See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]
net/publication/337366837
'National Register of Indian Citizens' (NRIC) - Does the Assam Experience help
Mainland States? 1
Experiment Findings · November 2019
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28064.74249
CITATIONS READS
0 1,353
1 author:
Abusaleh Shariff
US- India Policy Institute
85 PUBLICATIONS 773 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Chief Scholar, US-India Policy Institute, Washington D. C View project
Indian Citizenship and Human Development Project View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Abusaleh Shariff on 19 November 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
‘National Register of Indian Citizens’ (NRIC) –
Does the Assam Experience help Mainland States?1
Abusaleh Shariff (ashariff@[Link])
Chief Scholar at the US–India Policy Institute, Washington DC;
And Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy, New Delhi and Bengaluru.
29th October 2019
--
Abstract
The preparation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state of Assam is now a
reality. The procedures conduct of preparation of a register and the due process utilized in the
state of Assam is a precursor to similar exercise in other states to cover the whole nation. Ideally
all democratic nations should hold a register of citizens especially those whose national
economies are built through sustained and organized immigration policies. However, Indian
economy which is growing mostly based on domestic demand and indigenous resource
exploitation has no record of major immigration excepting those crossing border due to socio-
political reasons.
This paper articulates possible execution of the design and manufacture of the ‘National Register
of Indian Citizens’ (NRIC) by the ruling party coalition - a preview of things to come. It is
utmost important that people at large ensure reconciling key documents with respect to the
names, date of birth and other vital information so that a consolidated evidence is presented
should such opportunity is warranted. This paper argues that the national and state government
must amend the complicated and exclusionary methodology used in Assam to prepare NRIC
across the nation.
This paper enunciates a possible execution of the design and manufacture of the ‘National
Register of Indian Citizens’ (NRIC) by the ruling party coalition - a preview of things to come.
This serves as an advance warning; procrastination can cause serious social and family
destabilization for millions across the country especially those belonging to specified minority
community. There are at least two situations which ring alarm bells regarding things to come:
1
The author wish to thank Dr. Beharul Islam, Dean of Indian Institute of Management, Kashipur, Uttarakhand; Dr.
Mohsin Alam Bhat, Executive Director, Centre for Public Interest Law, Jindal Global Law School, NCR Delhi; Mr.
Syed Zameer Pasha, IAS (Retired), Working President, Centre for Research and Debates in Development Policy,
New Delhi and Bengaluru and Mr. Ataulla Khan, US-India Policy Institute, Washington D. C for their analytical
inputs in preparation of this paper.
1
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
The first one is the highly politized and popular, the Supreme Court of India directed preparation
and declaration of illegal migrants in the state of Assam under the law of National Register of
Citizens (NRC) - NRC was mandated under law in 2003, when the citizenship act was amended;
and Secondly, surprising access to a complete list of reasons for rejection of the new voter’s
applications as ‘not-Indian-citizen’ in the state of Karnataka during September 2018.
In the following section there is a review of the lessons learned from Assam experience should
the NRC2 is implemented nationwide as is being reminded daily by the highly placed political
leaders. The review of the Karnataka case study highlighting nefarious designs of state and
national level institutions in ‘disfranchising’ millions ordinary citizens; dangerous anti-people
public strategy is narrated in section II of this policy note.
SECTION I
National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state of Assam:
Assam is the only state that has finalized the National Register of Citizens recently, although it
was prepared originally in 1951. The Assam NRC defines all illegal immigrants, irrespective of
religion, based on a cutoff date; which was set to be March 24, 1971, just about the time the
Bangladesh war of liberation began. It is important to recall that India was deeply involved in
support of the liberation of Bangladesh and the social and political happenings were completely
in consonance with the policy of Indian government of that time. The history as to why March
1971 was fixed as the cutoff date in Assam can be found in the box below:
The Indira-Mujib agreement was signed on March 19, 1972, between the then Indian Prime Minister Indira
Gandhi and Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, determining various issues of the two
countries, including 1971 as the cut-off year to identify the Bangladeshi infiltrators/refugees to India. The
cut-off date was a bone of contention during the negotiations leading up the signing of Assam Accord in
1985. All Assam Students Union AASU demanded 1951 as the cut-off date for citizenship in Assam. But
All Assam Minority Students Union (AAMSU) and Citizens Rights Protection Committee (CRPC)
2
Note that National Register of Citizens (NRC) and National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC) are used
interchangeably. The nation-wide listing of citizens is labeled as NRIC.
