The Citizenship Amendment Act has garnered a series of violent protests across India’s Northeast, especially Assam. The act that offers citizenship to non-Muslim minorities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan was passed on December 11 in the Rajyasabha.

With internet shutdown in six states of the Northeast and Section 144 implemented in many areas, Newslaundry looks back at what the voices representing these states in Loksabha and Rajyasabha had to say about the Bill before it became an Act. 

Lok Sabha

Gaurav Gogoi of the Indian National Congress began his statement asserting his identity as an Assamese. “Today here, I stand as an Assamese, I stand as a person from Northeast India. I stand as an Indian, and I vehemently oppose the Citizenship (Amendment), Bill,” he said. 

Explaining the negative impacts of the Bill, the MP from Kalibor constituency said, “This Northeastern part of India is a very special part of India that we must protect and preserve. In North-East India, we have multiple tribes. Manipur has 37 tribes. Nagaland has 100 tribes. We are Nyishi. We are Kuki. We are Meitei. We are Naga. We are Bodo. We are Bhutia. We are Lepcha. Where are our culture and literature? Where are our tribal values? The Constitution gives us special protection. The Northeast opposes this Bill because we are not slaves.”

Dilip Saikia of BJP disagreed. Instead, he declared the Bill as a milestone for the people of Assam. “We are all well aware that a six-year-long Assam agitation took place for the deportation of illegal migrants. This six-year-long agitation started from my Lok Sabha constituency, Mangoldai. 855 people attained martyrdom in this agitation for the deportation of illegal migrants. As a result of this agitation, Assam Accord was signed between the then Prime Minister of India, Shri Rajiv Gandhi, the Assam Government and the All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad in 1985. The Assam Accord contained a number of clauses. One of the main clauses was Clause 6. It makes provision for providing constitutional safeguards to the Assamese people. From the year 1985 to 2019, 34 years have passed since the signing of the Assam Accord. But for the implementation of Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, no government took any step,” Saikia said.

Clause 6 of the Assam Accord has a provision which allows for a committee to be formed to represent the demands of the people of Assam. This clause is meant to safeguard and protect the interests of people of the state. In January, the Central Government formed a committee to implement it.

Taking a dig at the Congress, Saikia added, “Congress party would have surely supported CAB. But they have not supported CAB, as the word ‘Muslim’ has not been mentioned in the Bill. If the word Muslim had been mentioned in the CAB, the Congress party would have surely supported it. I have requested the Hon. Prime Minister and the Hon. Home Minister to take care of the interests of the people of Assam. Steps should be taken to implement clause 6 of the Assam accord in a time-bound manner. Steps should also be taken so that the Assamese language remains the medium of instruction in Assam.” 

Rajdeep Roy, BJP MP from Silchar, traced his history of immigration and concluded that the Bill had done justice to him and a lot of families like him. “My grandfather came here with 12 people, leaving his land to the other side. Our leaders did what they could do protect the minorities in our country but left out minorities of bordering countries. I emphatically stand here representing a community which has not been heard in the Parliament for the last 70 years,” he said. 

However, Congress’ Abdul Khaeeque accused the Bill of nullifying the long-drawn history of identity struggle Assam and other Northeastern states have gone through. “Assam Movement for the deportation of illegal migrants took place in the ’80s. ULFA also came into existence during this time. As a result of Assam agitation, the Assam Accord was signed. But today it seems that the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill has nullified the historic Assam Accord. Assamese people are always in constant fear that since they are less in numbers, the unabated illegal migration would adversely affect their language, culture and civilization,” he said in the parliament session. 

Khaeeque requested the Sixth Schedule or Inner Line Permit regime to be applied to the entire Northeast region in order to avoid a civil war-like situation. 

The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution deals with the governing of tribals areas in four Northeastern states — Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The Inner line permit is a document that allows travelling in certain protected areas for a limited period.

Meghalaya’s Agatha Sangma, the only voice representing the state, supported the Bill. 96 per cent of Meghalaya comes under the Sixth Scheduled area and is exempted from the Bill.

