I don't think we should depend on institutions. It has to be a people's movement especially when
change like this happens in the past 10
years 15 years we've seen the kind of
change which and you know the in the
past I think since demonetization
especially we've seen a change in the
way in which the state is viewing
people. people are I mean all of us
today are like customers of the state
they will give us some things they'll
take some things away we'll be
controlled we'll be told what we are
allowed to do we'll be mandated to do
some things we'll be told what we cannot
do so there's a lot of instruction and
expectation from us as a people and we
are being told that whatever the state
does we have to be grateful for it have
no expectation so there is something
completely wonky in this and uh when Dr.
Parcala Prabhakar was speaking and he
said about the state wanting a different
people. Actually Bertal Bret wrote a
poem on that after the 1917 revolution.
He was talking about how the normal
thing is that when the people don't like
a government, the people will vote out
the government. But in this case, the
state as it gets stronger and stronger,
it finds that it doesn't like the
people. And so it wants to vote out the
people and to create its own people.
the uh the sir and what is happening
with elections is one part of it where I
think that's it's so plain that it
sometimes it amazes me how brazenly
these things can be done. You would
expect that there will be quoting it in
some sugar pill or something. There is
nothing. We're just being told this is
who you are. This is what we think of
you and this is what we're going to do.
Let's see what you can do about it.
The thing is that in the political space
and where power is just power and you
know people are hanging on to power for
a long time. I can still understand that
the nature of power makes them act like
that. The judiciary is a different game
and I'll just talk about the judiciary
today.
The thing is that uh there are many
problems with the judiciary. It's not
only of corruption. It's institutionally
there are many problems with the
judiciary and it's not only of ideology.
There are people who might not belong to
any particular ideology. I mean I don't
think anyone doesn't have a politics. If
you don't have a politics that's a
politics. So it it but it's you know it
may not be ideologically
uh wanting to do something. There are
many judges like that and the
unfortunate thing is that you know it's
not just judges judges and lawyers and I
hope there are some here. You know in
fact with I would disagree with Dr.
parakala prabhagat that you shouldn't
tell the political parties what he said
what's the point of saying it if you
don't say it to them they need to hear
it and I presume that's what you were
asking us to do when I say don't do do
that's the presumption
so with the and I have no clue where I
came there so I'll just start from
wherever I was the thing is that in
recent times we found that there are
some questions that were not asked
before so the one issue I think that
we are all confronted with and we should
really be worried about is the question
of citizenship.
I don't think any of us would have
expected some time ago that people will
be feeling insecure about their
citizenship
and uh it I don't think there is much
doubt that this this has to do with an
anti-Muslim sentiment uh among ruling
classes but I don't think that's all and
the way in which we saw you know we saw
what happened in Assam and Assam should
really have us worried
not just because of what has happening
in Assam. Now, this started in the late
'90s. Of course, it started in the 80s.
Uh it started in the 70s after the
Bangladesh war. But, you know, till the
80s, we were still seeing India as part
of the Indian subcontinent.
We didn't think of neighbors as
forget about states, neighboring people
as being people who threatened each
other. We there was a way in which there
was a movement of population.
uh there was a similarity in our
populations. We have a common heritage.
I don't think that the borders that were
drawn when the British left is what
determined how we dealt with each other
as a people.
