The Srijan Foundation organized a talk of Sri. J Sai Deepak at Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, KG Marg, New Delhi. The topic of the talk was ‘Illegal Immigration in India”.

This is the first part of the transcript of his talk.

I am not sure how many of you are aware of the fact that, along with enlightened souls like Ashish Dhar, we started an initiative called the Indic collective Trust and as part of it, we hope to address quite a few Indic causes. One of the causes that we had taken up, was the cause of Rohingyas and the deportation of Rohingyas. I just wanted to start of the session with something that was written in the immediate aftermath of our intervention on the Supreme Court. Let me just give a short background of what happened, so that you have a clear picture of where I am coming from.

We were already in the process of working on a couple of petitions or at least one petition seeking deportation of illegal immigrants of all hues, especially Bangladeshis of course, from all parts of the country and not just from the Northeast, because the focus whenever you talk of this particular issue seems to be only the Northeast. Fortunately, the Northeast is in news for some reason, unfortunately it’s in the news for wrong reasons. But we were hoping to broad base this particular issue and go after the issue of illegal immigration and give it a broad spectrum. Basically asking or hoping that the Supreme Court would set up foreigner’s tribunals, not just in Northeast or state of Assam but across the country, because it come to a point where illegal Bangladeshis are in Delhi, they are in all parts of country. It’s no more a phenomenon that is limited to the Northeast. So we were in the midst of the preparation, around I think on the September 6th is when we suddenly heard the news that, Mr. Prashant Bhushan had approached the Supreme Court, on behalf of Mohammed Salimullah, where he filed a petition asking for a stay on the government’s decision to deport Rohingyas, so that was the 6th of September. The matter was then listed for the 11th of September, which was a Monday. So, between the 6th of September and 11th of September, If 11th is a Monday, Sunday is out, Saturday is out, we only had the Friday to finish everything.

So, we had to immediately go to court, hoping that our point of view would at least be heard before a decision is taken on the issue and so that it doesn’t appear to the court that there is only one point of view that matters and that there is a diversity of opinions and there are other people who are equally educated, enlightened and compassionate of course, who have their hearts in the right place, who have a legitimate point of view to make. So we had to quickly put together a petition and we bunked in the petition. I think it was done on the Friday and on the 11th It came up.

Before I think, even the petition could be taken up on the 11th of September, there were I think a slew of articles written between, the filing of the petition and the listing of the petition and I will just read out one beautiful piece that was written on, of course from a usual suspect platform, against us- The Wire (okay) and the title of the article is – Supreme Court petitioners must be made to expunge their bigotry against the Rohingyas.

I said Okay, chalo, mission accomplished, we are in news. So we arrived with a bang this was the first ever petition that we had filed on behalf of the Indic collective Trust. You put us on the map, you put us on the spotlight, Thank You. So all that is done and of course this was written by Mr. Prashanth Reddy who I happen to know, I am not sure, I can call him a friend, of course he is an acquaintance and he and I happen to be, more or less in the same professional sphere. He comes from the Intellectual property fraternity and that’s one of my areas; core areas of practice, as a lawyer and I will just read out a few portions of what he has written, and he says that the petitioners who have come to the Supreme Court asking for the deportation of Rohingyas, basically represent these kind of values. I’ll just, just indulge me when I read out these portions:

“For a long time the Sangh Parivar has engaged in Dog whistle politics, targeted against religious minorities especially Muslims (Stereotype 1). The simple policy of the rising stars among the Saffron Brigade (I don’t know who is he referring to, the petitioners or the council for the petitioners, I hope it’s you not me, because I am just the messenger, at least on paper) has been to provoke and polarize through statements that are seemingly benign, but whose real import, is to paint religious minorities as inferior second class citizens (Okay, Stereotype 2). Hence the comments about : kutte ke bache, Mian Musharaff, Love Jihad, Hum panch humare Pachis, James Michael Lyngdoh, of course who can forget the reference to Khabaristhan and Shamshan during the Uttar Pradesh election campaign. Of course the new generation of leaders like Ajay Singh Bisht also known as Yogi Adityanath, do not even attempt to hide their contempt for India’s minorities.” 

