Migrant headache

Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma has escalated his campaign against immigrants from Bangladesh, frequently referring to them as “miyas” or illegal entrants. His latest move directs all illegal Bangladeshis to leave Assam within twenty four hours of receiving the notice. This directive stems from an ordinance framed under a newly approved Standard Operating Procedure (SoP), which empowers Deputy Commissioners to identify suspected illegal immigrants and issue expulsion orders directly. This marks a major departure from the previous system in which cases were referred to the quasi-judicial Foreigners Tribunals, a process often criticised for long delays and procedural confusion. Excessive delays have only deepened complications and weakened faith in a system that has long struggled to establish clear and reliable outcomes. While Assam has genuine immigrants who may have entered legally, the reality is that successive political dispensations-cutting across party lines-have facilitated the settlement of large numbers of both Muslim and Hindu migrants from Bangladesh for electoral benefit. Illegal immigration is not confined to any particular religious identity. Therefore, the directive to leave Assam, if implemented, must apply uniformly to all undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh, regardless of faith. Across the North East, concerns about sustained cross-border influx are shared. No state in the region supports uncontrolled migration, and the fear of long-term demographic shifts is neither exaggerated nor unfounded. However, regulatory action cannot be grounded in selective enforcement or executive authority that overrides due process. India is a constitutional democracy and such actions need a process of identification and verification and expulsion that acknowledges the rights of individuals while safeguarding the interests of citizens. Such a framework should have been established years ago. Any expulsion cannot be driven by suspicion but based on evidence as such sweeping measures alter lives overnight. A troubling aspect of the present campaign is the atmosphere it has created. Few political leaders or institutions appear willing to question the chief minister’s methods. Any criticism against such actions are often portrayed as sympathy for illegal immigration or, worse being pro-Bangladesh or pro-Pakistan. This narrative has stifled dissent and made it difficult for civil society, legal experts, and political parties to raise legitimate concerns about the legality and implications of these actions. At the same time, the rhetoric used in the campaign suggests attempts to create communal divide, reflecting the broader political strategy of polarisation to electorally benefit the ruling party. This stands at odds with India’s diplomatic and economic partnerships with several Muslim-majority nations and weakens the credibility of border-management efforts that ought to be neutral and rule-based. No country objects when undocumented migrants are deported through lawful procedures. International norms recognise the right of sovereign states to regulate borders and remove illegal entrants. The issue is not the principle of deportation but the fairness and constitutionality of the process. The North East has legitimate concerns about migrants entering and gradually dominating small trades and other economic activities besides demographic changes. These changes have caused anxiety and cannot be ignored. The long-term solution lies in a coordinated approach among all North Eastern states. All states should find a common, well-researched strategy that addresses illegal immigration without succumbing to vote-bank calculations. Policies must protect genuine citizens while ensuring that enforcement remains humane, transparent, and constitutionally sound. Only then can the region’s demographic stability be safeguarded without compromising the principles of justice and equality that form the bedrock of India’s democratic framework.