We find that that changed somewhere you
know after the Bangladesh war there was
some change but if you look at what
after the Assam Accord the kind of uh
law that was brought in the change that
was the amendment that was brought into
the citizenship act we find that they
actually talk about that whole whole
region as belonging to the Indian
subcontinent which mean which is why
they said okay people who've come here
you know although we say independence
was in 1947 Seven partition happened at
that time. We do acknowledge that this
you know the the commonality amongst us
and the movement you know our borders
are not you know they are b they're
political borders they are not human
borders. So people have come and gone
people have settled people have had
lives here people have had children here
and those children are part of this
country. So the second time that we said
we are drawing a you know we drawing a
line in relation to people was in 19
was in 1971 we said okay till 1971
whoever's been here we will act you know
they they can all become part of India
the problem was political the problem
was that there was this suspicion that
people were being brought into the
country and were being settled
uh to further electoral prospects of you
know of some party of basically of the
congress at that time I think and then
therefore when after the Assam accord
the citizenship act was changed
every you know once a person registered
saying I've been here from you know from
1971 from before 1971 they were entitled
to every right of citizenship
except the right to vote which was
suspended for 10 years so you register
you say I've been here including the
passport and passport is really a
statement of your citizen ship that you
declare to the rest of the world and the
state supports you on it. So we didn't
see people as you know we didn't see the
otherness in a way where we felt we
can't integrate we can't live together
we didn't have that sense at all it's in
1987 that we find that the first shift
starts happening in ' 87 they say uh if
a child is born in India and if either
parent is an Indian then the child will
have will have a right to Indian
citizenship that was it was still you
the making those distinctions why we
needed to do it we'll have to think
about but it was a political moment they
still did not deny citizenship to a
child born in India if either of the
parents was Indian it's in 2003 that we
start seeing the decline and in 2003 you
have an amendment that is brought into
the citizenship act where they say that
if either parent is an illegal migrant
and let's remember that illegal migrant
is by determination by somebody else if
you are not able to establish that you
are a citizen if you don't have
documents. The first time we have to
become documentary citizens being there
being there for 6 months at a time and
being found there again all that becomes
irrelevant because now they begin to ask
for various kinds of documents which
many people will not have. And actually
I think one of the fascinating documents
uh that I found when I was reading up on
all of this years ago was the report on
the first election that were held you
know in 1955 there was that uh the chief
election commissioner that that the
election commissioner at that time uh
had issued a document I mean he wrote up
how they conducted that first election
and it's fascinating that in 1951-52
we hadn't yet settled our population
along the borders People didn't know
whether you were going to you know when
you went to what was Pakistan what was
India what did what did it mean if you
went across the border what happens if
half the family goes there and half is
here see these are not things that the
south has really confronted and when I
went to Delhi first and I started living
there and the first time I asked a
Punjabi friend for some literature on
the partition she said she would give me
anything I wanted because I was a south
Indian was mentioning the word partition
because we just don't think enough about
it and that in that whole region this is
a very you know it's been a it's been a
turbulent uh you know turbulent in terms
of citizenship in terms of settling in
terms of families it's been very big so
our political borders got determined
even a little more strongly after 1971
but we still didn't do exclusion now why
am I saying all this when I'm going to
talk about the judiciary because the
judiciary has been at the center since
1999 at the center of this anxiety that
they've shown that you know uh if we
allow this to continue if we allow
people to come in and then claim
citizenship here very soon Assam will go
to Bangladesh
you know this anxiety of course in
history we know that there was also a
possibility at the time that India
became independent and partition was
happening that Assam could have come
here or you you know gone to Pakistan
that's a long time past and I don't
think anybody is even thinking about it
now and like one of the lawyers in Assam
who's practicing at the foreigners
tribunal and in the high court there
said he said if this anxiety which was
you know one one person from the army
makes a statement like this it's a
xenophobic statement but it was his
anxiety if you make a person's anxiety
state policy in relation to people and
then the judiciary adopts it and says
that oh so this could happen and like
the lawyer said by Now there would only
be Bangladeshies in Assam if if you know
if that anxiety had come true by now. So
these are things that are not happening
around us. They are happening only in
minds and our minds are getting forced
pushed into these corners. So we are
being told that we need to have a
complete revamp of electoral roles
because it's in electoral roles that all
these people come in and then they put
themselves in and these are actually
foreigners. So this I think the first
thing we need to do is even for
ourselves to stop thinking in terms of
legality and illegality and think in