Notice, the left always pontificates nuance, subtlety, do not always mix the fringe with the mainstream. We are all different, it’s not a monolithic point of view as far as the leftist point of view is concerned. There is a diversity of opinions among them, there are shades of opinions, there are calibrations of opinions, there are grades of opinions like Nerolac paints. You have all these points of view, but all of us are supposed to be one lump, somebody holding a jhanda shouting Ram! Jai Shree Ram! Isn’t different from me. He may be saying the same thing and I may want him to say the same thing, but of course, my way of putting it is certainly different and I may have shades of opinion and my quality of opinion would be markedly different, I am not saying superior, different at least. So this is how they started off, by saying that all of us are one huge monolith, then he goes on to say:

The envelope is constantly being pushed and the new normal, constantly being redefined (what is the new normal according to him?) We are now witnessed to bile and vitriol against Muslim refugees, becoming a formal part of the pleadings filed before the Supreme Court.

The problem with the statement is, it appears as if the author is ignorant of the history of this particular issue and the fact that similar issues have already been escalated in the three landmark judgements of the Supreme Court in 2005, 2006 and 2014, specifically documenting the effect and impact of influx of the Bangladeshi Muslims, from Bangladesh into Assam. I use these words specifically because, these are the terms that have been used in Supreme Court’s decisions. If you want to fault me, perhaps you should fault the Supreme Court and let’s see, hopefully the Contempt Action will be initiated against, if you do that, hopefully, so, then he goes on to say:

The Indic Collective Trust is a Chennai based trust that reportedly works for the welfare of the interest of Indian tradition, culture and civilization. In an Intervention petition filed in the ongoing proceedings initiated by Rohingya Refugees before the Supreme Court, seeking a stay on their deportation back to Myanmar, these self-proclaimed guardians of Indian tradition, culture and civilization have made sweeping statements against the Rohingya people, purely on the basis of their Islamic faith.

This is at a time after 9/11, when I think most parts of the world, unless they are sleeping under a rock or under they live in a bubble, have woken up to Islamist terrorism. Let’s not call it Islamic terrorism, at least Islamist terrorism and making the distinction, of course, for good reason. And then he goes on to say that it’s not just the petitioners, he then goes after the lawyers, here is a good portion of the article it says:

It is also worth noting the rules of professional conduct, prescribed by the Bar Council of India, impose on the advocates the duty to refuse clients who insist on unfair means, the relevant rule is produced here…

So he extracts the rule and therefore he says, I should have or any advocate before taking up this particular matter should have refused this kind of a pleading, or this kind of a petition, which uses certain language and which refers to Islamist terrorism according to him. Going by that logic, if somebody had refused to take up the case of Ajmal Kasab, what would his position have been? Then I think he would have said that we live in a new India, which is a saffron India where people cannot expect fair representation and people are judged even before they are actually put to a fair process of judicial trial and this that and all of that would have actually been hurled against us. So clearly there are two different benchmarks and there are two different standards. Now whether that amounts to double standards, I leave it for you to judge. Now it is in this backdrop, that we need to address, the issue of today, which is – Illegal Immigration in India.

First deal with the perception and political incorrectness of the topic itself, because it appears that anybody who holds a point of view, which doesn’t resonate with the point of view of the media establishment or the left establishment, is necessarily on the wrong side of history, and is on the wrong side of compassion, is on wrong side of humanity. That seems to be the narrative that is being pelled. Is that truly the case? But why do we need to necessarily go down the path of emotional sentiments and that kind of nonsense, lets focus on what the law says.

If you are a democracy, I hope that rule of law is one of the necessary concomitant, that flows with democracy, that is consistent with democracy and democratic values and constitutional values. Therefore I just need to ask myself before a court of Law, Is my position wrong in Law? Is my position rooted in Law? Am I saying something that goes outside the four corners of the legal framework that applies to this issue? That is the only question that I need to escalate before the Supreme Court. Beyond that I don’t think I even need to look into anything at all.

