting, but try to convince them through workable solutions to their problems. AAP was seen to speak the lingo of the common man and its 49-days political sojourn in its first avatar gave a glimpse of the shape of things to come. Hence, the massive landslide victory for it. Having said that, the electoral victory was the easier part of the political game; AAP’s real test will start when its takes the reins of power to deliver on a slew of poll promises it made in the run-up to the elections. It remains to be seen how AAP delivers on the huge popular expectations. Whether it slowly adopts the modus operandi of the mainstream parties or trails a new blaze also remains to be seen. Its success or failure will really decide the fate of the AAP brand of politics.

                What happens in future, only time will say? But one thing can be said very safely that AAP has changed the entire discourse of Indian politics, giving the classical Indian politician a run for his money? The mainstream political parties, almost all of them, need to do a serious soul searching to remain in the game otherwise it won’t be far when they or their politics shall soon become obsolete. ‘Shape up or ship out’ is the message on the wall which they can ignore only at their peril. Whatever be the case, that voter is the king, has been vindicated once again. You can no longer take the proverbial common man for granted.

*The views are personal and not those of the Government.

                

Ensuring Fixed Tenure for Bureaucrats

Saumitra Mohan

For a system of government to function well, it is imperative that the bureaucracy is ensured operational autonomy to work impartially and effectively to realize the various objectives as are required in the public interest. Such autonomy could only be ensured if they are cushioned against any undue influences. However, this is not what usually happens in this country as reflected in myriad instances. And the most regular weapon used to bring an upright bureaucrat around is the so-called ‘undesirable’ postings and transfers.

 An honest and non-pliable officer being hounded out through his career by way of frequent transfers is not something new. We have all been witness to such news which has become quite mundane by now. Civil servants like Ashok Khemka and Sanjeev Chaturvedi immediately come to our mind. The Damocles’ Sword of transfer has often been used as a potent and effective weapon by the political class against our famed steel frame which slowly but surely is alleged to be succumbing to relentless chipping at its foundations.

The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement on 31^st October 2013, issued directives to the Central and state governments to ensure that all civil servants be given a ‘minimum assured tenure’ at a particular posting before they are transferred, so they can work effectively. It also ruled that a Civil Services Board (CSB), comprising senior bureaucrats, be formed at the Centre, in each state and Union Territory to advise the government on matters such as postings, transfers and disciplinary action. The SC also directed the Centre and state governments to pass an order within three months on giving fixed tenure to civil servants i.e. by January 31, 2014.

The verdict, which is on the line of Apex Court’s earlier order on police reforms for giving fixed tenure to senior police officers in the Prakash Singh case, is likely to go a long way in ensuring functional freedom to the Indian bureaucracy. The judgement came in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by 83 retired bureaucrats led by the former Union Cabinet Secretary TSR Subramaniam drawing the attention of Apex Court towards multiple malaises afflicting Indian civil service including irregular and improper transfers of the bureaucrats. The PIL, inter alia, criticised the extant system of transfers, postings, promotions, disciplinary action and other personnel matters pertaining to the members of various civil services in India finding them ad hoc and opaque. The said PIL and many other recommendations of the earlier Administrative Reforms Commissions (ARCs) have always espoused and championed the need for some definitive measures bring about some system reforms for ensuring functional autonomy for India’s premier civil service.

            “Transfers are often used as instruments of reward and punishment, with officials being frequently transferred on the whims and caprices as well as the personal needs of local politicians and other vested interests. Officers, especially those in the All India Services, serving in state governments, have no stability or security of tenure,” the PIL said. The PIL had also advocated that the civil servants at all levels be given a minimum three-year fixed tenure in each post to encourage operational freedom within the precincts of rules and laws. It proposed that any premature transfer should be specifically authorised by a ‘Civil Service Board/Commission’ in special situations to be specified in writing.

            It was felt that guaranteeing a ‘minimum assured tenure’ in postings would effectively deter the political class from using transfers as a threatening weapon against the babus (read bureaucrats). Attributing the deterioration in bureaucratic functioning to political interference, the Apex Court hoped that “fixing tenure of bureaucrats will promote professionalism, efficiency and good governance.”

            It is against this background that a Notification was issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) on January 30^th, 2014 in compliance of the October 2013 judgement of the Supreme Court. As per this Notification, cadre officers of All India Services (AIS) will now generally hold their posts for, at least, two years unless promoted, retired or sent on deputation outside the state or on training beyond two months. The said Notification shall hopefully come as a relief for the civil servants in, at least, those states where transfers are quite frequent.

