'Operation Pushback': Sangh Parivar, State, Slums, and Surreptitious Bangladeshis in New Delhi Author(s): Sujata Ramachandran Source:

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 7 (Feb. 15-21, 2003), pp. 637-647 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4413218 . Accessed: 25/01/2011 03:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

Pushback' 'Operation
Sangh
and Surreptitious Parivar, State, Slums, in Delhi Bangladeshis New

Whenthe Sangh parivar made unsanctionedimnmigration growing numbers of poor by Bangladeshi Muslims their new political strategy, the lenient attitude of the ruling Congress governmenttowards the immigrantshardened with astonishing rapidity. Mid-1992 saw briskefforts made under OperationPushback to deport themfrom New Delhi. But the Congress government's easy capitulation to the parivar's rallying cry against unauthorised immigrationwould become a precursor to its final surrenderto the parivar's demolitionof the Babri masjidjust three months later.
SUJATARAMACHANDRAN

Introduction
he dramatic shift of Hindunationalist organisations; the Sangh fromthe margins centre to parivar, stageof Indiansocietyandpoliticsin the past decadeand a half has alreadybeen litaddressed a fertileandburgeoning by erature [Hansen 1999; Jaffrelot 1996; Ludden 1996;Lele 1995;Basuet al 1993]. promiDuringthisperiod,the heightened nence of these saffronforces of Hindu in chauvinism Indiaalsodrewappreciable towards seeminglyunfamilthe attention and iar,largelyunregulated, surreptitious population flows from neighbouring Bangladesh.That is, their xenophobic these undocudiscourses characterised mentedimmigrants, so muchor even not commonlyas 'aliens' or 'illegal immirepregrants',but ratheras 'infiltrators' sentinga visible threatto the long-term existence of an enfeebled Hindu-Indian nation [Ramachandran 1999; Navlakha 1997].1A substantial bodyof propaganda texts draftedby the parivar'sideologues or supporters outsidethe fold chillingly, solidly, and in great detail outlined the supposedmanifolddangersof 'infiltration' [Bharatiya Janata Party1994;Joshi B Rai 1992, 1993].The apparition 1994; of impoverished,illiterate and bigoted en MuslimBangladeshis migrating masse as a 'silent, invisible invasion' and 'demographic aggression'on Indiabeganto loomlarge[Joshi1994;B Rai 1992, 1993]. An arresting featureof this new developmentquiteclearlywas the ferventacof Indians, by ceptance, manyrespectable T

the anti-Muslimand highly prejudiced various parts of the country [see, for discourseszealously promotedby these example, Chakravarti al 1992; Datta et But even organisations. unfortunately, the et al 1990].Whilethe adroitcollusionby Indianstate,bureaucracy otherpoliti- the parivar's and ranksin these exclusionary cal partieswould not remainunaffected ritualscannotbe overlooked,'Operation It forlongbyitspervasive influence. would Pushback' exemplifieda hastyyet haphathereforenot be an exaggeration state zardattempt thelongdominant then to and by of thatin 1992,thesituation undocumented ruling Congress at salvaging its own in Bangladeshi immigrantsliving in this authority the face of the risingtide of Muslimones,beganto Hindunationalism. country, markedly Additionally, 'Operadeteriorate was manifestation speedily. It is significantto tionPushback' a vulgar note that many of these undocumented of those partisantendencies ordinarily immigrantshad been living in several camouflagedby the massive Indianbudifferent This remarkable narrative also partsof Indiafor manyyearsas reaucracy. de facto citizens. It was, however, no tells us of themoreorless willingcollaboremarkable coincidencethat the central ration between different agencies and overdue andprovincial rec- departments associatedwith centraland governments' flows into provincial of covert population in ognition governments New Delhiand at a time WestBengal. thiscountry materialised thesesocialevicexactly Ultimately, made'Infiltrators, tions signifieda less thanseriousattempt whentheSanghparivar QuitIndia'oneof their prominent political on the partof the Indianstate to engage and ideological slogans [Ray 1992; with'illegal'migratory flowsfromaneighHindustan,October 19, September29, bouringcountry.A final argument being is here is thatin addition polito 1992].My contention thatit is precisely submitted a the saffronsurgein Indiathatprovided tical upheaval withinthis country,activipowerful incentive to the Congress-led ties on the otherside of the border- in to to influenced the attempt tackle Bangladesh substantially government laggardly it head-on partly by expelling undocu- character duration these evictions. and of fromthecapital mented city Bangladeshis [Sonwalkar1992c].2 Indifference, Impotance, Intolerance Drawingon extensivemediacoverage and interviewsconductedin New Delhi, a textured and hitherto unattempted The appearance of undocumented of albeit in chronicle theseexclusionary highly Bangladeshiimmigrants New Delhi's in slumsor 'bastis'was definitelynota newrancorous exerciseshas been provided this article.The time line of these state- sprung occurrence. Evidence from gleaned activitiesagainstunauthorised various sources that small sponsored strongly suggests with a tumultu- numbers Bangladeshis of lived in several immigrants synchronises ous period in recent Indianhistory,in- bastis as early as the beginningyearsof riots in the 1970s[PaulandLin 1995;TheIndian scribedby large-scalecommunal

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003637

23 Express,September 1992].3 It is also acutely large numbers of Muslim truethatfor the most part,and for many BangladeshisenteringIndia throughits and increas- borders also Hindustan, 28, (see February theirpresence gradually years, continued be tolerated to numbers by 1989 and Ghosh Chowdhury1992). ing At first,theCongress theCongress backedpower-brokers government opted operissue, partly atingthrough manyslums. An early fea- to put aside this aggravating in with combined tureon undocumented immigrants this forthesakeof convenience the forthimmenseconstraints this corroborates consequential posed by point city [Dutt 1990]. While acknowledgingthat coming generalelections.A few months a the Foreigners' Regional Registration later,its inabilityto command majority Office (FRRO)had sponsoreda studyof of Lok Sabha seats in the countrywide in settlements thismetropolis elections and the formationafterthat of Bangladeshi as that asfarback 1988,themostlydisinterested a left andcentrecoalitiongovernment Janata machin- includedthe Bharatiya of demeanour the administrative Party,furwas theseimmigrants recorded: therpostponed official-leveldecision any erytowards settle- onirregular and raids from [Malik Singh Bangladeshis Apart occasional ontheir mentswhentheirshacksaredismantled, 1994]. Consequently, when more than a official actionis rarelyinitiated against yearhadexpiredafterBasu's initialmisthem.It is the FRROandspecialbranch sive to the prime minister,the National of the Delhi police thatmay sometimes Front that government publicly proclaimed to about problem. the decide dosomething it was going to take ster action against Then,a few peoplemightbe takeninto the undocumented Bangladeshis in West custodyfor a while...But,generally, May 13, 1990). Nopoliceleavethemalone(ibid,p 55, em- Bengal (Hindustan, articleexposingthis phasismine). tably,the newspaper of AnandPrakash, sub-inspector the anticipated a decision pointedout that the Kotwalipolice stationwas quotedin the Bharatiya JanataPartyhad been making same report:"We took about 30 people an identicaldemandfor a long time. The who did not have passports into custody. minister and deputy ministerfor home Twelve men were sentenced to four affairswere to visit Kolkatafor in-depth months' imprisonment" (ibid, p 57). consultations variousmethodsto curb on However, such decisive and draconian 'illegal' flows. It is believed that the action remainedfairly uncommonuntil decisionto issuephoto-identity documents in muchlater.Also strikingis thatmanyof to Indianresidents border districtswas interviewed given prominence.Attention was now theundocumented immigrants in for thisfeature January 1990 were"not directedtowardsstronger border controls bothered abouttheirstatusas foreigners. to block such migrations [Rakesh1990]. Their immediateconcern (at that point Ultimatelyhowever, it was an Indian led under was) survival" (ibid). government bytheCongress Party of Rao Nevertheless, media reports strongly theleadership Narasimha thatafter that indicated in government the measures circles,con- 1991instated harshest against cernoverundocumented was undocumented Bangladeshis immigrants. Highly trouviolence concomigrowing in the late 1980s, even among bled by uncontrolled interest groupswell knownfor supporting tantwith the Sangh-inspired Ramjanmathese immigrants.One illustrationwill bhumi his movement, regimealsosuffered be perhaps suitablehere.Morethanthree from the arduous task of eliminating took irregular years before the first expatriations Bangladeshis.It must be also was placeanda formalstrategy instituted, mentionedthat a good year or so would chief min- lapse before the Congress-RaogovernJyoti Basu, the long-standing isterof WestBengalandnowretired from ment finally launched their notorious the political scene, had sent a letter on 'ActionPlan'against DocuBangladeshis. to irregular migration thenprimeminister mentary evidence apprises us of the Rajiv Gandhi(Hindustan,February27, government's willingnessfinally to own, of 1989). Bengal has received substantial upto thegrowingpresence Bangladeshi numbers undocumented of Bangladeshis immigrants, it continuedto waverin yet in recentyears [Samaddar 1999]. In this its decisionto firmlyreinin theirnumbers. officialcommunication, appealed the As a case in point,consider statements he to the centralgovernment focus its attention madeby the home ministerat the end of to on the relentlessinflow of unauthorised 1991. Shankar Rao Chavanhadcandidly fromacrossthe border. was concededin parliament the exceedIt that immigrants alluded that the state governmenthad inglygenerous attitude amongprovinrife notified the centre several times of the cial-level authorities towards undocu-