2
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
wanted March 24, 1971, based on the Indira Gandhi-Mujibur Rahman treaty of 1972, as per which anyone
who entered Assam (India) from East Pakistan till that date would be considered an Indian citizen. Finally,
the Assam Accord was signed on August 15, 1985 in New Delhi. Assam Accord of 1985 that states all
illegal foreigners who came to Assam after 1971 from Bangladesh irrespective of religion must be deported.
This accord also fixed March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for deportation of all illegal immigrants
irrespective of their religion. Several Assamese intellectuals joined hands with AAMSU, CRPC to root for
the 1971 cut-off.
Nonetheless, to claim citizenship in Assam, now in 2019, individuals must prove that either they
or their ancestors were Indian citizens before March 1971. Assam National Register of Citizens
finalized in August 31, 2019 excludes 1.9 million from out of 3.11 crore people who applied for
citizenship verification; in other words, those excluded are declared illegal migrants. Many
media reports have confirmed that most of the excluded individuals include Hindus as well.
The Process and Steps for NRC
It is useful to trace number of steps of due process that one gathers from the study of Assam
situation and associated institutional setup. Note if similar yardsticks are used in other states it
would be a national - disaster and will surely make ways for a social boycott or even social
revolution marked with violence, mayhem and possible deaths.
The local government officials belonging to the census of India, the election commission and
district bureaucracy prepares a list of the so called ‘India citizens. Such list is approved by state
level authorities, gazetted and published as ‘national register of citizens’ for that state. It then
becomes the responsibility of the individuals to check for listing of their own names and names
of family members. Should they find their names are missing they can either accept the status as
not Indian citizens or approach the ‘foreigner’s tribunals to challenge their exclusion. Although
the decision of these tribunals is final, yet one can reach out to the hierarchical system of courts
of law the ultimate steps to seek justice and secure right as the Indian citizen.
There are many other ‘acts, rules and procedures’ which have relevance in determining many
aspects of the citizenship such as the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019. This bill, the most
3
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
recent (if passed), maliciously provides for according Indian citizenship to Hindus, Jains,
Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan after seven
years of residence in India instead of 12 years, which is the current norm, even if they do not
possess any document. The only community excluded from this category is the Muslims.
The Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016 / 2019?
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 19, 2016; but it was
referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on August 12, 2016, which submitted its report in January
2019. The Bill itself amends the Citizenship Act of 1955, which lays down the norms regarding Indian
citizenship, to make illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from
Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, eligible for citizenship. It also relaxes one of the requirements for
acquiring citizenship by naturalization under the existing Act for persons belonging to the above six
religions and three countries by only requiring them to have stayed in India for seven (instead of 12) of
the previous 14 years.
The essential point of debate in this proposed amendment was that it makes illegal migrants eligible for
citizenship based on religion! Note that this may violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees right to equality.
The Procedure:
The procedure and process of preparing the NRC is rather long. The following steps and
explanations are based on the Assam experience.
Step 1: Demand of the State Administration: The NRC is in fact undertaken after a state
government makes a formal request to the Centre to prepare such a list. What would be the basis
on which a state administration makes such a request is rather opaque and not explained. It
appears that in case of Assam, due to the complicated sociology, history, geographic location,
international (illegal?) migration and contemporary party politics a case was made to identify the
so called illegal migrants (mostly referred to those from Bangladesh after the cutoff date which is
the beginning date of the war of liberation of Bangladesh).
4
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Step 2: Preparation of National Population Register (NPR): Once such a request or demand
is made by a state, the national government (ministry of home affaires) will press the Registrar
General, Census of India to prepare a ‘National Population Register’ as a pre-cursor to NRC. The
Census of India has a long history of conducting house to house census counts of all individuals
living as on March 1st every ten years during the second year of a decade, such as, 2011 was the
last census and the next census will be conducted in 2021. A pre-census operation of complete
house-listing is also undertaken during a two-month period one year earlier. Thus, the house-
listing census will be undertaken all over India during a two-month period, (any two months)
between February to September 2020.
However, the latest House Listing exercise intends to collect additional data to prepare the
‘National Population Register (NPR)’; - a register of usual residents of the country (Refer to
Statement I below). This register will be prepared at the local (Village/sub-Town), sub-District,
District, State and National level. The NPR is prepared through the provisions of the Citizenship
Act 1955 and the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and issue of National Identity Cards
(AADHAAR) Rules, 2003.