The relevant rules framed in this regard say that “the Centre or the state government may transfer a cadre officer before the minimum specified period on the recommendation of the Civil Services Board”. However, the Competent Authority may reject the CSB recommendation but will, in that case, have to record its reasons therefor. In the matter of transfers, the state CSB is to consider the reports of the administrative department along with any other inputs and is also supposed to obtain the views of the officer proposed to be transferred.

The notified rules require the state CSB to submit a quarterly report in such form as it deems fit to the Central government, clearly stating the details of officers recommended for transfer before the minimum specified tenure while also recording the reasons for the same. The CSB in each state is to be headed by the Chief Secretary and would, inter alia, include senior most Additional Chief Secretary or Chairman, Board of Revenue or Finance Commissioner or an officer of equivalent rank and Principal/Secretary of the Personnel Department while considering the transfers of the IAS officers. For transfers of the IPS officers, the CSB shall comprise members of IAS Board plus Home Secretary and DGP; and for recommending the transfers of the IFS (Indian Forest Service) officers, the CSB is to include members of IAS Board plus Forest Secretary and Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF).

            In pursuance to the DOPT Notification, many state governments have already constituted their CSBs, while many are still to follow suit. All said and done, critics argue that many civil servants would baulk at complaining against a premature transfer because of the potential victimisation in future. Again, it is not very clear as to what would happen if the terms of the said DOPT Notification is not complied with or violated. The concept of the ‘competent authority’ with power to reject the CSB recommendation itself is not clearly delineated.

Besides, it is felt that the Central interference in such internal state matters might be few and far between. The castigation of a state government for violating the guidelines laid down in the said Notification may very well hinge upon the mutual understanding between the two governments. The Centre, in most likelihood, will gloss over the state deviation for apprehension of upsetting the mutual political understanding between the two tiers of governments.

            Notwithstanding negativity of doubting Thomases, a positive beginning has definitely been made. One only hopes that with a conscientized civil society and a vibrant Fourth Estate, the governance in India shall become more organized, orderly, transparent and effective as and when such initiatives get slowly imbibed by our system.

*The views expressed here are personal and don’t reflect those of the government.

Indigenising Our Defence Procurement

*Saumitra Mohan

          With the motto of ‘Minimum Government, Maximum Governance’, the new federal Government has definitely raised popular expectations among the people. The Government has accordingly been taking myriad initiatives to realise this chimerical will-o-the-wisp. Such initiatives inter alia include scrapping obsolete and anomalous laws and rules, strengthening federal structure, targeting corruption and corrupt practices, ensuring more accountability and transparency to make the system more efficient, effective and delivery-oriented.

The recent replacement of the Planning Commission by the NITI (National Institute for Transforming India) Aayong is also an expression of the same. The Government in Delhi has also started paying attention to many critical issues which have been hanging fire for very long time for want of a clear thinking. As an extension thereof, the new Government has finally realised and cognised the problem of deadlocked defence purchases which have been pigeonholed because of absence of a transparent policy.

          Pragmatism informed by the appreciation of national interests has given way to a garbled policy of compromising national security in favour of playing safe to avoid the accusations of ‘kickbacks’ in defence purchases. One really fails to understand as to why it took so long to comprehend the emergent need for replenishing our defence hardware, more so when the same has serious implications for national security.

The best that could have been done under the circumstances by the then decision-makers was to evolve a consensual policy in consultation with all the stakeholders to shop for the required military equipment and hardware. A transparent defence purchase policy predicated on a well-thought out guideline would have long done the needful in this regard. It is good that the new dispensation in Delhi has finally seen through the problem to effect the necessary changes to keep our war machine fighting fit as the same was slowly becoming rusted for want of due care and nurturing it needed. After all, they rightly say, ‘if you want peace, it is better to prepare for war’.

          As per the decision taken by the Government, the operations of ‘representatives’, another term for agents or brokers, will now be officially recognised and allowed in defence purchases, something which could have been done long back. The fact remains that these ‘brokers’ have always been there and working behind the scene to facilitate defence deals for the governments across the world. However, the same has often complicated defence acquisitions over the years to the chagrin and detriment of the armed forces in this country. Such priggish thinking has at times tarred every ‘agent’ with the same brush, vilifying each of them as a crook of the first order who must be shunned at any cost.

Indian political history has been witness to the downfalls of politicos and governments (remember the resignation of the redoubtable Krishna Menon or V P Singh’s movement against the Bofors kickbacks and the subsequent fall of Rajiv Gandhi government). The multi-billion dollar defence purchases became really difficult for any government thereafter because of the eyeballs and accusations they invited. The defence purchases continued languishing in the wilderness for want of timely decision to the extent that our arsenals were said to have become dangerously depleted. At least, that is the impression which got currency among the people with no attempt to disabuse the same.

