Branded as ‘infiltrators,’ Muslims in India’s Assam fear for future

Born in India 71 years ago, Mohammed Rehat Ali is still traumatized a month after his release from a detention camp. (AFP)
Updated 14 July 2019
Follow

Branded as ‘infiltrators,’ Muslims in India’s Assam fear for future

  • The push to render stateless people described as “infiltrators” by Modi’s right-hand man has been limited to the north-eastern state of Assam
  • The Hindu nationalist party wants to replicate it nationwide, alarming Muslims, who critics say are the real focus

KAMRUP: Born in India 71 years ago, Mohammed Rehat Ali is still traumatized a month after his release from a detention camp, struggling to shake off a fear for the future shared by millions — many of them Muslims — under Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The push to render stateless people described as “infiltrators” by Modi’s right-hand man has been limited to the north-eastern state of Assam, but his Hindu nationalist party wants to replicate it nationwide, alarming Muslims, who critics say are the real focus.
“I have never expected that I would have to prove my citizenship. I am an Indian citizen, we are born here in Assam and living here for generations,” Ali, an illiterate farmer, told AFP.
But when he was unable to produce the required documents, a “Foreigners’ Tribunal” declared him a Bangladeshi and sent him to a detention camp.
After three years, his sons secured his release by appealing to a higher court, but only after selling their land and cattle to raise legal fees.
He is one of the lucky ones.
Over four million others in the state of 33 million — where immigration has been a hot topic since British colonial rule — were left off a draft “National Register of Citizens” (NRC) last July.
They could not prove that they or their parents or grandparents were in Assam before 1971, when millions fled Bangladesh’s war of independence into India.
Those excluded have been able to appeal, but up to two million people could be left off a final list due at the end of this month, reports say.
Understanding the process and producing the necessary documents in a state where many are illiterate and lack even basic papers is a nightmare for many.
One case that for critics encapsulated the absurdity was Sona Ullah, a retired Indian army captain and a veteran of the 1999 Kargil conflict with Pakistan.
He was sent to a detention camp in May due to a mismatch in his papers. Police even seized his old uniform and he was only granted interim bail after an outcry.
Those who fail to make the cut have to go to one of around 100 “Foreigners Tribunals” currently in place. Another 200 are being set up.
These are a lottery however, campaigners say, and the staff often unqualified.
According to online magazine Scroll, Assam’s coalition government, which is led by Modi’s party, has removed tribunal members if their “performance” falls short.
“The atmosphere has become such that there is a competition to be, what members joke among themselves, the highest wicket-taker — the one who can declare the maximum number of people foreigners,” one former tribunal member told Scroll, using a cricketing analogy.
Most of those left off the draft NRC are Muslims, and critics of Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) say this reflects its aim to serve only its co-religionists.
In January the lower house of parliament passed legislation that will grant citizenship to people who moved to India from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan at least six years ago — but not if they are Muslim.
Home Minister Amit Shah has called for the ejection of “termites” and said before the BJP’s election victory in May that it would “run a countrywide campaign to send back the infiltrators.”
What will happen to those who don’t make the cut in Assam remains unclear, with some hard-liners calling for mass deportations, although Bangladesh has already said it will not take any in.
There are currently 938 people in six detention camps. Another with a capacity of 3,000 is set to be built, and the Assam government wants another nine, each for 1,000 people.
But even if people are not moved en masse to camps or ejected, becoming effectively stateless could make normal life — including access to health care or education — tough, raising anxiety levels.
According to the opposition, 44 people have killed themselves since the NRC process began. There are no official figures.
It is a fear that Ali knows well, even as he acknowledges his good fortune in securing a release from the camps.
“I have lost three long years of my life away from my family,” he said.


Trump insists he struck Iran on his own terms

Updated 04 March 2026
Follow

Trump insists he struck Iran on his own terms

  • “We are now a nation divided between those who want to fight wars for Israel and those who just want peace and to be able to afford their bills and health insurance,” Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X.
  • Rubio himself doubled down on Tuesday after meeting with US House and Senate members, while insisting that “No, I told you this had to happen anyway”

WASHINGTON, United States: President Donald Trump and his team scrambled Tuesday to reclaim the narrative on why he decided to attack Iran, after his top diplomat suggested the US struck only after learning of an imminent Israeli strike.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio alarmed Democrats — who say only Congress can declare war — as well as many of Trump’s MAGA supporters on Monday when he said: “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action.”
“We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio told reporters.
Administration officials quickly backpedalled, insisting Trump authorized the strikes because Tehran was not seriously negotiating an accord on limiting its nuclear ambitions, and the United States needed to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities.
“No, Marco Rubio Didn’t Claim That Israel Dragged Trump into War with Iran,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted Tuesday on X.
At an Oval Office meeting later with Germany’s chancellor, Trump went further, saying that “Based on the way the negotiation was going, I think they (Iran) were going to attack first. And I didn’t want that to happen.”
“So, if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

- Had to happen? -

Rubio himself doubled down on Tuesday after meeting with US House and Senate members, while insisting that “No, I told you this had to happen anyway.”
“The president made a decision. The decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide... behind this ability to conduct an attack.”
Critics seized on the muddied messaging to accuse Trump of precipitating the country into a war without a clear rationale, without informing Congress — and without a clear idea of how it might end.
They noted that just two weeks ago, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressed Trump again in Washington to take a hard line, in their seventh meeting since Trump’s return to power last year.
Some Republican allies rallied behind the president, with Senator Tom Cotton, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, insisting that “No one pushes or drags Donald Trump anywhere.”
“He acts in the vital national security interest of the United States,” Cotton told the “Fox & Friends” morning show.
But as crucial US midterm elections approach that could see Republicans lose their congressional majority, Trump risks shedding supporters who had welcomed his pledge to end foreign military interventions.
“We are now a nation divided between those who want to fight wars for Israel and those who just want peace and to be able to afford their bills and health insurance,” Marjorie Taylor Greene, a top former Trump ally and a major figure in the populist and isolationist hard right, posted on X.