terms of humanity again because these
are not we are not uh people are not
enemies of each other. So if there has
been movement that's one thing we
acknowledge. The thing is if we do
accept if suppose we do accept that we
do need to have a time when we just have
a national citizen citizen register do
we have any means of doing it is there
something that every anybody has that
everybody will have which will establish
that they've been you know in this
country from the beginning can everyone
have it people who don't have property
people you know I we all people who've
seen it and some of us have studied it
that when you have ration cards in the
early 2000s they said you have to in
Delhi they said you have to change your
ration card you have to update it they
took away the old ration card to give
the new ration card which means you
don't have anything saying you've been
there from before then and state systems
and let's be clear about this like
that's what's happening with sir2 state
systems are saying that our records are
not clean you better come and prove that
you are who you are then we'll update
our records on that so if I go to the
election you know if I go to relation go
to a municipality or go anywhere and say
can I please have my say my birth
certificate in the municipal record they
may not have it and it's not their
responsibility there is a huge burden
that is being shifted onto people onto
every individual in this country and
this is not even to families it's to
every individual to establish that they
have a right that they are citizens of
this country and they've been that for a
long long time now the courts have no
ability to recognize this. We know that
the Assam the whole Assam process was
actually pushed by the courts. It was
justice goes bench which kept pushing
that agenda and saying finish it fast,
finish it fast. We need to find out who
all these illegal migrants are and we
need to throw them out. And we know what
a disaster that has been. In fact, one
of the interesting when we talk
technology how some of them want to move
away from acknowledging it. TCS which
was involved in uh in the whole
exercise. They had advertised themselves
as having participated in this process
of uh the national register of national
population register in Assam and then
they found what a disaster it was and
they pulled out that from their uh you
know from their website. Then India
today caught it. They wrote about it and
then TCS has to put it back because it
was an embarrassment to have it there
and then withdrawing it. It was an
embarrassment not to put it back. So we
have there are many ways in which the
tragedy of citizenship is playing out in
our country and I am not sure at all
that the court has shown itself able to
understand what it is. I'm also making a
point of this because in the sir they
have now said that you know the election
commission and I think this has been
said ad nauseium and I'm just going to
add to that nosier to say it but the
election commission has no business
determining citizenship
they have no role in determining
citizenship if there is anyone who has
to attempt to do it has to be the
register general of India and it can't
be just anybody and it certainly cannot
I mean the register general of India
comes under the home ministry but home
ministry can't decide who a citizen is
and who it is not the election
commission certainly doesn't have the
right if they have any doubt about the
citizenship of a of a person they can
ask institutions which are like the FRRO
or foreigners tribunal or something to
see if their name is has been declared
as being a non-citizen the default mode
is that a person is a citizen unless
proven otherwise and that's getting lost
somewhere in this so I just and since
this is about people's movements I just
want to bring back to the four this idea
of non-ooperation you know this is
something that we thought about when the
uh UID Aadhaar was on and we said that
you know they come and tell you I won't
give you your you know you can't you
can't have your bank account unless you
go and link your you get a UID and you
link it up and all of us neatly go
people keep asking oh you still haven't
done it it's like there is a point at
which we stop being citizens and start
becoming subjects I think we need to
change that mindset. If there are going
to be people in our midst who are going
to be challenged in their citizenship
because either because they don't have
documents to establish it.
So So if you if they say that you have
to I'm sorry there's not there's no good
word for the ancestry doesn't quite fit
it. So,
so if they say that that's what you
have, many people don't have it. If they
and some people will get away without it
because they are not suspect, they are
not doubted. So, we know who will be
doubted. Now, if there are going to be
like damage could get well left out
because they will have very few
documents to show for anything at all.
So, what are we going to do? They've
never held property. They've been
battling for property for the longest
time and most of the other documents. I
mean the sir was fascinating because
what what does it mean if I've done my
metriculation and I have a metriculation
certificate from Bihar does it mean
anything at all I mean it perhaps and
it's not even a qualification to be a
voter so why are we even using this so
the the thing is that if there are going
to be so many people in our midst who
are not going to be able to establish
themselves sufficiently to be part of
this you know democratic system then
should we be cooperating ating with that
system. This is the country that
invented non-ooperation and we seem to
have forgotten what it means. We are
like okay we'll comply and then we'll
see if we can help other people comply
and compliance is actually not an
option. I don't know even in this room
how many people can produce all the
documents needed for citizenship. It's a
different thing. They may not ask us.