It is worth noting at this point two main issues relating to the NPR. Firstly, the conduct of Census
of India is not mandatory in the Indian law. There always is a possibility for postponing or even
not conducting census in any given state. Such happenings have occurred in case of Assam and
Jammu and Kashmir on earlier occasions. The second issue is as to how and under what
provision of law is the NPR conducted. This is a new addition in the census of India and is being
executed for the first time during 2020 all over India, although it has been tried in smaller scale
in a few specified locations. Note that besides biometrics many other data including mobile/cell
numbers will be collected. These data points are likely to be used by another wing of the
government in preparing the NRC. This calls for an early study of the NPR process as to whether
it is legal to execute the data collection exercise in the first place; and secondly whether data thus
collected is utilized legally in preparation of the NRC?
5
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Statement I
)
It is now expected that every usual resident of India to register in the NPR. A Usual Resident is
defined for the purposes of NPR as follows:
- a person who has resided in a local area for the past 6 months or more, or
- a person who intends to reside at the stated address/area for the next 6 months or more.
The following statement (Statement II) lists the documents that are likely to be examined during
the house to house visits in 2020 to prepare the NPR. Note the authorized documents for NPR
6
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
and NRC are very different. In case of NPR the documents and bio-matric data will be collected
during the census house listing at individual’s home.
Statement II
Step 3: Linking NPR (Usual Status data) and finalizing a NRC? Utilizing the NPR data and
data from other sources such as AADHAAR etc. to determine domiciliary status as a citizen is
rather a complicated task. It is also not clear under what section of a law or and act can these data
from various departments can be exchanged and utilized to arrive at a major consequential
decision such as one being a ‘genuine citizen of India’. In case of case Assam, the cutoff date and
stepwise documentation requirements are elaborated in another section below.
7
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Step 4: Publication of Final NRC List: Publication and sharing of the NRC final list is an
essential step in the processes. Once the NRC list is published, it is the responsibility of an
individual to find out whether her/his name is listed. In case of Assam 1.9 million applicants
were excluded from the final NRC list. These excluded individuals can be branded as ‘illegal
migrants’, unless proved otherwise by the NRC Tribunals specially established.
Step 5: Appeal NRC Tribunal: The state government is mandated to establish NRC tribunals
in each of the district of the state (more should that becomes necessary). The tribunals can be
established under the Foreigners act 1946 and Tribunal order 1954. These Tribunals can
examine and determine the new, corrected or additional documents that are presented by the
excluded (from NRC final list) individual. There is also provision to review the ‘oral evidence of
relatives and neighbors etc of the applicant’ by the verifying officer on the spot. If the verifying
officer is satisfied then the excluded name will be rectified and included in the NRC, if not the
rejected application will be compulsorily sent to Detention Centre. The detention centers can be
established under the Foreigners act of 1946.
Step 5: Final appeal to the mainstream Courts. Once the verifying office and tribunal rejects
an application for citizenship; there are two options - the first one is compulsory shifting to
‘detention camp’ until the state and national authorities decides as to the future course of action
with respect to residence, employment, civic participation, participation in state and national
elections, accessing benefits from welfare programs and so on. Note also that stay in detention
camps can be long and of uncertain duration. Women and Children can be the worst sufferers
who will be denied schooling, health and other life enhancing opportunities.
During the detention period the NRC-excluded individual can seek final appeal by approaching
the regular courts of law such as the district courts, high courts and supreme court; which can,
not only be expensive (unaffordable) but also long and uncertain.
As we have seen above at the outset these procedures appear legal and satisfactory. But what is
important to visualize as to how can these tribunals and then possibly the courts can handle
8
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
millions of names that are likely to be left out of the NRC. Also, these procedures can take many
months or even years to reach to a resolution.
If the Citizenship Amendment Bill is passed, however, before the Nationwide NRIC the following
scenario can emerge: That all Hindus, Jains, Buddhist, Parsis, Zoroastrian and Christian migrants (all
non-Muslim) from neighboring countries – who would have faced the risk of being excluded by the NRC
would already be provided Indian citizenship. Thus, this sequencing will ensure that the government
would be able to use the NRIC to identify and deport only the Muslim in-migrants.