mentedimmigrants mostlycontribuhad tedto thevastincrease foreignnationals in to Decemimmigrating India(Hindustan, ber3, 1991).Thedesperate circumstances inIndia totheseimmigrants, avowed, due he had prompted centralgovernment the to forthwithgrantprovincialbureaucracies thelegalauthority initiate stern to proceedings directedat them (ibid;see also National Herald, September30, 1992). a source Nevertheless,different seriously disputed the veracity of the minister's articulations, makingthe centre'slengthened vacillationeven moreconspicuous. A report in out published of Indore Madhya Pradesh advised arecently that issuedorder to all Indianprovincesto identifyforeign citizens living in theirareaswas proving to be a 'gigantic crisis'forthisgovernment 25, (NaiDuniya,January 1992).It proceeded to provide us with this rathervital insight: It is widelybelievedthatfollowingthese directives UttarPradesh the government had identified 10,000 Bangladeshis in different and locations arrested themfor allegedlyenteringthe countrywithout It that passports. is alsobroadly accepted fromthe despite repeatedly inviting input central on government how to deal with these 'uninvited siguests',a prolonged lence fromthis quarter forcedUttar had Pradesh eventually to release detain(the bonds ees)after had they furnished personal (ibid,translation mine). A finalarticle wouldlaycompletely bare the reasonsfor this extendedinactivityin prioryears,dubbedscathinglyby an editorial as the state's 'ostrich-likepolicy' (Hindustan Times, October 13, 1992). Curiously, it quoted an unidentifiable though obviously disgruntledindividual in circles: 'No highly-placed government one wanted rocktheboat.(Earlier) to there was a lot of buck-passing government by agencies.Besides,therewerevestedinterests - politicalpartieswantedto use them as a vote-bank' (IndianExpress,September23,1992;see alsoSeptember 1992). 28, I will returnto this questionof 'votebanks'a bit lateron. Suffice it to say, for the longest time, the Indiangovernment and many majorIndianpolitical parties remained about undocudeeplyambivalent mentedBangladeshiimmigrants. by But mid 1992a turning pointhadbeenreached when the heretoforelargelyostentatious albeitemptyshow of official dealingson unsanctionedimmigrationgave way to brusquedisplaysof coercion.In this detailedelaboration 'Operation of Pushback' andthe'ActionPlan'against Bangladeshis

638

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February 2003 15,

in discharged its premiermetropolis,of vitalimportance theburgeoning is encumbrance jingoisticsentiments, difficult of a burden hadtobeencountered that intensely oneventerms governments Indiaand in by Bangladesh's shrillandswift Bangladesh. backlashwill be examinedlater, but in secularstatethathad India,a moderately succumbed to sporadically ethnicandreligious tensionsin the past, here and now shedits thinveneerof neutralcompletely Rao'srulemarked high its ity. Narasimha a pointwhen the stateactivelyembraced softsensibility towards forcesof Hindu the chauvinism, characterisedapropos by editor as a 'disgracefuland Fronltline's surrenderto forcesof Hindu the highly risky communalism' [Ram 1993:9].The final indication thisdisturbing for eye-catching trendwas that the Indianstate now unofficiallyassignedthe unsavorylabelsof or almost 'illegal' immigrant 'infiltrator' to Muslim Bangladeshi exclusively immigrants.4 It must be reiterated here that highly alarmedby its considerablyweakened politicalposition,the Rao-Congress governmentsuddenlyswung into action by its launching 'ActionPlan' to curbclandestinemigration. Althougheffortswere in undertaken manypartsof the country, maximum exertionswereactuallyexpended against Bangladeshiimmigrantsin New Delhi. On initialscrutiny,the decision to concentrate this city may seem on and somewhat unusual. Our surprising is astonishment only compounded when we learn that even the questionable estimateson undocumented government Bangladeshis in this city, between 2,00,000-3,00,000migrantsin most accounts,is minisculecomparedto aggreIndia gatesforother placesinnorth-eastern closerto the Bangladesh border[Srinivas 1992]. Surelyan effective and certainly strategyto restrictunauthorised practical wouldhaveconverged, least at immigrants in thebeginning, geographical on areasin to proximity Bangladesh, namelyin provinces like Assam and West Bengal.5 Asasign,however, New favouring Delhi for 'Operation Pushback' mochmore was tactical. Thismetropolis thecapitalcity is of Indiaandmuchfinancial powerresides here. More importantly, is the seat of it centralised political powerwhilefunctionof ing as the headquarters the massive Indian administrative that machinery runs the country. theend though,it was the At forthcoming assemblyelectionsfor New Delhi held in January1993 that would

set dramatically the stage for the unre- hundredthousand Bangladeshis living strained towards unauthorised 'illegally'in border aggression provinceswas immiPrevious election results had nent(Patriot,September 1992b).The 29, Bangladeshis. threesteps alreadyindicatedthat severalprominent statehad recentlyestablished Congressleaders,who had exertedcon- to deal with unauthorisedimmigrants: siderable influencein the city in the past, detection,identification, and finally dewereexperiencing noticeable a declinein portation (ibid). Havingalreadydetected existed in authority.This trend was conspicuous locationswhere Bangladeshis moreover 'bastis'and'jhuggi-jhonpris' largenumbers, spokesperson in this indicated that these thatthecentral stategovernments and (slumsandsquatters) hadbacked were for politicians anextended period voting now vigorously involved in identifying by en massefor this party,knownsomewhat Bangladeshis theseIndian from areas (ibid). in as Accountsquotinghome ministry inforsardonically popular parlance its 'vote bank'[Tiwari1993; TheIndianExpress, mantsreported theNew Delhiadminthat istration set upa special'ActionPlan' had September10, 1992]. For our purposes, termdenotesthe to identify the undocumentedBanglathe exploitative systemof patronage operating deshis, and was workingout methodsto betweenhigh-ranking theiragents evict themby delegatingmorepowersto leaders, or powerbrokers within these marginal the police and foreigners' registration Since officers [Kaw 1992; Kumar1992;Raina spaces,andbastior slumresidents. encroach- 1992aand 1992b].Armedwith informamany slums are unauthorised ments public on lands, tion providedby selected NGOs (nonspaceorgovernment their permanence plus the occasional governmental organisations), intelligence additional of that dispensation basic benefits agenciesandlocalpolice,twelveareas to poorurbanites significantly are rooted were said to include sizeableconcentrain these power arrangements. other tions of undocumented Like BangladeshiimIndianresidents,Bangladeshis and the living in migrants fallingunder jurisdiction these bastishadalso enjoyedthe benefits of five police stations were identified of these meagre disbursements. had (National Herald, September 15, 1992; It also extraordinarily meant that most The Hindu,September11, 1992). From to Bangladeshishad receivedthe identical theselocalities,according thisproposal, treatment otherimpoverished as Indians. 2,000-2,500undocumented Bangladeshis A greatmajority themhadbeenissued weretobeevictedfromthecityeachmonth, of ration-cards obtaining for subsidised food includinga quotaof more than400 imrations under the government'spublic migrants be sent fromeach of the five to distribution scheme, given identification policestations 11, (TheHindu,September tokens for their individualjhuggis or 1992b).Transitcampswere correspondand their names had been re- ingly locatedwhereindividuals identified squatters, corded in the voting registers(Punjabi as Bangladeshi citizenswouldbe tempo1992). The erosion of Congresspower rarilyhousedbeforebeing transported to signalled that these informal though the border[Raina 1992b]. between party's this weightyarrangements Interestingly enough,all of the 'Banglapoliticiansand slum residentshad been deshi prone areas' recognised by the unsettled. And the unhappy outcomewas government reported and widely through and grave for many squatters especially the press were also insignificant and undocumented Muslim who marginalspaces occupied by the urban Bangladeshis, had to forfeit the supportthat had been poor (The Telegraph, October 11, 1993). previouslyextendedto them by Delhi- Many of them consisted of slum and level Congressleaders.It is preciselyat squatterclusters known as bastis and this precarious of juncturethat the 'Action jhuggi-jhonpris varyingsizes placedat Plan' and 'OperationPushback' com- the periphery upper,middleand lower of mencedin this city. middle-class mohallas neighbourhoods or insundry of Herald, parts thecity(National II September15, 1992a; Rangela 1992b). of 'Action Plan' Detection, The sheerinsignificance thesebastisis of exposed throughtheir descriptivelabelIdentification, Deportation ing. That is, they acquiredidentityand In September1992, shortlyafter 'Op- characterwholly in relationto the rich eration Pushback' began, an official mohallas they abut. Some slums were for of spokesperson the government India catalogued landprimarily through nearby confirmedthat the expulsionof several markslike police stationor monuments,