They may ask some of us but they may not
ask everybody. Depends on who they want
to exclude and who they want to be kept
in. So the first thing is the
impossibility of establishing
citizenship for many people. The second
thing is if many people can't do it,
should those who can just go ahead and
say okay let me save myself is that even
people's action and the third is can we
depend upon a court to do something like
this and I think we know now that it's
not just about courts being you know
judges being good bad corrupt not it's
not just that it's also to a great
extent judges for one thing they're
overwhelmed if they do 60 cases a day I
don't think they can apply their mind
sufficiently to anything at
And the second thing is I don't really
think they understand the polity. You
know the people who have moved away from
the common people. They have not been
among them. In that sense even persons
in politics if they get out among people
are a better bet and a safer bet than
people who are sitting in courts. So
either we take the responsibility of
informing them of educating them that
they understand this before we take any
issue to them or we don't depend on
them. The problem is that somebody will
go and then they will make whatever
decision they want. We have to find a
way of addressing this. It can't be that
we just you know there is no full stop
at the end of a judgment. Even the
courts have said that. They say first
they said review petition then they said
curative petition. So they've said you
know there was always the thing that the
Supreme Court is not fallible is not
final because it's infallible but
infallible because it's final. And in
India we've said no there is no
finality. We can, you know, you can if
two senior advocates say that there is a
good case for you, you can go back and
reopen a case that had been closed a
long time ago. I don't think that's a
bad thing. I think that's an
acknowledgement acknowledgement by the
system that it does not have the
wherewithal to be able to decide
correctly a lot of the time. And I think
we need to this is too serious.
Citizenship is too serious for us to
leave in the hands of an institution
like this unless we take the
responsibility of educating them in
which case we can take it to them. maybe
at some stage for certain reasons but
there is no full stop at the end of it
and I think we need to acknowledge that
the second thing is about impunity I
think there's a lot of impunity you know
in the late '90s when impunity be became
a word uh it came because of the
international criminal court and they
said you know there are states that
commit or people who take shelter from
states and then they commit uh very
egregious crimes crimes against humanity
genocide war crimes and it was to take
away you know that protection was called
impunity. We knew immunity.
We didn't know impunity. Now it is
common parliament. We all know that
impunity shields people from
accountability.
So if what we need to do is to tear down
impunity. The problem with this is that
when courts take a long time to make
decisions, you take the demonetization
case. I don't know why the court took
time with that because they should
actually have heard it immediately and
not taken any time at all but it's one
of the ways in which the court works
that it says you know issue notice call
people keep it after a month let's see
if it resolves itself that's a very
common thing and that's why I think we
heard this morning too about at the end
of a process a court saying you know
it's all over why are you raking it up
all over again this happens because
courts don't know how to deal with many
of these things they don't know whether
they should be saying demonetization is
bad or good but suppose actually
demonetization stops terrorism then
should we be saying no to it so the what
has happened in this in these about 25
30 years in the Supreme Court and in
many of the high courts I mean high
courts follow what Supreme Court uh does
too is that principle has been replaced
by pragmatism
so the principle is that everyone should
have liberty
pragmatism is that some people may need
to be put away. If the state feels that
some people should not be out and you
know that they'll break public order and
rule of law and all of that then maybe
the court should not come in to say that
you should let the state act. So we see
now for instance when the in the in the
context of uh ending nationalism the
number of people who are being shot in
encounters see well they're being shot I
don't know if they're encounters but
whatever they are being shot actually no
country would tolerate its people being
shot as a as a matter of state policy.
State policy is to eliminate nationalism
and in the process maybe eliminate
taxelites. Now if we say this today
they'll say oh you are urban nexus
you're sitting here and supporting them.
No we are actually holding the state to
account in in relation to the
constitution. The state does not have
the power of life and death over people.