List of Documents essential in determining NRC in Assam
Assam is special case due to its unique geographic location and history. Its demographic
diversity was identified and studied right from the time of the Independence and it continues to
be at the center of controversy even in the beginning of 21st century. As the economy in Assam
took important development turns during the last couple of centuries, so was the imbalance
between the migrant versus the original residents of the state. Assam’s world-famous tea industry
was developed over a century or more especially through the import of migrants from mainland
areas which now are recognized as Bihar, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh.
9
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
While the NRC list was being prepared the following documents were endorsed by the Supreme
Court as essential and
enough evidence to be
provided to prove the state of
citizenship of an individual.
List A contains documents
which an individual should
have owned as on March 24,
1971. List B is a document
conditional upon associated
document of List A of an
elderly blood relative.
The Cut Off dates for National NRC
Unlike the case in Assam, where the cutoff date was 24th March 1971, in case of other states
should the NRC be implemented the most likely scenario will be the following: The cutoff date
will be linked to the Citizenship act 1955 - those born before 1955 and their children, if in
possession of necessary documents such as Birth certificate, Educational degree documents,
PAN and AADHAAR as so on will have less of a difficulty. There are other cut-off dates which
are listed below:
Cutoff Dates to prove Citizenship by Birth / Naturalization as per the May 30, 2019
Amendment MHA Order:
Those born between January 26th, 1950 to July 1st, 1987.
Those born between July 1st 1987and December 3rd 2004 and at least one parent is citizen.
10
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Those born on or after December 3rd, 2004 if both parents are citizens of India
Documents required for establishing Indian citizenship
1. Name in State / National Electoral List
2. Aadhaar
3. Birth Certificate
4. School Leaving Certificate
5. Ration card
6. Passport
7. Proof of ownership of agricultural land
8. Any license issues by government such ad Driving license
9. Mobile number
11
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Why burn the forest to catch a couple of rabbits?
This article is to alert the concerned citizens of India that NRC strategy if implemented in states
like Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana just to name a few of the thirty states; one
can imagine the size and scale of problem which can create no less than a social-movement or
even revolution in the form of a revolt. The findings from the state of Karnataka was that after a
full enquiry from all over the state the CEO-Karnataka reported after the correction of the data
they found out only nine (9) of the total of about 2.8 lakhs applicants were not-Indian nationals –
six were Nepalese and three were Tibetans, who were usual residents but wrongly applied to
secure voter’s ID. This is the time that the best-informed citizenry of India must act soon and
under the umbrella of intelligent and academic discourse and documentation. One need to ponder
should the state be involved in ‘burning a forest to catch a couple of rabbits’ so to speak.
Empirical evidence suggests that the above phrase can be substantiated through census of India
data on ‘Foreign Born who reside in India as on March 1st, 2011. In the following, data for all
India and for the state of Karnataka is presented for the benefit of the readers. Detailed data for
all states is in possession of the author which is being under analysis as this article is being
written.
The total population of India as per the 2011 census was 1211 million. Of these 1205 million
have reported that they were born within the
geographic boundaries of India. Only 5,653,911
individuals reported their birthplace to be out of the
territory of India; and the percentage to the total
population of India works out to be 0.473. It is
expected that this reporting is accurate and that many
or most of the foreign born can also be legal
migrants. There is a possibility that some of those reported to have born abroad are ‘illegal
3
Compare this percentage with the foreign born population in the USA which was as large as 13.7 per cent in 2017,
the highest in over a century. [Link]
12
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
migrants’, A quick distribution of the foreign born across states suggests that most foreign-born
live-in states of West Bengal followed by Assam.
A country specific analysis suggests that 2.8 million foreigners living in India as on March 2011
were born in Bangladesh.
Another about 0.92 million
were from Pakistan and
0.81 million from Nepal.
Hardly 6,476 reported to
have born in Afghanistan.
Three of these four
(excepting Nepal) countries
are under the focus in the
Citizenship Amendment
Bill 2016/2019.
Highly placed political leaders in power often rhetorically announces that NRC will be
implemented in the State of
Karnataka. While the direction to
implement NRC nationally has been
given by an act in 1951 and it is a
useful register to own for a country
like India; what is important to know
is as to what procedure must be used
to prepare such a list.
In the state of Karnataka, however,
only 71,715 reported to have born
outside India in Census 2011 which is only 0.001 per cent of the state population of 61 million.