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003

639

and prominent land use features like 'shamshan ghat' (cremation ground), nala'(opensewers),'bara (big 'ganda pul' whichtheyweresituated nearoron bridge) and in manycases continueto exist even 'coloresettlement included today.Others in nies' for formersquatters the outlying and areasof thecity, including Seelampur in east Delhi. Seemapuri that The argument theseexertionswere directed of asmatter course Bengaliagainst practicingthe IsspeakingBangladeshis lamicreligionhas been previouslyestablished. In additionto religion, language and citizenship, the location of the spaces also exposes 'Bangladeshi-prone' the enormity the weak structural of posiat tion of these immigrants the bottomof the urban social scale, andits momentous role in these displacements.To put it differently,it is being held thatthe subexistence theseimmigrants of sistence-level in India made them effortless and readymade targetsof the Indianstateand resiSangh parivar.A non-Bangladeshi thecourse dentof asluminterviewed during of fieldworkpithily uncoveredthis link. 'Log garibi ko nahi, garibon ko hatana chahaten hain (People do not want to eliminatepoverty;they wantto eliminate the poor)', she remarked (interviewwith Sakeena,September11, 1998).6 Several years later, in the midst of a the ragingcontroversy surrounding extraof Bengali-speakordinary emancipation ing deporteesby a large mob in West ties Bengal,7theseintimate betweenclass and the xenophobiccharacterof these were delineated. deportations humorously In that, a cartoonby Unny carryingthe label'Businessas Usual' tongue-in-cheek rendered thesedurable connections trans(The parent Indian Express, 28, 1998). July In its image, the figure depicteda basti obviously not the abode of affluentand desirable Whileseveralpoor immigrants. folkwereseenattending to hospitably their in the background, solitarypolice a guest personnelspoke to his superioron his radio: scientist "A portable expelledbythe US is here, Sir. Says he grew up in this migrants'slum. Shall we deport him?" as so showed, Truly, thecartoon eloquently in these anti-immigrant operations,the viciousauthority exhibited thestateand by branded Sanghparivar only specific immigrants, categories shapedby thegreatly restrictedmaterialrealities faced on a regular basis by these undocumented immigrants. Tentativeforays were taken too into

Theseincluded policyreform. immigration the guidelinesto set up a new law that for would make it mandatory all private or public sector employersto reportthe hiringof foreigncitizens,even those recruitedon a casual and parttime basis. Even thoughsupposedlyworkedout, the neverformalised. In policywasultimately termsof format,the proposedlegislation Rewas very similarto the Immigration form and ControlAct (IRCA)passed in the US duringthe mid 1980s. Quitesimply, the numbersof undesirableimmiwereto beregulated grants simultaneously withinandattheborders, especiallyinside itsspatial territorial and domains. unlike But of IRCA,a mainfeature whichwas sanctions or penaltieson people who knowunauthorised workers, inglyhired employers wouldact underthis intended planas spies for the local police and administration by confirmingthe presenceof migrants [Mahler 1995]. P K Dave, then lieutenantgovernorfor New Delhi had disclosed in an article that owners of factories,businessesand headsof households would be askedto furnishdetailed information thepolice aboutthepeople to employed them.Thiswasto includethe by employees' native place, duration of (The employmentand theirphotographs Hindu,September 1992a).Finally,he 11, had advised city residentsto cooperate with the police in theirdrive to identify 'illegal' Bangladeshis(ibid). It is unclearwhy this strategywas not legalised. It is very likely that the real prospectof oppositionby otherpolitical to the parties theintended policydissuaded It is equally Congress-ledgovernment. that accretion of probable the continuous into the informalsectorof Bangladeshis this city's economy, together with the desirefor cheapimmigrant serunending vantsand casuallabourers well-to-do by urban dwellers,mayhavehadsome bearof ing. The unconventional organisation thisvastanddiffusive of segment theIndian economy does not lend itself, to begin with, to effortlessregulation the state. by The anticipation heightening of restraints on this highly nebulousset of economic practicesmay have been perceivedas an administrative nightmare the already by Delhi bureaucracy. beleaguered Inthefew weeksbeforethe 'action plan' was formallylaunched, electioncomthe mission gave a nation-widedirectiveto 'revise' electoralrolls to disenfranchise undocumented immigrants (National Herald, September 1992). Apparently 2,

the commission issued this order after receiving several complaintsabout the inclusion of many Bangladeshisin the voters'lists (ibid).Chiefelectoral officers of the states and union territories were askedto catalogueareaswith largenumbersof foreignnationals takestepsto and prevent their enrolment as voters Times,September 1992). 23, (Hindustan Ineffect,electoral wouldnot enumerators merelyreformvoterlists, but createnew sets of namesby beginningfroma 'clean slate'andabandoning previous all records Times,September 1992).A 2, (Hindustan of vitalpart thisregistration exercise would, naturally,involve inquiriesinto voters' citizenshipstatus, and local police and enumerators wouldcarryout the verifications.Extraspecialcare,it was suggested, would be takento enlist votersfrom the already identified bastis dominatedby Bangladeshiimmigrants. Thereis ampleevidencethatthe detection and apprel;, ision of undocumented took place in manypartsof Bangladeshis India(see,forexample, Sahara, Rashtriya 27, September 1992;Hindustan, September 27, 1992; TheHindu,September12, 1992). What remainedvague, however, was the documentary proof requiredin order to firmly and, without a doubt, establishIndiannationality. Homeministhat tryofficialsasserted whilethesecould be produced evidence,the simpleposas session of ration-cards for thatmatter or in old electoralrollswouldin registration itself not constituteas 'automatic Indian Times, (Hindustan citizenship' September 2, 1992). Up to this point, ration-cards issued throughthe government'spublic distributionsystem had served as the meansto establishdomicilestaprincipal tus by Indians,particularly those who by did not have the resources procure to any other documents.Documentslike passuntil were ports, veryrecently, meant largely forthosewhocouldafford travel to outside the country. Similarly,the system of issuing birth certificates remained has rather rudimentaryandspottyin India,operating largely in urban areas.Onlypersons,who holdor haveownedlandin theirnativeplace,can likewiseprovidedocuments suchas propertydeeds.Again,this maynot alwaysbe the case especiallyfor those who existed as landlesspeasants beforeshiftingto big cities. Withthe exceptionof ration-cards, jhuggi tokensand namesin voters' lists, the vast ranksof the urbanpoor in India have not been issued, and until the

640

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003

verification drives notdesperately did need, additional certification. in the absence So, of a standardised system for identifying thispersistent surroundIndians, ambiguity the citizenshipstatus,particularly in ing the case of the extremelylarge numbers of residentsof its numerousslums and resettlement colonies, wouldbeforelong haunt successive Indian governments. Indeed, even though mostly affecting poverty-stricken Muslim Indians and in Bangladeshis easilydispensable normal circumstances,several Indian governmentswould throughthe 1990s periodiattacks callyfacethescathing of verbal sting and open protestsagainstthese coerced repatriations. Itis intothismaelstrom activity, few of a weeksaftertheinitialevictions,thatunion homeminister B Chavan S presidedover thechief ministers' on specialconference fromBangladesh (The 'illegal' migration
Hindu, September 26, 1992; Tribune,

27, September 1992; Patriot,September 17, 1992). Ministers of nearly all the in to provinces close proximity theeastern in thiscrucialmeetboundary participated ing which resolvedto take 'firm action' (R againstunauthorised immigrants Rai
1992; National Herald, September 27,

1992). In his opening remarks,Chavan observed that massive immigrationby Bangladeshis, beginningin Assam, then affectingWest Bengal, Bihar,and other north-eastern statesand lately the capital had resulted in many social and city,
political upheavals (Hindustan Times,

29, September 1992). While confirming thataccurate on estimates 'illegal' migration were not available,the ministerunderscored this'problem' acquired that had severe dimensions(ibid;Aaj, September 29, 1992).'Whatever be the compelmay he ling motiveorcauseforthe migration,' flow is a matter of added,'thecontinuous serious concern for all of us' (Patriot, September 29, 1992; see also Indian Express,September 1992a). 23, M M Jacob,then ministerof state for home affairs,proposed establishment the of monitoring groupsthatwouldperiodically reviewthe activitiesundertaken by and bodiesto check provinces government
irregular migration (Hindustan Times,

of 29, September 1992).A number other wire barbed measures, regulatory including with Banglafencingalongthe boundary desh,andusingretailrationoutletsunder thepublicdistribution systemto keeptrack of fresh migrantarrivals,were similarly considered alsoSonwalkar 1992aand [see