The state of affairs got only worse as the list of black-listed defence suppliers grew longer with every inquiry instituted to probe into such accusations. There came a time when it became really difficult to find a single established producer with credentials from whom military hardware could be procured. While the great powers including our classical opponents were effecting a ‘revolution in military affairs’ (RMA), we were finding it really tough to retain and replenish even our regular arsenal as required for conventional wars.

Reportedly, George Fernandes, the former Defence Minister, attempted to put in place a system of ‘registered agents’, but the initiative did not go very far for want of clarity and response from the stakeholders. Against this background, it would be really premature to give a verdict on the success of the newly-drafted Modi-Parrikar formula, but the silver lining is the framing of a well-delineated policy backed by a clear thinking on the issue which has eventually accepted that defence agents are important facilitators in defence procurement.

Presence of ‘agents’ or ‘brokers’ is a hard reality across the world. Few defence deals could move without their doing the necessary facilitation which is deemed to be a very mechanical and specialised task though the method of their payment still remains ambiguous and woolly in this country. The terms like ‘commission’ or ‘brokerage’ have become dirty expressions in defence lexicon, something which is integral to business and commerce in a laissez-faire economy in a globalized world.

After all, what problem should be there with commissions in a commercial deal to purchase defence hardware if the same is buttressed by a well-laid out transparent policy. After all, commissions are nothing for ‘remuneration’ paid for the services provided and promote a healthy competition which could actually work to our advantage in securing the best available deal. Have not we allowed brokerage or commissions in many other sectors of our economy and day-to-day life? If yes, why should we have any objection with the same when it comes to defence procurements?

One feels that the revulsions against the ‘agents’ in an Indian context comes from their reputation for being the conduits through which underhand payments are channelled. It is felt by the observers that much of the remedial action on this score has generally been misdirected all these years. Had we insisted on making the facts and phenomenon of ‘commission’ above board and transparent by the defence suppliers, the situation would not have become so complicated.

So, as long as the defence deals and the cognate ‘commission’ are transparent and known to all the stakeholders, there should be no problem. The authorised, registered, commissioned, or empanelled ‘representatives’, ‘agents’ or ‘brokers’, whatever we may call them, can rightfully claim their ‘commission’ or ‘brokerage’ as offered by the suppliers as per declared pre-laid and pre-declared norms. The problem arises only when the alleged ‘sweetener’ is offered to an office holder (read a Minister or a bureaucrat) for their legal or illegal facilitation of the process, thereby vitiating the process.

          Be it noted that while kickbacks in major deals have become ‘hot’ political issues, corruption is deeply entrenched in all the purchase processes down the line – be it footwear, foodstuffs or clothing. A perusal of the government or independent probes into corrupt deals will confirm the same. Hence, if the Centre really intends to effect a clean-up, the entire architecture of defence purchase needs to change across the spectrum. And, the same should be extended to other sectors of government operations as well. The ‘Make in India’ campaign should also goad the government to nudge the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) out of slumber to make a firm commitment to indigenise our defence procurement as far as possible and practicable to reduce the need for foreign acquisitions.

*The views expressed here are personal and not that of the Government.

           

Indo-Bangla Swap Deal: A Long-awaited Move

Saumitra Mohan

‘You can change history, but you can’t change geography’, India’s former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Bajpai had famously said. But this basic common sense has often eluded the movers and shakers of International politics thereby resulting in constant sanguinary internecine struggle for power. The insane and inane one-upmanship among the nations have engendered such power games which have eventuated in ‘mutually assured destruction (MAD)’, a phrase often used in the context of the Cold War.  

Hence, it is always advisable to have a peaceful border otherwise developmental interests of a nation generally get compromised. Anthropogenic as they are, borders between states are often arbitrarily drawn. And the borders that divided India and Pakistan on the map were no different as they did not represent a cartographer’s precision. The international boundary between the two new states was drawn hastily when the British left India. As a result, thousands of people were left high and dry; stranded in enclaves as citizens of one country but living in territories encircled by that of the other. Local folklore has it that these enclaves on either side of the border are actually remnants of high-stake barters in chess games between the erstwhile Maharajas of Cochbehar and Rangpur in pre-colonial, undivided Bengal.

