In a statement that has stirred controversy, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, during a Supreme Court hearing, claimed that Assam was originally part of Myanmar. This remark, made during the proceedings challenging the validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act of 1955, has sparked a heated debate and strong reactions, particularly from the Assam government.
Also read- CJI And Justice Kaul Author Separate Order In Supreme Court Verdict On Article 370 (lawchakra.in)
Sibal, representing the respondents in the case, emphasized the complexity of tracing historical population movements. He stated,
“Migration of people and populations is embedded in history and cannot be mapped. If you look at the history of Assam, you’ll realize that it is impossible to figure out who came when.”
He further added,
“Assam was originally a part of Myanmar. It was way back in 1824 after the British conquered part of the territory that a treaty was entered into by which Assam was handed over to the British. You can imagine the kind of movement of people that might have taken place in the context of the then British Empire.”
The Assam government, however, refuted Sibal’s statement. Assam government spokesperson Pijush Hazarika asserted,
“From the time of Mahabharat and before, we have firmly been an integral part of Bharatvarsh.”
Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma also dismissed Sibal’s claim, stating,
“Those who do not know should not speak. Never was Assam a part of Myanmar. People from Myanmar came and clashed with the Assam people. For a brief period — for a month– Assam became like an occupation. This is the extent of Assam and Myanmar relations. I never came across any data claiming that Assam was with Myanmar…I should not comment on what is said in the Supreme Court. A lawyer says anything as part of an argument…”
Also read- Lok Sabha Expels TMC MP Mahua Moitra Over Allegations In Cash-for-Query Scandal (lawchakra.in)
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising a five-judge Constitution Bench, is scrutinizing the constitutional validity of Section 6A, a provision pivotal to the Assam Accord’s implementation. This section allows specific foreign migrants who entered Assam between January 1, 1966, and March 25, 1971, to apply for Indian citizenship. The bench’s examination of this provision could have significant implications for Assam’s socio-political landscape.
Sibal, in his arguments, also drew upon his family’s personal experience of displacement during the partition, stressing the fundamental rights of individuals, including those of Bengali ethnicity, to move freely within the country. He argued against the assertion that such population movements had disrupted the cultural essence of Assam.
The controversy centers around the perception of indigenous groups in Assam, who argue that Section 6A has legitimized the entry of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, significantly impacting the state’s demographic and cultural fabric. The ongoing hearing and the Supreme Court’s eventual decision are expected to be crucial in determining the future course of this contentious issue.
Also read- Supreme Court Demands Detailed Data On Illegal Migration In Assam (lawchakra.in)