1992b]. Finally, the chief ministersen- uponthough endeavour, highlypublicised dorseda schemefor issuingidentity cards a group 132persons, men,23 women of 87 to Indian citizens living in the border and 22 children, were identified as that districts, provided it wasimplemented Bangladeshi nationals and roughly froma largeresettlement throughapproved legislation(Hindustan removed colony andTheStatesman, in 29, 1992b). calledNew Seemapuri east Delhi (NaSeptember Yet, in a fate similarto the previousstrat- tional Herald, September 15, 1992). egy proposingcompulsoryreportingof Accostedby severalpolice officersfrom unauthorised immigrants employers, the Seemapuri police station, these by the government failed to execute it. unauthorised were to immigrants taken the Like 'Operation Push Back', the chief old Delhirailwaystation.Fifteenofficers, ministers'workshop the betrayed drastic including two females from the Delhi actions of a government increasingly Armed Police (DAP), escorted the confronted thesteady erosion itsown deportees the ninetyseatscoachin the of on by train their hours 36 legitimacy.An op-ed piece in Aaj pub- Sealdah Express during lishedfrom Varanasi to in (UttarPradesh) gently journey Sealdah WestBengal(Indian insinuatedthis notion: Oncethere, 10, Express, September 1992a). The (critical) aboveall hereis, after being handedover to an advanced question what need the desperate motivated central party being led by the Foreigners'ReOffice (FRRO),they to revealanxi- gional Registration government unexpectedly and answers theprob- were deliveredby two BorderSecurity to etyabout, pursue lem of Bangladeshi infiltration by Force (BSF) and armytrucksas well as the of organising meeting chiefministers Kolkata check policebustotheHaridaspur from West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, post beforebeing sent acrossthe border. Arunachal and Pradesh, Tripura Mizoram An official with the FRRO furtherexand representatives from Meghalaya, thiselaborate 'we procedure: have and on 27? plained Manipur Nagaland September informed Border the Force. Security After political of thepast already all, developments These chaps would be deportedby the forty-five yearshaveshownthattheConbacksystem'(ibid;see alsoTheTimes on gressparty's position theseinfiltrators push has beenundesirably fromthe very of India, September10, 1992). soft in 1992;translation Ratherastonishingly, the beginning (Srivastava, beginning the local administration anditalicsmine). vehementlydeniedthat'Operation Pushback' being was But anotherarticleboldly observed: coerceduponthe helplessimmigrants. In It is difficult avoidtheimpression to that interview thistime, at fact,in a newspaper thedecision summon special to a meeting inDelhiof chiefministers.. to Seemapuripolice station SHO (station .specifically house the officer)Rathiwhoaccompanied discusstheproblem illegalinfluxfrom of into this countryhas been deporteesto the railway station,openly Bangladesh influenced calculations a by having close avowed that the deporteeswere enthusion the politicsof Delhithanthe asticallyreadyto returnto theircountry bearing morerealapprehensions aboutthe long- (ibid;see also Hindustan Times,Septemof termimpact suchinfluxin areas the ber10, 1992).'Theyareherebecausethey in of (The neighborhood Bangladesh Hindu, wantto go, all of themarevolunteers,' he 26, September 1992). espoused(ibid;Asif, 1992a).But another unidentified officerfromthe samestation III letitslipthat policehadforcibly the rounded Pushback': 'Operation up people for three days and held them and underdetention deportation. for 'Thereis Aggrandisement no sectionunder Indian the PenalCodeto Aggression arrest suchindividuals. Theyaredetained It is plain thus far that the Indian underSection 3C of the Foreigners' Act inflated endeavours tackle andservedQuitIndia to government's Notices,'theofficial thequestion irregular of were admitted Bangladeshis (TheIndianExpress,September provingineffectivefrom the very begin- 10, 1992a). underning.Butanevenmoreantagonistic By the same token,all the unfortunate takingwouldbe the aggressivecampaign deportees ascertained the involuntary undocumented from nature 'Operation todeport of Pushback'. 'Ham Bangladeshis apni the capitalcity. Fittinglytermed'Opera- marzi se nahi ja rahen hain (We are not tion Pushback,' preliminary of evic- leaving of our own free will),' they afa set tions was carriedout in New Delhi on firmed To one (ibid). highlight case,Khalid, 9, September 1992. In this really forced a 'kabadiwala' (rag picker) being

Economic and Political Weekly

February 15, 2003

641

"I discharged candidly divulged: ambeing forcedto go. I am the only one from my family who is being sent away. My two kidsandwife arestill here"[Asif, 1992a]. Another deportee Shamsuddin added: Givenachance, (will)return... amgoing I I becauseI was unluckyto (to Bangladesh) beontheroad whenthepolicecamelooking IndianExpress,September (for us) (Thle that Khalid and 10, 1992a).It appeared Shamsuddin were not the only deportees to leave behindtheirimmediate families. Reportedly,more than three fourths of thosedismissedfromthiscountry had still close relativesin the samebasti.Manyof these detainees also claimed that they and possessedration-cards had exercised their votes in previouselections. The fundamental objective of 'OperationPushback' transparent, is, to was that deter new 'infiltrators'and intimidate was existingones. But whatwas arresting its repulsiveritualised These evicscript. tions, it is conceredly noted,were instiMohammed's gatedontheIslamic Prophet birthdayand, not surprisingly,a great majorityif not all of those who were deportedbelonged to the Muslim faith [Joshi1992].Andas if thesymbolicnature of theseexpatriations notalready were self the had evident, unfortunate deportees their headsshavenandtheirmeagre belongings burntin frontof them before being cast out of Indianterritory throughthe North 24 Parganas districtof West Bengal [A Chakrabarti 1992]. As mentionedin the AnandaBazarPatrikaof Kolkata,when asked why the few clothes, beddingand evenutensilsof thosebeingsentbackwere a beingdestroyed, BSF officerreportedly "So thatthey can tell people responded: therethatnothing be brought can back.We are even burning theirmoney"[Karlekar 1992, emphasismine]. Over and above, thisofficerinformed Patrikareporter, the the poor deportees would be soundly thrashed advanceof the final shove. in locationsin close proximGeographical to the actualborder,it seems, would ity sites for this unprovidethe appropriate necessarybrutality.Again, the message the permeating violenceof thisfinalpractice cannot be easily ignored. As the officerexplained, this unkind treatment would be carriedout in plain view of Bangladeshicitizens across the border, themfromentering activelydiscouraging Indiaat any futuredate(ibid;Chaudhuri, 1992). Ultimatelythough,the ceremonious tonsuring whilehumiliatingly degradthe of ing its victims,exemplified purging

Indiansoil from the insidiouseffects of wouldhavebeen forthcoming. [Afterall] infiltration the of through purification the no one wants to leave one's wife and unclean bodies of these Muslim immi- childrenbehindin a countryfromwhich of grants.The rawrejoinder the requiting one is beingexpelled(ibid)." CorrespondIndian state was being forcefully and ingly, an The Indian Express editorial written on the physical analyses the rathercrudely worked out metaphorically framesof its victims. methodof detectingBangladeshis (SepNotably and with remarkablehaste, tember 11, 1992): ...It is not difficultto imagine whatcan concernedauthorities took greatpainsto to who establishthat this first set of expulsions happen theirwives andchildren remain Thequestion here. arises, were why were not a fresh happening (The Indian theirfamilies,whosewhereabouts could Express, September10, 1992b). In fact, out not easilyhavebeenfound fromthem, they stoutly insisted that 'Operation sentbackas well?Theabsence a plauof Pushback' beganmorethana yearago on sible explanation only reinforce will the one September1, 1991 [Ahmed 1992]. That from on impression gathers reports the smallgroups undocumented of that immigrants deportation peoplehadbeenpicked had been deportedpreviouslyunderthis up at random. Whatemergesmeaningfully is that here schemewas similarlyunderscored (ibid). No wondermorethanone accountbased in spite of its prejudices, government on information furnished localauthori- agencies were not entirelyinsensitiveto by ties suggeststhatthey hadbanished more the few swift and sharpcriticismsof the than700 unauthorised of from highly suspectandruthlessnature this Bangladeshis this city in precedingmonths (see, for entire 'operation'.Thoughthe strongest 15, oppositionto this fatefulexercisewas yet example,NationalHerald,September someexamplesof theearly 1992; The Hindu, September11, 1992a to materialise, and 1992b).8 What is, however, unac- disapproval in especiallythose appearing countedfor and singularly exceptionalis the press are worthyof reference.First, underthis Nikhil Chakravartty's (1992a) vituperawhy those early deportations Pushthe omnipresent at- tion wrote:"As a partof Operation 'Operation' escaped a tention of the Indianpress (The Indian backorperhaps prelude it, thegovernto its im23, Express,September 1992b;TheTimes ment demonstrated irresponsible November3, 1992). After all, petuosityby forcibly deporting132 miof India, even the eminentlyconcealedand secre- grantswhose headswere tonsured the on of tive character the later evictions had birthday Prophet of Mohammed" also (see M received widespread,albeit not entirely 1992b). Journalist JAkbar (1992)mildly termed depilatories 'embarrassment.' the an in Indian unfavourable, coverage newspaAneditorial in pers and magazines. appearing a lesser-known the (NovemConsequently, notwithstanding cen- journalRadianceViewsWeekly tralgovernment Delhiadministration's ber 1-7, 1992, p 2) challengedthe underand broadcast their'operation' lying motivesof the centralgovernment: of widespread to combat irregularmigrationthrough Wealsofailto understand Operation why Pushback started (the)Prophet's was on regularpress channels,their vociferous Was birthday. thischoosing (sic) of (the) pronouncementsabout already having dateof torment...by localpolicedethe evicted substantialnumbersof Banglaliberate just accidental? it alsoaccior Is deshisandthattoo under sameexercise the dentalthat soon afterthe BJP passeda carriedan ominouslyunconvincingand resolutionto this effect at its Bhopal untruthful ring. Equivalently flimsy was the of meeting, deportation 'illegalimmithiscity policecommissioner's revelation grants,' most of whom happento be a dayaftertheevictionsthatthefirstgroup Muslimsstarted? of deportees not beenreturned, had Likewise, a rare newspapereditorial along with their families, because they were entirely opposing this 'inhumane and widely dispersedin variouspartsof the unjust'methodof deportation firmlyde1992].Theyhadnotaccom- clares that 'this is not the remedy'(Edicity [Karlekar paniedtheirrelatives,then the Commis- torial,Pioneer,October15, 1992).Others sionerM B Kaushalhad contended,be- would squarelydeem squeezingthe 132 causethedetainees' relations simplycould odd deporteesinto a small compartment, not be located (ibid). thattoo for a longjourney,as unfairand But as a hard-hitting excessive(Editorial, IndianExpress,Sepcommentary by Karlekar (1992) causticallydetails:"the tember 1992andSeptember 1992a). 11, 10, whereabouts theirfamiliescould have Conceivably,the most stronglyworded of beenfound from(thedeportees)... out .They critique, and already quoted from in Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003