In fact one of the question before the Supreme Court in the Rohingya petition is – Can the Supreme Court at all interfere with this particular issue, for a good reason, it’s like this. So in the US you could perhaps call it, Presidential prerogative or Executive prerogative, which is to say that there are certain aspects of policy, in which the Judiciary is not supposed to interfere, for the simple reason, that one – it may lack expertise, and two – not everything is necessarily open to judicial review. Some things are a matter of policy. After all there are certain benefits that come, with coming to power and because you come to power, you have the right to implement your vision. You can call it imposing my vision but implement my vision. I have a clear manifesto, I have a clear agenda, I am pushing that agenda. So be it. If you have a problem, you will get it done in 2019. You answer then. Until then you will have to wait, until your turn comes. Please wait, you are not in power anymore. Therefore, if there is an agenda that is being pushed, you can only challenge it on legal grounds. Beyond that you really have no recourse at all. All your moralistic nonsense must necessarily find its way, I can’t see the dust bin, but in the dust bin.

Therefore, the point is, you need to ask yourself one question. If, let’s say, I can justify my position in law and I can also justify my position from an ethical standpoint, which I don’t need to before a court, but let’s see, I can and if I can also justify myself from a civilization standpoint, really what is your case? That I have a problem with minorities? Now even minorities or let’s say somebody who belongs to a certain faith and who’s not necessarily a citizen of this country, yet, has become a minority of India, already!

I understand, my mind boggles at this particular presumption because you conflict so many issues at the same time. If India is already unsafe for these minorities, pray, tell me, why do you want to invite them further and subject them to worst persecution. I don’t understand, for the worst possible country for the minorities, don’t you know that? So, in light of this, in light of all this hyperbole, it is important to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is important to ask ourselves what are the core questions at play? What are the rules of law that apply to those issues and questions and what should be the logical conclusion.

Now what is happening before the Supreme Court is not a private dispute, it is necessarily something which concerns every member of the country, it concerns everyone, every citizen. Therefore, it is an issue of public interest and therefore commenting on an ongoing proceeding, let’s say on an ongoing proceeding before the Supreme Court, which is sub judice, in a matter of public interest, is not contempt of court, is my humble submission. Therefore, I will comment on it, I don’t have a problem with it. If somebody has a problem, they can take it up before the court.

Now the point is, there are two issues that I wish to address as part of illegal immigration in India as on date. Obviously, the immediate news peg is Rohingya, but something that has been simmering and festering for a very long time, at least since 1960s or even the 50s, is the issue of Bangladeshi immigration in the Northeast. Both needs to be addressed because there is a clear continuum between the two. There is not too much of a distinction except for the ethnic group that is coming in. In fact, I would go on to say, there is no ethnic distinction also because there are clear scholarly publication written by Burmese scholars, who go on to say that Rohingyas were originally Bengali Muslims from the place Chittagong. They were recorded as Chittagongians in colonial records of the British. That Rohingya apparently is an ethnic term which can be applied across religious sections is, I think is, factually incorrect and historically incorrect. Rohingya has always been, understood as Rohingya Muslims only, not any other community. Let’s be very clear about this. In fact, as a part of our intervention petition before the Supreme Court, we have filed an article of 2005, (I have brought this along with me just for the sake of reference), by a scholar from SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research. She is, let’s say a scholar, in this institution, who has traced the origins of Rohingyas, their historical origins and the development of a Muslim enclave in the state of Rakhine or Arakan and then has explained, what is that this country has been grappling with just like us since 1948. Okay, this not a relatively new issue, this has been going on since 1948.

Now, before that there is one thing we need to address. We live in a nation state. If we live in a nation state, certain assumptions and presumptions go along with the concept of a nation state, which means I am entitled to protect my borders. So I have the power as well as the duty to protect my borders. As globalization made a difference to the idea of a nation state in real practical terms, I don’t think so, I think the best example as on date would be the Brexit example. The fact that you cannot erase identities, you cannot erase ethnic identities, or you can’t erase religious identities or national identities, or the concept of nationalism is not moot, the concept of nationalism has not become redundant, is something that we need to recognize because that is at the heart of the entire issue, because the argument which you will be fed from the other side is, India is a country whose history is full of migration. In fact, I had a gentleman right on my timeline on Twitter, that what happened from 700 AD till 1947 inclusive of both, let’s say the Muslim invasions as well as the British Colonialism, is an example of migration according to him. I didn’t know whether to pity him or to laugh my guts out. I just said, ignore the fool. There is no point in engaging with such a person. If you can’t distinguish between invasion, migration, settlement and Colonialism, God save you. In fact, then I think, there is something seriously wrong with our educational system, which it is.