The country specific reporting is miniscule – only 4,271 from Bangladesh, 2,082 from Pakistan
13
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
and 14,837 from Nepal. Note many of those reporting as born outside India are likely to be legal
migrants although a small proportion of them can be illegally residing in Karnataka.
Given the smaller number of those ‘born outside of India’ living in the state of Karnataka, it
makes no sense to undertake a statewide NRC as has been done in the state of Assam. In fact, a
different viable and cost effective strategy can be used to reach to all those who have reported as
‘born outside of India’. Since NPR data collection will be a complete census of households and
all those living and also that many documents will be reviewed along with bio-matric, it will be
easy to identify the foreigners living in the state and a small team of special verifying officers
can undertake the task to verification. There really is no need to establish tribunals, detention
centers and to press for long and expensive legal process to determine the illegal migrants at least
in the state of Karnataka.
The Cost Factor:
The budgetary cost of Assam NRC has amounted to Rs. 1221 crores; and another estimated cost
to the applicants has worked out to be Rs. 7,800 crores. All India extrapolation using these costs
suggest that it will require Rs. 383874cr (US$ 53.3 billion) to undertake NRIC across the nation.
It is instructive to compare these financial need figures with budgetary allocations to three
crucial ministries of the Government of India. The budgetary allocation to the ministry of
‘human resources development’ (including higher level education) for the year 2019 has been
Rs. 94,853 crores which is just about one quarter to the total requirement to implement the NRIC
across India. Similarly, the budgetary allocations to the ministry of Health has been only Rs.
62,398 crores which is one sixth of the NRIC requirement.
However, the cost of NRIC has worked out be much higher than even the defense budget of
India for the year 2019 which was Rs.3.2 lakh crores, compare this with Rs. 3.8 lakh crores that
is needed to implement the NRIC.
14
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Thus the mis-conceived political decision of the Government of India to extend NRIC across the
nation will cost mindboggling 3.8 lakh crores and such miss-allocation will damage not only the
fiscal health of India but also impact the National GDP by about 2 per cent.
---------
SECTION II
‘Not Indian Citizen’ Karnataka Case Study:
The author in August 2018 downloaded data relating to new applications made to the State
electoral office by the citizens of Karnataka from November 2017 for securing an election ID.
The list identified some who were granted and ID, but most applications were rejected. One of
the reasons for rejection was they were ‘not Indian Citizen’. Equipped with the analytical
findings and data the concerned chief electoral officer was engaged; who ordered an enquiry and
results were shared with the senior author in a secured meeting environment in December 2018.
This issue of many getting labeled as not Indian citizens is highly complex and a major factor in
Assam (other selected north-eastern states). The census of India is creating a record namely
‘National Population Register’ (NPR), which is a government authenticated record of usual
residents – defined as those who have been living at the place of interview for at least six months
or intend to reside at that address for subsequent six months. The mechanism and procedures
followed to prepare the NPR is through a national wide ‘complete house listing’, then linked
with biometrics, AADHAAR and mobile cell number and convert it into a NPR. This NPR is the
bases for preparing a ‘National Register of Citizens (NRC)’ by the state government and
approved by the national government.
The Karnataka case study, however, suggests that even the ‘election commission of India’ and
the state level ‘election officers’ are supplanting the above cited three agencies in identifying the
so called ‘not Indian citizens’. Such a scheme will dis-enfranchise millions of citizens of India
and will surely cause social unrest all over the affected states.
15
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
It was a chance encounter – authors wanted to assess the extent to which rejections of the new
applicants by the Election Commission contribute to voter’s exclusion. Out of the total of
approximately 2.8 lakh new applications, a remarkably high proportion of around 62 percent
were rejected. Data showed that as high as 18 percent of claimants were rejected on the ground
of them ‘not being Indian citizens’ and 24 percent were labeled as ‘not otherwise eligible’. To
put it more dramatically, among the total number of individuals rejected for enrollment, around
30 percent were rejected on the ground of not being Indian citizens and 39 percent for
unspecified reasons; an opportunity to assign any reason on another date.