642

FindandEvict' (see National also forsake them. It emerges that a would come from 'Operation previousparagraphs, of minc- Herald, November 3, 1992; The States- delegation unauthorised had Karlekar (1992).Without immigrants Hiranmay the intervention the of his words,he describedthis process man, September 1992a). 29, desperately sought ing of 'dispatching as Bangladeshi High Commission in the Bangladeshis' the 'wanIV et tonbrutality bares warts India's the on (that) capitalon theirbehalf [Vishwanathan al 1992]. But the official callouslydisreface' (ibid; see also Chibbar,1992 and Push-in': 'Operation frivolous Sengupta,1992). and Repudiation Retaliation gardedtheirpleafor helpon thehad been As withprinted a tirades, highlysurprispremisethat as many of them Asearlier sections haveshown, Indian registered votersin India, possessed the as and ing twistcamefromthe CPI-M(CommunistPartyof India-Marxist) ruledgovern- government to immediately had grapple its ration-cards, wouldnotbe considthey mentinWestBengal. Thisprovince albeitunintended, eredBangladeshi citizens.This, as a feaopenly withothertroublesome, with the actionsof consequences of these evictions, even tureso aptlyputit,"(was) goodassaying as expresseddispleasure the BorderSecurityForce (BSF) and the thoughthey were carriedout on a very we don't want you back"(ibid). central government by unexpectedly smallscale.Buttheworst yettofollow. was To make matters worse, successive a in have requestingthat future expatriations of Though meant to characterise robust governments Bangladesh embraced be of Bangladeshis conductedthroughbor- statefirmlyin command its geography, a similar convenient attitude towards derareas their outside province Pushback'had quite literally undocumented detained the on (Chaudhuri, 'Operation immigrants Thatis, 1992; Pioneer,October27, 1992). State concernedthe forceful driving back of suspicionof being Bangladeshis. informed Pioneerthat theseverysmallnumbers undocumented they have stronglydeniedthatthey were of intelligence agencies in a tensemeetingbetweenBSF officials, immigrantsinto Bangladesh.This was its citizens makingthem easily expendled by DGP T. Anantachari and chief largely because thisspecific on instance the able.Thereader onlyhasto recallKhaleda minister had failed to Zia andherseniorbureaucrats' vexatious Basu,the Minister severely neighbouring Jyoti government the force for sul- cooperate with its Indian counterpart. pronouncementstheprevious admonished astonished in paragraph. humanitarian at lyinghisgovernment's repu- Previously, immigrants apprehended the Yet, one of my respondents justifiedher tation by roughlytonsuringthe hapless border the BSF hadsimplybeendeliv- homegovernment's amnesia by advantageous Basunotonlydemanded deportees. proper ered to Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), its in a exceedinglygenerousmanner: fromthe BSF thatsuch inhu- equivalent (Hindustan Times, October 10, assurances Theyknowwe existhere(in New Delhi) maneincidentsnot be repeatedagain,he 1992). in largenumbers. theydon'tacknowBut his Sureenough,news storiesfromDhaka, because embarrasses it sharply protested being against province ledgeourpresence used as a principal conduit for these Bangladesh, that them.It shamesthemthattheyhavenot instantaneously betrayed beenableto takecareof theirown who officials had decided to expulsions (Times of India, October 23, its immigration arenowforced seeka homeelsewhere to whilea satisfied detainaround odd deportees from sent 35 thereafter, 1992).Shortly with Basuinformed that April15, 1998). newspersons the BSF New Delhi at the Benapoleimmigration (interview Rateeba, The persistence of hostility towards had agreedto comply with his requests, office (The Economic Times, October 15, Indian evictionsfurther BSFofficialsreportedly violatedtheterms criticised West 1992). the their IntheBangladeshi reachedbetweenBorder for undermining Star,Manzurul of an agreement Daily Bengalgovernment Rifles in efforts. Thisstategovernment, Karim, homesecretary, explained SecurityForcesandBangladesh then had painstaking theseanonymous inthis sources argued, appeared theirunexpectedactions puzzling way: the previousyear [Ahmed1992;see also far moreconcernedaboutthe welfareof 'Wearetrying verifywhotheyreally to are. Pioneer,August27, 1992]. Accordingly, had to non-citizenimmigrants instead of help- We are awaitingdetails. They must be Bangladesh consented takebackall constructive solutionsto Indian Bengalis" (Hindustan Times, Sep- those who were repatriated throughthe fully providing this really 'seriouscrisis' (ibid). tember15, 1992).The underlying reason- judicialprocess.As a quasi-judicial authoThechiefminister's itself muchas rity,Delhi's Foreigners' RegionalRegisinflexiblejudgment ing wouldquicklymanifest Pushback' that of 'Operation repu- the certitude a higherlevel authority trationOffice had been deemed as the singularly summons. diated his stand at an earlier interview hadissuedthe unusual By Foreign agencyto sendbacktheseimmigrants. wereto Mustafizur Rahman deportees spelledit out way of finalstipulation, duringwhich he had advisedthe BSF to Minister theirpatrolsalong the border by saying:"wewill notaccept(thedepor- be questionedjointly by both agencies, strengthen authorities established (Observer of Business and Politics, Octo- tees) unlessthe Indian provide andonce it was satisfactorily also documents theyareourcitizens" that ber 16, 1992).This latestdeportment (ibid; thattheywereits citizens,theywereto be into As appearedquite contraryto a resolution Abedin, 1992). Still, KhaledaZia, then accepted Bangladesh. withbelligin taken hisparty mid-Septem- Bangladesh'sprime minister,unmistak- erenceover 'Operation Indian Pushback', formerly by sourceslet it be knownthat her s ber when it had backedthe centralgov- ablyconfirmed country' controversial government with this starkproclamation: after initially acceptingsmall groupsof new ernment plan sponsored action tocheck demeanour sincetheyare deportees, Bangladesh had adamantly clandestine migration (The Statesman, 'Theyarenot ourheadache the 17,1992).LikeCPI-M, pro- not Bangladeshis' (The Economic Times, refusedto receive any moreimmigrants, September that couldnot be of tracted inconstancy manymajorIndian October 15, 1992; see also Tribune, claiming theircitizenship verified(ibid).The sameinformant, howpolitical parties towards unauthorised October10, 1992). that Justastheimmigrants' werenot would renderthe process ever,admitted its objections grinding poverty Bangladeshis After all, India and its outcomeeven more chaotic,par- madetheman easy casualtyof the Sangh wholly unsubstantiated. as cam- Parivar and the Indianstate's machina- had all but acceptedthese immigrants ticularlyin succeedingdeportation in would quasi-citizens issuingthemration-cards by paigns like 'OperationFlush Out' and tions,thegovernment Bangladesh