So, the problem is, to conflate these two issues. See the thing is, the convenient position is, if you are wrong on the law and if you don’t have a clear position to support yourself as far as the law has concerned, they will immediately switch to the other argument, which is the civilization argument and the globalization argument to say. Are you not living in the era of cold war, where you still think that national identity is nation status, a concept still matters? Of course it matters. How does it not matter? Of course it matters. If let’s say India is only a land of migrations and it’s only been a successive wave of migration, since it all been peaceful. Why do we still push the Aryan invasion theory? Let it be the Aryan migration theory, perhaps we may even accept it, even if its flimsy, has no bases, is scientifically flawed. You can’t say on the one hand that you have a problem with this one particular racial stock invading this country and saying that they subjected Dravidians to a lot of oppression and then use the Aryan invasion theory to peddle one agenda and then justify every other invasion as migration. I don’t see how both of these can hold water, something is terribly wrong and I think it doesn’t need an IQ of 120 or even 150 to understand that there is a problem with both these arguments. You can’t actually say that both of them are consistent and they can be reconciled, not possible at all. So we need to understand that unless and until we agree and accept that the concept of a nation state continues to be valid and it has to remain valid. There is no point in discussing the subsequent issues because then you see you are only dealing with technicalities. Your mind will immediately say sorry, you are living in the old world, you are a dinosaur, you are not modern, you are not secular, you are not liberal and therefore you have not embraced the concept of globalization (in) in spirit and in substance and that’s why you continue to harp on, my country, my territory, my border and this kind of nonsense, why do you fight? War is all useless, I am so sorry. Be it war or every other concern that we are faced with today is intrinsically connected to the concept of a nation state at least as far as our external issues are concerned or perhaps even internal issues. Be it aggression from within, let’s call it Naxalism or aggression from outside, both of them are challenges to India as a state, India as a nation state, therefore it is important to respect the sanctity of the concept of a nation state in the first place and then ask ourselves, what is it got to do with this particular issue? As I said, the concept of protection of your sovereign borders flows from your right as a sovereign state.

Now in India, what is the legal framework that applies to this particular issue, is the simple question. Illegal immigrant ka kahi pe koi paribhasha hai, koi definition hai? Does anybody know of it? After all, if I have to place this argument before the court of law, I have to root my position in some kind of a legislation and if I have to call someone illegal immigrant, I need to trace the definition to some statute, correct? I can’t be just using the word refugee and illegal immigrant without any kind of basis. The basis for this would be in two acts, in fact. One is the Citizenship Act and other is the Foreigners Act, both of them compliment each other, where one defines who is a citizen and the other defines who is a foreigner.

So, as far as the Citizenship Act of 1955 is concerned, it goes on to say that someone who is not a foreigner is a citizen, beautiful definition. Now, who is a foreigner is actually defined in the Foreigners Act of 1946 and it has an elaborate definition, where it says someone who doesn’t have valid passport, who has not entered here with a requisite documents or who has a valid passport but has overstayed his, let’s say period of allowance, let’s say period of visa so on. So there is a huge definition for it. There is no definition of a refugee as far as Indian law is concerned. We do not have a refugee law. Okay, so from let’s say, a layman’s perspective or a layperson’s perspective, let’s be very liberal. (lets) lay persons perspective, No, no I am not being sarcastic, I am being very genuine here. All I am saying is from a laypersons perspective. I am able to trace my position to a concrete legislation, which defines who is citizen, who is an illegal immigrant, where as you are citing something which doesn’t even have any basis in Indian law.

To say that we do not have a law as far as refugees are concerned, we perhaps have what is known as a standard operating procedure that came out in I think December 29th  2011 and the NDA government has subsequently applied same standard operating procedure. I will just read out the standard operating procedure, so that it becomes useful and it’s relevant to the discussion because this is also something that we have cited as part of our documents before the Supreme Court.

This is by, this on the 6th of August 2014, from the government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, law for refugees in India, this is what it says, and this one paragraph more or less captures the sum and substance of India’s position when it comes to refugees. OK, so just pay attention to this.

India is not a signatory to the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees. Point number one, please note this. So, we are not a signatory to this. Therefore, all obligations that apply to the signatories of this particular convention, they don’t apply to us. Okay, we have not ratified, we have not signed, we are not signatory or a member of this particular convention.