This author and team equipped with the election office’s downloaded raw data list approached
selected rejected households to assess the procedures that the Election Commission may have
followed before making such drastic decisions (Statement III). Surprising, all claimants met were
completely oblivious of the fact and grounds of rejection. They were not given an opportunity to
present evidence to the contrary to the electoral authorities. The surprise was that rejected
individuals had Aadhaar as proof of their residential address and many were able to produce
additional documents like electricity bills that could further establish the verification. Others
reported that they were born at their registered residential addresses and were able to produce
school certificates in lieu of birth certificates.
16
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
STATEMENT III
RECORD OF NEW APPLICANTS AND REASONS FOR REJECTION
Data aggregated from 244 Electoral Constituencies to Regions of Karnataka State
Percentage Distribution
Total Number of Cases:2,87,690
Eligible Name Not Under Grand
Administrative for already residing aged ‘Not Indian Otherwise Total
Regions inclusion exists in the Citizen’ dis-
of Karnataka address qualified
B Karnataka 24.3 3.0 7.2 12.4 21.4 31.7 100.0
Hyderabad
Karnataka 36.6 4.8 11.4 6.1 22.7 18.4 100.0
Coastal Karnataka 38.9 3.0 9.3 4.1 22.9 21.7 100.0
Central Karnataka 25.3 6.5 9.9 13.7 20.1 24.5 100.0
Bengaluru Urban 37.1 7.1 3.9 3.1 14.0 27.4 100.0
South Karnataka 48.4 2.5 8.9 5.3 14.4 20.6 100.0
Total (N) 36.9 4.9 7.8 6.1 18.1 23.9 100.0
(106,127) (14,000) (22,464) 17,504) (51,995) (68,740) (287,690)
The most relevant issue is that such rejections in various measures were found to be recorded in
all the 224 legislative constituencies of the state of Karnataka and at least about one hundred
official signatories have approved these lists before data were accumulated in the website of the
‘chief election officer’ of the State.
As more evidence comes in, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there has been a
disconcerting level of procedural violations in the rejection of claimants. Under Indian election
17
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
law, a person can be disqualified for being listed in electoral rolls if she is not an Indian citizen.
The Election Commission is expected to take the citizenship status into account as it updates the
rolls. But the law also requires that this must be done strictly in line with principles of natural
justice, especially transparency, providing reasons for rejection, notification of these reasons,
careful consideration of contrary evidence and fair hearing.
The Representation of People’s Act 1950 provides that registration officers must evaluate fresh
claims for enrollment only after ‘proper verification of facts. A detailed due process is further
provided under the Registration of Electors Rules 1960, including notification to claimants, in-
person hearing and the recording of reasons.
The Supreme Court lay down that in the case of individuals who were previously listed in the
electoral rolls, the presumption would be in favour of their Indian citizenship. Individuals, who
raise objections, must be given reasons for being suspected to not be citizens and be allowed to
present all the evidence they want. The Court rejected any attempt at limiting the range of
documents that individuals could produce to establish their citizenship. Finally, the Election
Commission must independently apply its mind on materials in each individual case and not rely
on external instructions. The Court found it unacceptable that the Commission relied on
generalizations based on police reports.
The gamut of procedural safeguards is crucial in upholding the constitutional promise of
universal adult franchise. In our democratic set-up, the ability to participate in elections is the
primary mode of expressing citizenship. It is also the only way the marginalized masses and
communities can influence policy and register their protest. Thus, denying a citizen the right to
vote has serious legal and political consequences.
Without careful fidelity to due process, there is a danger of abuse of power on the ground and
disenfranchisement of the weakest sections of society. The high numbers of fresh claim
rejections should invite a strong institutional response. The unusually high proportion of the
individuals being rejected on the ground of not being Indian citizens, without getting a
reasonable and fair opportunity to contest their exclusion, amounts to a crisis for democracy. The
18
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Election Commission must immediately respond by formulating a quick and determined
rectification protocol to ensure that citizens do not miss the opportunity to vote.
The authors based on the understanding of the pattern of exclusion or rejection of fresh
application in the state of Karnataka believed that similar such lists are available in other state of
India.
While the issue of illegal migrants can be real in the state of Assam which borders Bangladesh,
but it is still much difficult to prove that those speaking Bengali in Assam are all illegal migrants.
The migration did occur during historical days of pre-partition. Bengali was made official
language in 1836 which caused discontent between Assami speaking and Bengali people. Assam
itself was part of Bengal Presidency until 1906 and various administrative until 1937. A
significant number of labour was imported from the mainland (central) India to Assam.