Meanwhile, Indra Hang Subba of Sikkim Krantikari Morcha accused Amit Shah of leaving out his state. Reminding the house that Sikkim was merged later into India based on certain conditions, he said the implementation of this Bill in Sikkim would be unfair and asked for an exemption. “When the Citizenship Act, 1955 was enforced in Sikkim with Sikkim (Citizenship) Order, 1975, it clearly specified that every person who immediately before April 26, 1975, was a Sikkim subject under Sikkim Subjects Regulation 1961 shall be deemed to have become a citizen of India on that day. This means that the citizenship of Sikkimese Indians has been defined according to the Sikkim Subjects Regulation 1961. This brings up the point that Sikkim should be exempted from the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, which is under discussion today. So, on behalf of the Sikkimese people and the Sikkim Krantikari Morcha, I strongly oppose the implementation of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in Sikkim and hence the Bill,” he said

C. Lal Rosanga of Mizoram was grateful that his state was exempted from the bill but raised a few important points. “Central Government as well as the State Governments across the country to see that the religious persecution does not exist in our country. Religious persecution has been taking place in different parts of the world because of which we are now on the verge of passing this Bill. But I would like to ask the authorities, the powers that be, in different parts of the country to see that there is no religious persecution and we put down any sign or any manifestation of religious persecution at once in this country,” he said while ending his speech. 

Rajya Sabha

The Rajya Sabha session held on December 11 saw similar arguments and counter-arguments from parties across. 

Ripun Bora of Congress in Assam challenged the Bill saying, “The whole country knows that Assam is burning, the Northeast region is burning. Lakhs of people are on the streets for days together. You have already finished Assam; you have finished the Northeast region, but you have not learnt the lesson. Now, you are going to finish the entire country by the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. It is not a question of Hindus. Are we not Hindus? Are the very people who are agitating in Assam, not Hindus? They are all Hindus. It is a question of the future and security of our country.”

Continuing his attack, he said, “Not only that, Mughals attacked Assam 17 times, but they could not annex it. Brave Assamese generals Bir Lachit Borphukan, Bir Chilarai thwarted the Mughals’ attempt to annex Assam. That’s why I would like to say today that this Bill may be passed in the House, but Assamese people will never accept it. People of the North East would never accept it.”

Though Meghalaya didn’t oppose the Bill in the Loksabha vehemently, in Rajya Sabha, Congress’ Wansuk Syiem expressed the fear of Shillong turning into a ghetto. “This won’t save Shillong, an urban area from becoming a ghetto, a slum. For many years public activist groups, student unions trying to preserve the rights and ethnic identity of the indigenous tribes have been proposing the introduction of Entry Permit for casual visitors to check rampant infiltration by illegal settlers. Meghalaya has not imposed any such entry restrictions as a gesture of generosity and trust in those entering Meghalaya,” he said. 

Mizoram’s Ronald Sapa Tlau, echoed the opinion of C. Lal Rosanga. He expressed happiness that Mizoram was exempted from the Bill, but he highlighted the fact the in the past few years, India has been committing crimes against the minorities in its own country. “I smell something fishy here, something sinister because you are talking about protecting the minorities of all these religions, including the Christians whereas you see a lot of religious hate crimes in the last few years. According to a Reuters report, there were 63 cow vigilante attacks from the year 2014 to 2017 in which 28 innocent victims lost lives, and 124 of them were seriously injured,” he said.

“India ranks 15th in the world in terms of dangers for the Christians. It was up from 31st position four years ago. Churches were burnt down or pastors were beaten up on an average of ten times a week in the last four years. Hence, India has become home for Christian persecutions as well as other minorities’ persecution. Now, you are introducing a Bill to protect the Christians and other communities. I am glad in a way and have mixed feelings because I want to be ensured that you are really serious about this Bill. If you are serious, then, I should witness an end to all these persecutions in India, whether it is against Christians, Muslims or other minorities,” he added. 

Sikkim’s Rajya Sabha member, Hishey Lachungpa of the Sikkim Democratic Front, demanded Sikkim be exempt from the Bill. “Indian citizenship was granted to the Sikkim Subject holders in the year 1975 when we became the 22nd State of the Indian Union. The Sikkim Subject is, therefore, a sacrosanct identity of those who were the citizens of Sikkim,” he declared.