They can help in producing life in
providing you know bettering life but
they have no power to kill us. The only
process which also many of us object to
is the death penalty. And the death
penalty really needs to go because we've
seen what the history of the death
penalty in this country has been.
So this uh the this is also why a court
will tolerate and be very um you know
soft on extraordinary laws. What does it
mean to have something that can be
called extraordinary laws? Why do
ordinary laws not suffice and what is
different between an extraordinary law
and an ordinary law? You find that even
something like the financial action task
force is sitting inside the UAPA today.
What does it even mean? What does it
tell us about our polity and what does
it tell us that we have not noticed?
We've not raised stink about it. So what
does it tell us about ourselves too?
I'll just stop with one more thing. I
mean there is a lot but I know that time
is short but I just have to say this one
thing that in the proceedings in the
Supreme Court that have been going on on
the SIR I mean I have worked on the UID
for a long time and so I cannot not say
this I was deeply disappointed to see
that we had gone to the court and the
court was saying why don't you also add
the Aadhaar put the other also in it
like it is why don't you add a little
bit of sugar to your coffee and
it was accepted
One reason that it was accepted it seems
and I've talked to some of the people
who are involved in the litigation and
one reason that they said we'll accept
it is because actually people don't have
everybody most people who don't have any
other document have an adar. So they
felt that okay at least this will help
them get on to the uh to the u database
to the voter database. But actually if
you think about it for a minute already
the election commission has said maybe
175 times that they will take the
Aadhaar but they need one more document
to supplement it that this by itself
will not be sufficient. So what have we
done? We have asked everybody to go and
give the UID number to the election
commission. Why did there is already a
case pending in court and this is the
other thing about the court rule. courts
have not only they don't have
institutional memory they don't even
know what is happening in other parts of
their own court you know their own court
premises there is a case that has been
filed by uh Sudbert Kare and he's
challenged there you know when the
election commission said that you must
attach your UID to the um to the voter
ID he challenged it saying this is very
dangerous for democracy why did he say
that he said because the moment you know
we were talking about people being able
to see things at the root level.
The UND today for the poor especially
and for those who are uh who depend on
state support it is linked with
everything every system in which they
are involved everything. Now you have
the voter ID also getting having it.
This is just one of the reasons he
gives. You have the voter ID also being
attached to the uh the UID also being
attached to the voter ID. In every vote
they'll be able to see who did you vote
for and to decide how you will punish
them. This is not in you know it's no
longer hypothetical. It's already
happened. I remember during the Kurangul
protests here it was a different
context. It was not the UID. Some of the
protesters took their voter ID card and
threw it into the district magistrate's
compound and then the district magazine
collected had it all collected and said
find out who these people if these
people have ration cards and we'll
cancel their ration cards. Why? Because
if they don't care about you know the
voter ID and election because people
were saying you're not listening to us
anyway. What is the point of this? It
was a symbolic protest. Now the
symbolism was lost on them. They took it
literally and said if you don't want
this then you are not entitled to your
rations either. We've seen in state
after state linking up the UID with
anything else endangers that system. So
we are basically saying that okay let's
put it on and we also know that the one
thing that they are shouting from the
rooftops and is that UID is not uh it's
not a statement of citizenship. So what
is it going to get people by putting
this you know linking these two up if
the people have to anyway give one more
you know one more identity go and
establish themselves again it's not
going to establish their citizenship
it's going to link all of this up and
make it make people even more vulnerable
than they were when they began what is
the point of this that we've suggested
and why does the court suggest this what
is the court thinking the UI is it
hasn't read its own judgment it doesn't
know what's happening in another court
it doesn't understand the system and
it's a very sweet and charming kind of
statement that's made by the why don't
you take this also and they say okay
we'll take that also but we will give
you nothing for it so just think about
what all this means I mean going to a
court is
unfortunately now in recent times uh
since not recent time more 40 years it's
it's not like my case will go to court
only when I go to court Today anybody
can take matters to court and so very
often people are doing it to preempt
other people from going to court. But I
think we need to do a lot of
preparations because judges themselves
are not prepared.