Second, and the 1967 protocol as well. So, every instrument, international instrument has a master document and then you have subsequent protocols that come pursuant to it. So neither are we parties or signatories to the 1951 convention nor are we parties to the 1967 protocol, point number 1. Therefore, the obligations that apply and that attend and visit on signatories don’t apply to us. Two, there is no national law on refugee at present. This is the position of the government of India, which is a fact. Government has circulated a standard operating procedure for dealing with foreign nationals who claim to be refugees to all state governments on 29th of December 2011. So, the Central government in December 2011 has circulated a standard operating procedure to all state governments saying, Bhaiyya, agar aap ke pradeshon mein ek illegal refugee aa jatha hai ya phir refugee aa jatha hai uske saath aap kaise deal karenge, uske liye aapka ek template hai. This is the template, please follow this. That template has been adopted and continues to be adopted even today.

Is our position with respect to Rohingyas, violative of the standard operating procedure, is the only question I have to answer because that is the only position that applies to refugees today. This is the only legal framework that applies to refugees today. This standard operating procedure stipulates that cases which are prima facie justified on grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution, on account of race, religion, sex, nationality, ethnic identity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion can be recommended by the state government to the Union territory, sorry to the Ministry of Home affairs, for grant of long term visa, after due security verification. A foreigner to whom LTV is permitted by the Ministry of home affairs will be allowed to take up employment in the private sector. Therefore what is the mechanism? The state government will escalate a request to the Ministry of Home affairs, the Union ministry of Home Affairs, saying a particular individual or a group is entitled to long term visas after due security verification is undertaken.

Now, if your security verification tells you, that there is a problem, in terms of identifying who poses a threat to you and who doesn’t pose a threat to you, what do you do? So, someone who, let’s call a former friend. Former friend because of my political views of course, basically said, “Sai, is it really your case that all forty thousand people including children and pregnant woman are all terrorist?” I said, no, that’s not my position at all. Then why are you asking for all of them to be chucked out on mass? I said have you been able to prove that Diwali is the sole cause for pollution in Delhi? Have you been able to establish, scientifically and conclusively that this is the only thing that has accused the smog in November, thanks to crackers that were been burst in October, oh! You have not been able to, then on what basis did you base your entire decision on? Prevention. Environmental law and environmental jurisprudence is based on prevention, which is to say – Bhai, dono taraf ladte rahenge, ek kahega global warming hai, doosra kahega global warming nahi hai, pata nahi kaun kisko fund kar raha hai. We have no idea, we don’t know which giant is funding which study. Perhaps we will never have the tools needed to understand the impacts of today’s pollution 30 years. Hence, perhaps we may not have the tools. Consequently, can we not do something about this, to reduce the carbon footprint. Can we not do something about it, is the logic behind environmental policy in general. I am saying apply this same beautiful policy to security as well. It is not unheard of, or unknown in law to apply policies or principles off one area of law to another area of law, if there is a way that you can draw a parallel between two areas, Kal kaun security threat hoga, ye aapko pata hai kya? You don’t know. Are you sure of the consequences of inviting forty thousand people in this country, thirty years hence, we don’t know. But then my answer is, we actually know, and we know this from our experience of Bangladeshi immigrants into this country from 1971 onwards, what it has done to the change of demographics in the Northeast, what it has done to the cultural identity, the ethnic identity, to the law and order situation of the Northeast or even for the safety of women in the Northeast.

Let me put it bluntly, is documented, its known. The Supreme Court recognizes it in three judgements, on the same issue. So therefore I have a live example in front of me and my sense of History tells me, iske baad bhi agar tum seekthe nahi ho, to joothe padne tho lazmi hi hai and you shouldn’t blame. My logic is always been this, what is the point of Yazidis teaching their children ki hamare upar bakhtharbar Athyachar hua hai, aap kar kya rahe te? If it happens for the 73rd time, are you going to blame history or yourself for not standing up and then what is it that you learn, aap bacho ko bathayenge 73 times hogaya not 72, is that the takeaway? Is that your lesson?