The people in 111 Indian enclaves (17,160 acres) in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi ones (7,110 acres) in India have been living in these pockets without any rights as lawful citizens of either country. However, after Bangladesh’s emergence as an independent nation in 1971, both India and Bangladesh signed an agreement in 1974 to settle the boundary dispute between them.  Again in September 2011, the two countries reached an understanding to implement the 1974 ‘land boundary agreement’. However, due to domestic political constraints, India failed to have the agreement ratified by a constitutional amendment in her Parliament. And this procrastination to ratify the agreement had an India-friendly Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wajed on the mat in her country. The latter was panned thoroughly by Bangladesh opposition parties for soft-pedalling the issue.

The present Central government is cautiously treading to carry forward the initiative taken by the previous regime of Manmohan Singh. The extant government should waste no time in introducing the relevant Bill in Parliament to push through the required constitutional amendment. The good thing is that neither country loses much territory as a result of the exchange but the accruing diplomatic capital shall be considerable for both the countries. The agreement affords a big opportunity for India to consolidate its ties with Bangladesh.

The proposed agreement builds on ‘behind-the-scene’ toil of the 31-member Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs chaired by MP Shashi Tharoor which recommended the deal in ‘overall national interest’. The Committee has rightly urged the government to emergently present the Bill in Parliament to permanently settle the tickling Indo-Bangla boundary dispute. As a result thereof, New Delhi shall be exchanging the enclaves as well as other small plots of land that are in ‘adverse possession’ of either country. There would not only be an exchange of enclaves between the two countries, but there shall also be a settlement of the territories held in adverse possession by both the countries. While India legally receives 2,777 acres of land in ‘adverse possession’, i.e. territory already under de facto Indian control but legally owned by Bangladesh, Bangladesh will, in turn, receive 2,267 acres of territory in its adverse possession but lawfully belonging to India.

The long-delayed settlement, as and when it comes around, has been tipped to be an example of good diplomacy by the two countries. As a mature democracy, India must not allow petty politics to interfere with such diplomatic moves which consolidates its position as a regional power in South Asia. All political parties must come together to ensure the ratification of the ‘swap deal’ as it not only settles a contentious border but also opens a window for settlement of intractable border disputes with China. Peaceful borders with her neighbours will enable India to focus on its strengths to eventually emerge as one of the ‘super powers’ to reckon with in international politics.

All said and done, India should also strive to evolve a broad-based policy mechanism whereby such issues of national importance are not held hostage to domestic politics as noticed in this case. The very fact that the deal was pigeon-holed at the last moment during the second UPA regime reflects poorly on the background work done by the occupants of the South Block. Due diligent effort should be made to factor all domestic concerns and take aboard all the stakeholders before moving ahead with any such diplomatic initiative so as not to lose face in the Comity of Nations. A nation speaking in one voice is always a nation that gains in international sweepstakes and occupies a place of pride in the international pecking order.

The views expressed here are the personal views of the author and don’t reflect that of the government.

. 

Indo-Bangla LBA: Transferring the Enclave Population

Saumitra Mohan

With the longstanding land boundary agreement (LBA) between India and Bangladesh on the verge of being clinched, the exchange or transfer of population as residing in the enclaves (or ‘chhintmahals’ as called in the local parlance) to be exchanged between the two countries is yet another problem they need to resolve. The question of giving options to the inhabitants residing in these enclaves needs to be addressed sooner than later to have a holistic resolution of this long-pending issue between these two South Asian neighbours. Incidentally, both India and Bangladesh conducted a joint census between 14-17 July, 2011 to determine the total population in these enclaves and found their number to be around 51,549. Of them, 37,334 persons were in Indian enclaves within Bangladesh while 14,215 people were residing in Bangladesh enclaves within India.

Historically speaking, the international boundary between India and Bangladesh was drawn hurriedly when the British left India. As a result thereof, thousands of people were left stranded in a number of unsettled enclaves as citizens of one country but living in territories surrounded by that of the other. The people in 111 Indian enclaves (17,160.63 acres) in Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi ones (7,110.02 acres) in India have been living in these pockets without any rights as lawful citizens of either country.

The proposed agreement builds on ‘behind-the-scene’ toil of the 31-member Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs (SCEA) chaired by MP Shashi Tharoor which recommended the deal in ‘overall national interest’. The Committee has rightly urged the government to emergently present the Bill in Parliament to permanently settle the tickling Indo-Bangla boundary dispute. As a result thereof, New Delhi shall be exchanging the enclaves as well as other small plots of land that are in ‘adverse possession’ of either country. There would not only be an exchange of enclaves between the two countries, but there shall also be a settlement of the territories held in adverse possession by both the countries. While India legally receives 2,777 acres of land in ‘adverse possession’, i.e. territory already under de facto Indian control but legally owned by Bangladesh, Bangladesh will, in turn, receive 2,267 acres of territory in its adverse possession but lawfully belonging to India.