However, to complicate issues there is this politically motivated rule in the making that illegal
migrants if minorities such as Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians excepting the
Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh will be given asylum and citizenship in
India.
Conclusions:
There are valid reasons to argue a case for irrelevance of NRIC to mainland states of India such
as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana and so on.
The first one is smaller numbers and empirical evidence of those who have reported ‘birth
outside India’, - they are a mix of legal migrants, Indians who are born abroad and an unknown
number of illegal migrants. This number is small and miniscule compared to the share of the
total population of the state.
Second it can very well be argued that the census of India which is now pressed to prepare NPR
is not an essential exercise; for example, many circumstances may lead to non-compliance of the
conduct of the census operation.
[Link]
19
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Records of census 15. No person shall have a right to inspect any book, register or record made by a
not upon to census-officer in the discharge of his duty as such, or any schedule delivered under
inspection nor section 10, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Indian Evidence Act,
admissible in 1872, no entry in any such book, register, record or schedule shall be admissible as
evidence. evidence in any civil proceeding whatsoever or in any criminal proceeding other than a
prosecution under this Act or any other law for any act or omission which constitutes
an offence under this Act. (1 of 1872)
Thirdly, any person who resides in India in any part of the country has a right to remain quiet, in
other words can refuse to divulge the detailed personal data that is expected to be collected
through the NPR survey scheduled during February to September 2020. While disclosing
personal and household information to Census of India during the conduct of decadal census is
mandatory by law, the same many not be true in case of the preparation of ‘national population
register’. Note that the NPR will collect many additional data and information besides ‘bio-
metrics’ including personal cell/mobile number, AADHAAR, passport and so on. The rules
relating to confidentiality of the private information thus collected is protected by law; yet its use
to prepare the NRIC looks open for legal hurdles.
Fourthly, tallying and utilizing AADHAR data and linking NPR with the expected NRC can
itself be an illegal activity not adequately backed by law.
Fifthly, right to remain quiet for example is a legal provision through 5th Amendment in the
USA. Similar provisions of the Indian Constitution could protect an individual from ‘sharing
(forcefully, deceit and pressure tactics even by a state government or a department of the national
government) personal date even with the census of India. Law governing protection against self-
incrimination or serve as a witness against yourselves provides relief in a manner that ‘no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law’.
Sixthly, India is signatory to a number International legal and multilateral covenants which
would give protection to citizens from the adverse effects of NRC; if the NRIC is implemented
in a manner that it isolates specific religious community such as the Muslims in India.
20
Draft for publication in Economic and Political Weekly
Abusaleh Shariff, ashariff@[Link] / 29th October 2019
Action Plan:
While it is essential to study, document, analyze and discusses highly complex maize of issues,
legal documents and expected format of future political and legal provisioning; it is imperative
that the status quo is maintained and in doing so a number of tasks can be performed.
1. Reach out to the Communities: First plan of action is to reach out to the communities all
over the nation so as to share and educate Muslims regarding the expected NRIC in many
mainland states such as Karnataka, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Telangana just
to name a few. Strategy as to how to seek protection from the misuse of NPR and NRIC
which will lead to deprivation of life, liberty and property. Nationwide community
consultation processes must begin in an organized way especially by imparting knowledge of
legal rights, administrative mechanism, restoration and archival of individual/family level
identifications and documentations. Importance of registering births, deaths and marriages in
the ‘civil registration system’ is an absolute necessity. Similarly, adhering to the rules of the
Indian taxation system covering both PAN and GST will go a long way to protect the
businesses, occupation and property of the masses. So is the essentiality of owning the
‘voter’s ID’ and enlisting of names in voter’s list of national, state and local level elections.
2. Another administrative issue that needs attention is with respect to disclosure of information
with the visiting census of India investigators. Since the scope of the Indian Census is not
enhanced to preparation of ‘National Register of Population’, it is important to find out the
legal basis of enhanced data collection which includes ‘biometrics’ and cell numbers. The
people at large must be alerted that they seek out an ‘acknowledgment’ or a receipt for
having disclosed the information sought by the Census of India functionaries.
3. Explore legal provisions to stop the expensive and highly disturbing NRIC implementation
across all States of India.
4. Explore, articulate and devise alternative methodologies to identify the illegal migrants
spread over many cities of India and facilitate preparation of a credible NRIC.
----
21
View publication stats