Economic and Political Weekly

February 15, 2003

643

and even conferring the privilege to in participate the nation's electoral process, rightsusuallyreservedfor citizens. Yet official repudiation workedpecuin unisonwithopenoutrageagainst liarly these deportations (see Dhar 1992; The Hindu, September22, 1992). Both the governmentand media in Bangladesh vociferously registered their protests againstthis, in their own words, 'brutal Habib andinhuman' 1992; episode[Chopra 1992c]. In a unanimousresolution,the Bangladeshi parliament strongly conbid demnedthe Indian deportation as 'yet another this which design'against country was "unilateral, and illegal, unfortunate, all laws"(TheStatesagainst international man, October20, 1992). Ten days later, the Bangladeshi government formally lodged a 'strongprotest'againstthe dewith the IndianHigh Commisportation sionerinBangladesh, [Habib KRaghunath 1992a, 1992b,HindustanTimesSeptember21, 1992].Intheobjection notehanded to theIndian HighCommissioner, Bangladesh complained thatIndiahad failed to provideany advancenotificationof the or deportation for that matter,the list of deportees (The Hindu, September 22, 1992). Threedays later,foreignminister Rahman deniedin theHousethat fervently numbers its citizens were living of large in India,declaringanew thathis country wouldnot recognisethe people identified as Bangladeshis theIndian government by (Editorial, Independent, November 4, 1992).Hewouldonlyadmitto a temporary of two-waycirculation personsacrossthe two countries' commonborder, continuing overseveral decades to 'religious,culdue tural historical and reasons' [Habib 1992c]. An irateBangladeshigovernmentand media re-labelled'OperationPushback' as 'Operation Push In', heavily accusing the Indiangovernment tryingto conof rid of its own rejectedcitivenientlyget zens (ibid).Meanwhile, equallyincensed by thisepisode,newspapers sponsored by fundamentalist Bangladeshigroups like Jamaat-e-Islami Muslim and Chhatra Aikya Parishad deemed asan'aggression it against the Muslimpopulation (ibid).'In an even moreunanticipated hostilereturn, Julmat Ali Khan, thenvice-president theruling of NationalParty(BNP) issued Bangladesh an aggressive statement,characterising the 'operation' as a vicious expulsion of Indian Muslims in a deliberatdbid to destabilise his country's democratic system(Pioneer,October12, 1992). verbalrebuttal 'Operato Bangladesh's

tion Pushback'indubitably demonstrates thatas theIndian nation beingswayed was by the surgeof communalhatredduring this period, in a somewhatcomparable fashion its neighbourwas undergoinga in forces steadygrowth thefundamentalist of theIslamicJamaat [Feldman 1999].For our purposes,the key and connecteddewerethatthehighlyxenophovelopments bic tenorof the SanghParivar Indian and state's weak capitulationto its grating demands sharplyintensifiedthe antihad Hinduand anti-Indian sentimentsin this All indications attestto the fact country. that KhaledaZia's government was enenormous internal to countering pressure hardenits attitudetowardsits dominant 1992b).The unwarneighbour (Jahangir ranteddisplayof crueltyand savageness towards the first deportees had only this strengthened opposition(The Indian Express,October21, 1992). The severe compulsionsimposed by extremist politicshadprovedoverwhelmbut ing in bothcountries, its consequences were far morestaggering India.Here for other cracks and discordantnotes were also beginning to manifest themselves. Plainlyput, the IndianState embodieda 'badly divided house', at least as far as Pushback was concerned,and Operation anotherfeud was developing,this time betweentwo differentministries[Ghosh 1992]. In the absence of a coordinated approach,it seems that the ministryof externalaffairswas prettysore over the poortiming of this 'operation', which after beganinauspiciously thisdepartment hadputin considerable effortsto improve relations. Indo-Bangla Onthecondition anonymity, senior of a that ministryofficial grumbled the home ministryhad initially not notified them about'Pushback', hadeven failed to and invite themto attendseveralinter-ministerialmeetingsassociatedwith this camran paign.His argument alongthefollowing lines: It begantheoperation without a building national consensus. The meetingof the sevenchiefministers heldthree was weeks after the operation started...Hadthe been pushback operation keptin abeyance for sometimewe couldhaveusedit as a lever in countering offenBangladesh's sive (ibid). Buthomeministry officialsin chargeof this 'operation'firmly stood by it: 'Our his Foreign Secretary during visittoDhaka lastJunehadconveyedIndia'stoughstand on infiltration'(ibid). Distinctly, and a

sentiment echoed elsewhere, the highbureaucrats the homeministry in ranking hadlaunched 'highlysensitiveandrisky a withoutany meaningful wideoperation' butreallyobligatory domestic and ranging diplomaticconsultations[Bose 1992].

V Bravado Contraction and

For a relativelyshortduration least, at the Congress-led centralgovernment remained undeterredby these mounting criticisms. The Delhi administration to of bravelyproceeded sendsmallgroups to Bangladeshis the bordereven afterthe firstbothersome of evictions[Jahangir set werecar1992a].But, thesedeportations riedout veryquietly,as authorities gradutheirdiscrimially desistedto broadcast natory endeavours through the press. to Fearingadditional opposition its shady modusoperandi, sourcesnow government insistedthatthe highlysensitivenature of this 'operation'did not really need the 'publicity blitzkrieg' it had previously received (HindustanTimes,October10, 1992a). Despite becomingincreasingly surrepPushback'would not titious, 'Operation command existenceoreven far prolonged reachingeffectiveness. Widely reported accounts sporadic of violencein slumslike and Pushtaobjecting Seemapuri Yamuna to these evictions became an infrequent for aggravation the troubled government andits bickering (The bureaucracy Indian Express,National Herald, Patriot, Pioneer,TheTimes oflndia,October 1992). 2, Hostile residents resisting deportations peltedstonesatthelocalpolicethatin turn resortedto violence (HindustanTimes, a 26, September 1992). Shamshad, local teashop owner explained the migrants' difficult position: 'we have been living here for twelve years and now suddenly the local police want us to leave' (The Statesman, 26, September 1992).Another for was majorirritant thegovernment that of the deportees wouldbeforelong many returnback to theirsquatters the vast in spacesof slumsin the Indian [Bansal city 1992, Ramachandran 1999, Rangela 1992a]. An unidentifiedsenior official for confirmed: responsible the 'operation' 'we areactually themwitha free providing holiday, even better than a travel-leave allowance. Mostof themstayinBangladesh for a couple of months and then come back' (The Statesman, September 20, 1992). Indeed, the ambitious plan to

644

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003

'pushback'unauthorisedBangladeshis, financial thattooataconsiderable expense was provingacutelyto be a 'half-baked one' (ibid). was Equally embarrassing thatKhaleda Zia'sgovernment Bangladesh, more in now than ever compelledto adopt a strong, demeanour belligerent againstan increasingly partial,soft Indian state, directed BangladeshRifles to block the entry of these deportees(Hindustan, October21, 21, 1992;Patriot,September 1992). The. a exceptionaloutcome in mid-October, mere monthand a half after the initial deportations began, was that some 150 personsexpelled by BSF were instantly driven by BDR back into India [Mitra 1992]. Manyof these were unauthorised who immigrants hadbeen sentfromNew Delhi in separate groups.Since BSF refused to let themset foot into India,and BDRvehemently that persevered theywere not Bangladeshi nationals, manyof these 'stateless persons' were seen squatting on defenselessly the zeroline betweenthe two territories Haridaspur North24 at in Parganasdistrictof West Bengal (ibid; Habib 1992a). Tensionalso rapidlybegan to build at this border,when as angry reactionsto OperationPushback,Bangladeshiciviliansnear border the hurled stones reportedly andotherobjectsatresidents theIndian on side (Pioneer, October 14, 1992; A. the Chakrabarti, 1992).Fora briefstretch, BorderSecurityForce (BSF) considered on carrying withthedeportations pushby into ing back undocumented immigrants Pakistan the westernborder (The through November6, 1992). But, unStatesman, to precedented opposition the deportation and campaign, theirharshmethods,now forcedBSF officials to admittheirblunder.A seniorBSFofficialprivately termed the tonsuring othercrueltiesinflicted and on the deportees a 'silly act', thathad as jeopardiseddiplomaticties between the two countries[A Chakrabarti 1992; see also Haq 1992]. Elsewhere,severalreliincludgious andvoluntary organisations ing AmnestyInternational steppedin on behalf of the undocumented immigrants (Asif, 1992b, 1992c, 1992d, 1992e; The Times of India, November6; National October Views 15,1992;Radiance Herald, October11-17, 1992).Influential Weekly, Delhi-level Congress leaders had also begun to push the governmentto end Pushback Radiance Operation (Editorial, Views Weekly,November22-28, 1992). of Havingbeenexposedto the realthreat

