Congress, CPI(M) leaders in Bengal say ‘rising infiltrators’ narrative of BJP proved wrong after SIR draft list

The recent assertion by Congress and CPI(M) leaders in West Bengal, particularly Mohammad Salim's statement regarding the 'SIR draft list' disproving the BJP's narrative of 'rising infiltrators,' brings to the fore a deeply entrenched and politically charged debate surrounding citizenship, migration, and identity in India. This issue is particularly poignant in West Bengal, a state with a long history of cross-border migration.

The **background context** for this development is rooted in India's complex relationship with its borders and the vexed question of undocumented immigration, particularly from Bangladesh. Post-Partition in 1947, and more significantly after the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, West Bengal witnessed significant influxes of refugees and migrants. Over decades, the issue of 'infiltrators' – a term often used by the BJP to describe undocumented immigrants, primarily from Bangladesh – has become a major political talking point, especially in border states. The BJP's strong push for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, and a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC) is predicated on this narrative, aiming to identify and deport undocumented immigrants while providing a path to citizenship for persecuted non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before December 31, 2014. The political opposition, including Congress and CPI(M), has largely opposed the CAA and NRC, fearing it could disenfranchise genuine citizens, particularly Muslims, and create immense social upheaval.

**What happened** is that opposition leaders in West Bengal claimed that a draft list from a State Identification/Registration (SIR) process (the exact nature of 'SIR' is not detailed but implies a local or state-level identification effort, potentially a socio-economic survey or a precursor to a more comprehensive list) showed numbers that contradict the BJP's claims of widespread 'rising infiltrators.' Mohammad Salim of the CPI(M) further highlighted a critical concern: the potential omission of vulnerable groups such as tribal communities, women, rented accommodation holders, and street dwellers from such lists due to a lack of 'concrete documents.' This points to a fundamental flaw and a significant human rights concern in any documentation-based identification process.

**Key stakeholders** involved in this discourse are primarily the **political parties**: the ruling **Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)**, which advocates for a stringent approach to citizenship verification and views undocumented immigration as a threat to national security and demography; and the **Congress** and **CPI(M)**, who challenge the BJP's narrative, prioritize the protection of existing residents, and raise concerns about the human cost of exclusionary policies. Beyond political parties, **vulnerable communities** like tribal populations, women, and the urban poor are crucial stakeholders, as they are disproportionately affected by documentation requirements. Civil society organizations and human rights activists also play a significant role in advocating for these groups. The **general public** of West Bengal, comprising both long-term residents and those with recent migration histories, is directly impacted by these debates and potential policies.

**Why this matters for India** is multifaceted. Firstly, it touches upon the very definition of **Indian citizenship** and the processes of proving it, which are governed by the **Citizenship Act, 1955**, and its subsequent amendments, notably the **CAA, 2019**. The concerns raised by opposition leaders underscore the challenges of implementing large-scale identification drives in a country with diverse socio-economic strata and varying levels of access to official documentation. Secondly, it highlights the deep **political polarization** in India, where issues of national identity and immigration are often weaponized for electoral gains. Thirdly, the potential **exclusion of vulnerable groups** due to lack of documents raises serious human rights questions, potentially leading to statelessness and deprivation of fundamental rights guaranteed under **Article 14 (equality before law)** and **Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty)** of the Indian Constitution. This could strain the social fabric and lead to unrest. Moreover, it impacts **federal relations**, as states like West Bengal have often expressed reservations about implementing central policies like the NRC.

Historically, the issue of migration in West Bengal is intertwined with the **Partition of India in 1947** and the **Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971**. These events led to massive cross-border movements, creating a complex demographic reality. The porous India-Bangladesh border has further complicated efforts to distinguish between refugees, economic migrants, and 'infiltrators.' The Assam Accord of 1985 and the subsequent NRC exercise in Assam serve as a precedent, demonstrating both the political will to address this issue and the immense logistical and human challenges involved.

**Future implications** are significant. The political battle over citizenship and identification processes is likely to intensify, especially in states like West Bengal, which share borders with Bangladesh. If a nationwide NRC or similar identification drive is implemented, the concerns about documentation and exclusion of vulnerable populations will become even more pronounced. This could lead to a humanitarian crisis if large numbers of people are declared non-citizens. It also necessitates a robust and inclusive framework for identification that takes into account India's socio-economic realities and protects the rights of all residents. The outcome of these debates will not only shape India's internal demography and social harmony but also influence its foreign relations, particularly with Bangladesh, which has consistently denied the presence of its citizens as 'infiltrators' in India.

In essence, the Bengal leaders' statement, while political, throws light on the ongoing tension between national security concerns, identity politics, human rights, and the practical challenges of governance in a diverse democracy. It underscores the need for any identification process to be fair, transparent, and sensitive to the plight of the most vulnerable sections of society, aligning with the constitutional principles of justice and equality.