It is learnt that the SCEA has proposed in its report to the House of People (read Lok Sabha) that the inhabitants, living in Bangladeshi enclaves in India, should be granted Indian citizenship under Section 7 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 (as applicable to population residing in territories incorporated into India) as these enclaves are to be transferred to India as part of the proposed Indo-Bangladesh land swap deal to be inked soon.

            “A modest demographic change in both the countries is expected to take place after this agreement comes into force. Not only would some Indian citizens return to the mainland from the previously held enclaves, but a number of currently Bangladeshi nationals would be given Indian citizenship after the area is ceded to India,” the report says. After all, it is only logical that the Indian citizens living in Indian enclaves inside Bangladesh are given a choice to retain their Indian citizenship after these territories are legally handed over to Bangladesh.

Similarly, it is also advisable that the Bangladeshi citizens living in enclaves to be handed over by Bangladesh to India are also given an option to opt for Indian citizenship. If the same does not happen, the life of these people shall continue to be as troubled as it was earlier. It would also constitute a gross anomaly as being Bangladeshi citizens, they cannot continue to live in territories owned by India unless they are resettled in legally-owned Bangladeshi territories to be identified for the purpose or they are given a choice to switch their citizenship without there being any need to change their place of residence i.e. current Bangladeshi enclaves encircled by Indian territories.

As the proposed territorial and population exchanges shall have serious implications for the country’s security and integrity, one feels that government should exercise all options available to put in place a suitable mechanism and modality to check for the bonafides and credentials of the Bangladeshi nationals who shall be conferred Indian citizenship after legal incorporation of the enclaves where they have so far been residing as citizens of Bangladesh because these territories legally belonged to the latter.

The SCEA, therefore, rightly observed that the cognate security aspects should be thoroughly examined before the proposed population exchange is effected. It also recommended suitable augmentation and upgradation of the law and order machinery in the affected areas in consultation with India’s eastern provincial government of West Bengal. 

It may be noted that because of the fact that these Bangladeshi enclaves are deep within Indian Territory without any fencing or means to physically demarcate them, the Bangladeshi citizens in these enclaves have been practically free to mix with the rest of the Indian populace. In fact, there is practically no choice available to these people as they are physically encircled on all sides by Indian territories; so that they have to mix and mingle with the people living in Indian lands geographically contiguous to theirs. Such a scenario makes it very difficult for the Indian law enforcement authorities to effectively carry out their duties in these enclaves as technically they are not Indian territories notwithstanding the fact that many of these enclaves have become the hot-beds of criminal activities. It is this anomalous situation that the proposed LBA and its attendant Protocol seek to address as and when they are ratified and implemented by the two countries.

The Union Home Secretary, while replying to the SCEA on the security dimensions of the proposed bilateral deal is reported to have said on 29 October 2014 that ‘...as far as the Indian population living in Bangladesh is concerned, they are our citizens and they have every right to come back...But when they come back, we intend to take the biometric details of all of them and carry out the entire exercise to ensure that we know who all are coming. Then in close cooperation and consultation with the government of West Bengal, they will be taken to places where they are proposed to be settled’.

In a reply to the SCEA regarding safety of the Indian nationals staying back in the Indian enclaves to be transferred to Bangladesh, the Ministry of External Affairs is reported to have affirmed an understanding with Bangladesh on this score. It said, “...Indeed such an understanding is the basis of the 2011 Protocol and the fundamental premise on which exchange of enclaves would take place. As per the LBA, citizens of Indian enclaves in Bangladesh are given the right of staying where they are as nationals of the State to which the areas are transferred. If they choose to exercise this right, they would voluntarily acquire Bangladeshi citizenship and all rights of Bangladeshi citizens would accrue to them”. Same right shall be reciprocally granted to the inhabitants of Bangladeshi enclaves in India to stay back and acquire the Indian citizenship as also suggested above.

The Indo-Bangladesh LBA is a low-hanging fruit waiting to be plucked at the asking of the two countries. One only hopes that resolution of this issue hanging fire for a long time would pave the way for further strengthening and consolidation of a very functional bilateral relation between the two countries. As a mature democracy, India must not allow petty politics to interfere with such diplomatic moves which consolidates its position as a regional power in South Asia. All political parties must come together to ensure the ratification of the ‘swap deal’ as it not only settles a contentious border but also ensures peaceful borders with her neighbours which enables India to focus on its strengths to eventually emerge as one of the ‘super powers’ to reckon with in international politics.

*The views expressed are personal and don’t reflect those of the Government.