large-scaledeportations, scantyevidence mentswithinandbeyondthe geographies indicatesthatBangladeshi in of thiscity andnationwoulduncommonly immigrants New Delhi hadshiftedtheirsupport back confront this coarse exhibition of safto the Congress(TheStatesman, Novem- fronised Indianjingoism. In particular, ber 6, 1992). Prompted a selfish need Bangladesh's somewhat controversial by for their continuedloyalty throughthe stancequestioningthe citizenshipof the New Delhi assembly elec- deportees, successful and at approaching attempts blockto tions, Congresspoliticiansreadily con- ing their entry contributed the swift sented to mediate on the immigrants' demise of 'OperationPushback'. The behalf(ibid). deficiencies persistenceof documentary in Consequently, the wakeof mounting that confirm Indiancitizenshipposed a international and internalpressure,and furtherchallenge. and most Finally perhaps self-seekingintervention seniorCon- importantly,for these poverty-stricken by was immigrants, strategysignalleda new Pushback this gresspoliticians, Operation in as suspended earlyNovember, abruptly sobering phase of their already fragile as it hadbeeninaugurated [Ahmed1992]. existencein India.A detailedaccountof was realitiesis, however,yet to Thoughno officialcircular issuedto theirchanging theeffect,hardly cases of deportation be composed.1tl any were reported this month(TheStatesin see for man,November 13,1992; alsoJahangir, Address correspondence: 1992a). But sporadic deportations of sujataramhotmail.com wouldcontinuein the next Bangladeshis few years, for instance,through'OperaNotes tion Flush Out' organisedthe following [Thisarticleis partof a largerdoctoral-level research 12, year (TheIndianExpress,September project titled "Infiltrators, Quit India': Un1992). In these subsequentexpulsions, documentedBangladeshisand 'Thin' Hegemony the direct assistance theSanghParivar's of Hindu Nationalism'. A somewhat different of and function assumed version of this paper has been published in the workers, contentious slumlevel power-brokers, would be- November 2002 issue of the Singapore Journal by of Tropical Geography. For their comments, come gradually [Ramachandran criticisms,and apparent encouragement, deep gratitude my 2002a 2002b]. goes to JonathanCrush, Bob Stock, JayantLele,

Concluston
The SanghParivar's relentlessquestin the early90s for politicallegitimacyand or authority hegemonyso to speakhad,in the first instance,much to do with the suddenhyper-visibility undocumented of in Bangladeshis India.Crucially,several major Indian political parties, long recognisedfor theirunusuallargessetowardsthe immigrants, yieldedto its also severely xenophobic and anti-Muslim rhetoric. Prominent amongthese was the rulingandnowdissipated Congress party, that withgreat fanfare without much though an preparation, implemented 'actionplan' todetect,identify, deport and unauthorised Pushback,the Bangladeshis.Operation to accompanying strategy expeltheseweak and convenient scapegoats singled out Muslimimmigrants occupyingthe insignificantspaces of slums and squatters in India'scapitalcity. Randomly pickedup by the local police, the initial deportees were also savagelysubjected the coerto cive andcommunal of theIndian impulses state and its bureaucracy. Nonetheless,what surfacesclearly in this fluid narrative thatotherdevelopis

andAlistairWentworth. would also like to thank I an anonymous reviewer for suggestions.] 1 In this article, words like undocumented, and havebeenapplied unauthorised, clandestine to refer to 'illegal' Bangladeshi immigrants. 2 Thepersistent flow ofundocumentedimmigrants from Bangladesh into India continues to be a vexed issue. For many years, leading Indian political partiesadoptedan unusuallygenerous attitude towards these immigrants,who were allowed to remain in the country. Forceful has attemptsto expel these immigrants become a currentfeature,confined largely to big cities like New Delhi and Mumbai, in more recent in years.However,a politicalagitation Assam in the late 70s and early 80s centredon Bangladeshi immigrants and Bengali-speakers [see Hazarika, 2000, 1994 andWeiner 1993, 1985]. 3 There is a long history of cross-bordermovementsbetweenIndiaandBangladesh, including large-scale flows associated with the reorganisationof colonial economy in Bengal; partitionof the Indian subcontinentin 1947; and subsequent formation of Bangladesh in 1971 [for selective accounts, see Kudaisya, 1996; P Chakrabarti, 1990; and Indian Commission of Jurists, 1965]. 4 Akin to the Sangh parivar,the Indianstate has treatedHindumigrantsas 'refugees'or victims of the growing Islamic fundamentalism in Bangladesh [Buch 1993]. 5 The surreptitiousnature of these population movements poses numerous difficulties in estimatesof undocumented calculatingaccurate Bangladeshisin India. Governmentestimates,

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003

645

however, suggest that provinces close to the borderlike West Bengal and Assam have each received four million immigrants,while Bihar has some two million unauthorised Bangladeshis. 6 Undocumented Bangladeshiimmigrantsface a precarious existence in New Delhi. For the benefitof my participants, have been given they fictitiousnames,andlocationswhereinterviews were conducted concealed. 7 In this unusual though politically motivated episode thatoccurredin July 1998, a large mob liberated a small group of Bengali-speaking deportees sent from Mumbai at the Uluberia railwaystation in West Bengal. It was alleged BJP-ShivSena provincial thatthe Maharashtra government had branded Indian Bengali Muslims as 'illegal' Bangladeshi settlers and forcibly attemptedto evict them (see Hilndu, August 3 and July 26, 1998). 8 There is considerable inconsistency in the numbersof Bangladeshisdeported under this operation.In one accountciting figures issued Office by the Foreigners'RegionalRegistration (FRRO), it is suggested that nearly 3,000 untilearlyNovember weredeported immigrants 1992 [see Rangela 1992a]. Another report suggests that more than 5,000 Bangladeshis were deported, including 1700 immigrants were sent by the New Delhi administration [Ahmed 1992].

References
Aaj (1992): 'Bangladeshse GhuspaithRokne ki Karya Yojana', (A plan to halt infiltration from Bangladesh), September 29. Abedin, Joynal (1992): 'Dhaka Won't Accept 'Illegal Immigrants", Hindustan Times, September 15. Pushback Ahmed,Syed Zubair( 1992): 'Operation Grinds to Abrupt Halt' The Tinmes India, of November 3. Akbar,M J (1992): 'Footloose and BorderFree' Telegraph, October 25. Asif, A U (1992a): 'Bangladeshis' Deportation: a 'Quit India Operation' Radiance Views Weekly,September 20-26: 11-12. - (1992b): 'Janhit Raksha Parishad Press Conference: 'Stop Deporting Bangladeshis" Radiance Views Weekly, September 27October 3: 12. - (1992c): 'Memo to Home Minister on 'Bangladeshis'Deportation'Radiance Views Weekly,September 27-October 3: 10, 12. - (1992d): 'Bangladeshis' Fate Hanging in Balance' Radiance Views WeeklyOctober410: 12. - (1992e): 'Go Slow on Deportations: Delhi Police Chief Summonedby HC in ContemptCase' Radiance Views WeeklyOctober 11-17: 12. Bansal, L M (1992): 'Bangladeshi Ghuspaithiye JhansaDekarPunah Laute',(Bangladeshi Dilli infiltratorstrick authorities, return to New Delhi), Navbharat Times, September 18. Basu, Tapan,PradipDatta, Sumit Sarkar,Tanika Sarkar and Sambuddha Sen (1993): Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags: A Critique of the Hindu Right, Orient Longman, New Delhi. Bharatiya Janata Party (1994): Bharat Mein Videshiyonki Ghuspaith,(The Infiltrationof Foreignersin India), BharatiyaJanataParty, New Delhi. Bose, Ajoy (1992): 'On a Short Fuse' Pioneer, November 16.