If exodus of a certain community happens from a certain part of this country in 1989, that’s a lesson for everybody. In all parts of the country, not just people who were evicted from that particular place. What you say Ashish? (Correct) Correct. Ashish Dhar. So therefore, you need to learn these lessons and my exhortation has been, I don’t need to prove, and it is not even my case that all forty thousand people are necessarily connected to sleeper cells. That’s a conspiracy that I will not able to subscribe to myself, assuming that I am a reasonable person with some kind of a conscience with an aorta of conscience, with a shred of conscience, with a scintilla of conscience, I can’t do this. Therefore, I only have to ask myself, what are better placed people who come from, let’s say security agencies telling us because obviously someone who is been part of the intelligence apparatus and somebody who has served as the part of armed forces clearly has a better understanding of these issues than I do because after all, I have the benefit of that throne called the arm chair from which I tweet or from which I perhaps write a judgement. Therefore, I surely must defer to the opinion of someone who is better positioned to address these issues.

Do we have an example of let’s say a better-informed opinion influencing a judicial outcome on a similar issue in the past? Of course it does. In the Bangladesh case, one of the central documents that was used by the Supreme Court, to arrive at its findings, that illegal immigration is destroying the Northeast was a 42 page report of Lt. General S K Sinha, who was the Governor of Assam at that point of time and his 42 page report was a huge red flag that was escalated to the center saying, please do something about this, because if you don’t do something about this, it’s not just about (this country, sorry) Assam, this is going to affect the rest of the country, in times to come and God, he has been prophetic unfortunately. His words have borne fruit, you know for a fact that this is happening in front of you and you know for a fact that in Greater Noida illegal Bangladeshis have created havoc, right? Imagine how many thousands of kilometers it is away from Assam. Therefore, we need to learn our lessons from the Bangladeshi experience is my humble submission as far as the Rohingya issue is concerned.

But then, before I get into the further nuts and bolts of the Rohingya issue, let me just explain to you, what has happened in the Bangladesh case, so that, you know how politics has played a role, which is being captured in the judgements of the Supreme court, in the affidavits filed before the Supreme Court and you will see that politics has been responsible for us not seeing enough deportations in this country. I will just read out a few portions and perhaps this may be of some use, those who wish to make a note of this, can do because I have a very clear note of these things.

So the first is a writ petition, filed in the year 2000, which led to a judgement of 2005, the second is a judgement of 2006, the third is a judgement of 2014 December, by which time, the supposed part with difference, had come to power. Now point number 1, in 2000 what was the issue? What happened in 2006 and 2014? Just pay attention to this because this is extremely important, the sequence of events make a lot of difference here. So the issue of protecting the ethnic identity of Assam is something that has always been an issue ever since its accession to the Union of India and therefore you had one of the first legislations to come out after the Foreigners Act OF 1946, was the Immigrants Expulsion Act of 1950, that was made applicable to Assam, subsequent to that people realized that nothing of consequence is happening. We still see our identity and our place is being taken hold of and vast numbers are pouring into this particular land, we need to do something about this. So the All India Assam Students Union, they started creating a ruckus about it and then that leads to the accord which is known as the Assam Accord, which is arrived at the 15th of August 1985, okay.

Now before that something happens, the government comes out with a legislation called the IMDT – Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunal Act of 1985, pursuant to which they set up foreigners tribunals, they set up illegal migrants tribunals, to basically deport these people. There is a Foreigners Act of 1946, there is a Citizenship Act of 1955, there is an IMDT Act of 1985, okay 1983. You already have a Foreigners Act, to kick out foreigners, why did you need a second legislation in 1983? Ask yourself, why do you need two Acts to achieve the same object? Foreigners Act is meant for Constitution of Tribunals to deport foreigners, the government has absolute powers, unfettered powers under this legislation to kick out anyone, who is not a citizen of this country, who is an illegal migrant, then why do you need a second legislation? This is where it becomes relevant. The IMDT Act imposed a higher burden on the government to prove that somebody is an illegal migrant, consequently the burden which was there under the Foreigners Act, was hiked up and spiked up, so that it becomes difficult for you to kick someone out, thereby defeating the very object of that particular Act itself. Therefore the Assam’s Students Union continued to write and make representations to the state government. The state government makes representation to the Central government over and over again saying, do you know what is the biggest hurdle in the way of deportation? The very legislation that is meant to facilitate deportation, they go on writing this until it reaches a crescendo and then they enter into the Assam Accord of 1985 but does it lead to the repealing of the Act? No, it doesn’t, it goes on.

(Will Continue…)