BJP Betrays Buch, M N (1993): 'Illegal Entrants: a Communal Bias' Statesman, July 3. Ashis (1992): 'Illegal ImmigrationChakrabarti, III:WireFencingtheOnlySolution',Hindustan Times, November 25. Chaturvedi, D N (1992): 'Illegal Immigrants Galore', Tribune,January24. Nikhil (1992a): 'Neighbouringon Chakravartty, Inhospitality', Telegraph, October 19. - (1992b): 'Immigrants: a Human Problem', Tribune, October 8. Chaudhuri, Kalyan (1992): 'Influx Unbound: Problems on the Indo-BangladeshBorder', Frontline, November 6: 24-26. Prafulla(1990): TheMarginalMen: Chakrabarti, TheRefugeesand the LeftPolitical Syndrome, Lumiere Books, Kalyani, West Bengal. Chakravarti, Uma, PremChowdhry,PradipDatta, Zoya Hasan, Kumkum Sangari and Tanika Riots 1990-91: UnderSarkar(1992): 'Khurja standing the Conjuncture' Economic and Political Weekly, May 2, 951-965. Chibbar,Y P (1992): 'Savage TreatmentMeted Out to Bangladeshis', PUCL Bulletin, October4. Chopra, Nora (1992): 'Needed: Lots of Care', Pioneer, October 21. Datta, Pradip, Biswamoy Pati, Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkarand SambuddhaSen (1990): 'Understanding Communal Violence: Nizamuddin Riots', Economic and Political Weekly, November 2: 2517-26. Dhar, M K (1992): 'Feud Likely Over Bangla Migrants', Hindustan Times, September28. Economic Times(1992): 'DeportationIssue May Strain Indo-Bangla Relations', October 15. Dutt, Anuradha(1990):'In Search of a Haven', IllustratedWeekly lndia, January 21:54-57. of Feldman,Shelley (1999): 'FeministInterruptions: the Silence of East Bengal in the Story of Journal Interventions: International Partition', of Postcolonial Studies, 1 (2): 167-82. Ghosh, Manash (1992): 'OperationPushback:a Blow to Indo-Bangla Ties', Statesman, November 4. Ghosh, Chowdhury,Dilip (1992): 'Bangla InfilTheirProblem',Patriot,September24. trators, Habib, Haroon (1992a): 'Angry in Dhaka: Indignation over 'Operation Pushback" Frontline, November 6, 28. - (1992b): 'PushbackAngersDhaka', TheHindut, November 1. - (1992c): 'BangladeshParliamentVote against Deportation', The Hindu, October 23. Hansen,ThomasBlom (1999): TheSaffronWave: Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in India, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Issue May SourIndoHaq,E (1992): 'Deportation Bangla Ties', Independent,October 10. Hazarika, Sanjoy(2000): Ritesof Passage: Border Crossings,ImaginedHomelands,India's East and Bangladesh, Penguin, New Delhi. - (1994): Strangers of the Mist: Tales of War and Peace from India's Northeast, Penguin, New Delhi. Indian Commission of Jurists (1965): Recurrent Exodus of Minoritiesfrom East Pakistanand Disturbancesin India:A Reportto the Indian Commission of Jurists by Its Committeeof Enquiry,IndianCommission of Jurists,New Delhi. Hindustan (1989): 'Bangladesh se Ghuspaithki HalatVisfotak' (Infiltration from Bangladesh explosive), February27.

- (1989): 'Bangladeshse Ghuspaith'(Infiltration from Bangladesh), February28. - (1990): 'Ghuspaith Rokne ke Liye Kathor karyavahi Hogi' (Tough steps to prevent infiltration), May 13. - (1991): 'Pak, BangladeshiNagarikonke Bharat Mein Rahne par Chinta' (Concernexpressed over Pak, Bangladeshi citizens in India), December 3. -(1992a): 'BiharneGhuspaithiyon kaPataLagane ka KaamTez Kiya' (Biharspeeds up the task of identifying infiltrators),September 27. - (1992b): 'Hamari Chetavani Sahi Sidha Hui: BJP (Our warnings proved to be true: BJP), September 29. - (1992c): 'Bangladeshiyon ki Ghuspaith Rashtrahita Nahin:Advani' (Bangladeshi Mei infiltration is against national interests: Advani), October 19. - (1992d): 'Bangladeshiyon ki Vapasi ke Liye Begum Zia Doshi' (BegumZia responsiblefor the repatriation Bangladeshis),October21. of HindustanTimes(1992a): 'Planto DeportBangla Nationals', September 2. - (1992b): '132 Bangla Nationals Deported', September 10. - (1992c):'Dhaka Will Not Accept 'Illegal Immigrants", September 15. - (1992d): 'Indians May Be Issued I-Cards', September 23. - (1992e): 'Police Beat Up Jhuggi Dwellers', September 26. - (1992f): 'CMs for FirmSteps to CheckMigrants Influx' September29. - (1992g): 'DeportationIssue May Strain IndoBangla Relations', October 10. -(1992h): 'No LetUp inBangladeshi Deportation', October 10. -(1992i): 'MessagefromSeemapuri',October 13. - (1992j): 'No Headway in Indo-Bangla Ties', December 31. IndianExpress(1992a):'IllegalBangladeshis Form Vote-bank', September 10. -(1992b): 'Government Deports132Bangladeshis from Capital', September10. - (1992c): 'UncertainFuturefor Bangladeshis', September 12. - (1992d): 'Deporting Bangladeshis' (editorial) (1992): September 11. - (1992e): 'Bangla Refugees Seeking Homeland Here?', September 23. - (1992f): 'Government Agencies Face Uphill Task', September 23. - (1992g): 'Five Hurt as BangladeshiMigrants, Cops Clash', October 2. - (1992h): 'Khaleda Government Blamed for Deportationof Refugees', October21. Independent (editorial) (1992): 'Dhaka Takes Tough Stand', November 4. Jaffrelot, (1996): TheHinduNationalist Christophe Movementand Indian Politics, Viking, New Delhi. Jahangir,Rahman(1992a): 'IndianBid to Deport Refugees', Independent,November 19. - (1992b): 'Bangla Envoy to Meet Rao on DeportationIssue', Independent,October22. Joshi, Manoj (1992): 'PorousBorder',Frontline, November 6. Joshi, Shrikant(1994): Ghuspaith:Ek Nishabda Akramana (Infiltration:A Silent Invasion), Lokhit Prakashan,Lucknow. Kaw, Sanjay (1992): 'Panel on Bangladeshi InfiltratorsSet Up', Statesman, March 8. Karlekar, Hiranmay (1992): 'Dispatching Bangladeshis',IndianExpress,September19.

646

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003

Kudaisya,Gyanesh(1996): 'Divided Landscapes, Identities:East Bengal Refugees Fragmented and Their Rehabilitationin India, 1947-79', Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 17 (1), 24-40. Kumar, Umeshwar (1992): 'Sarkar ne BanglaKasi'(Government deshiyonke KhilaafKamar tightens its belt against Bangladeshis), Navbharat Tines, September 11. Lele, Jayant(1995): Hindutva:The Emergenceof the Right, EarthwormBooks, Chennai. Ludden,David(ed) (1996): ContestingtheNation: Religion, Community and the Politics of Democracy in India, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Mahler, Sarah (1995): American Dreaming: ImmigrantLife on the Margins, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Malik, Yogendraand V B Singh (1994): Hindu Nationalists in India, Vistaar, New Delhi. Mitra,Manojit(1992): '150 Refugees Sitting on Zero Line', Independent,October 12. NaiDuniya(1992): 'VideshiNagrikonkoPakadne ka NirdeshVikatSamasyaBana' (Instructions to nab foreign nationalsproves to be serious problem), January25. Navlakha,Gautam (1997): 'Bangladeshisin India: A Numbers Game' in T K Bose and R Manchanda (eds), States, Citizens and Outsiders: The Uprooted Peoples of South Asia, South Asia Forum for Human Rights, Kathmandu,p 353-359. Nayyar, Kuldip (1992): 'Tension Prevails in Bangladesh', Statesman, September 2. National Herald (1992a): 'Leave Out Foreign Nationals: EC', September2. (1992b): 'Plan to Deport 15,000 Illegal Bangladeshis', September 15. - (1992c): 'They Must Go Back' (editorial), September 15. - (1992d): 'Bangla Protest against Immigrants Deportation', September 21. - (1992e): 'ChavanHailedforCallingCMsMeet', September 27. - (1992f): 'CMs Okay I-cardsProposalto Check B'desh Infiltration',September 29. - (1992g): 'BanglaInfiltrators 'SeriousThreat", a September 30. - (1992h): 'Firing in East Delhi', October 2. - (1992i): 'Atrocitieson B'deshis:JanhitParishad Demands Probe', October 15. - (1992j): 'Influx Creating Problems: SJP', November3. Observer ofBusinessandPolitics(1992): 'Basu for October16. StrictVisa Act to StopInfiltration', Patriot (1992a): 'CMs Meet on Bangla Refugees Called', September 17. - (1992b): 'No Takers for Illegal Immigrants', September21. - (1992c): 'CMsOkayI-cardsto CheckMigrants', September29. - (1992d): 'Government. Close to Deporting B'deshi Infiltrators',September 29. - (1992e): 'Two Hurtin Delhi Clash', October2. Paul, Madan and Sharat Lin (1995): 'Social Insecurity,Vote-banksand Communalism:A Study of Bangladeshi Immigrantsin Delhi', Social Action, 45 (4), 468-478. Pioneer (1992): 'India, Dhaka to Jointly Tackle Illegal Immigration',August 27. - (1992): 'Bangla Refugees Clash with Police, 5 Hurt', October 2. - (1992): 'Tensionover Deportation',October14. - (1992): 'This is Not the Remedy' (editorial), October 15.

-(1992): 'BSF UnhappywithBengaloverInflux', October 27. Punjabi, R (1992): 'Bangla Refugees Are Once Again Nowhere People', Independent, November 12. Radiance Views Weekly (1992): 'Bangladeshis Infiltratorsor Refugees' (editorial), 27 (52), November 1-7, p 2. - (1992): 'Bangladeshis Ordeal Near End?' (editorial), November 22-28, p 2. - (1992): 'Delhi HC Asks Administration File to Detailed on 'B'Deshis' Deportation', November 22-28: 11. in Rai, Baljit(1992): MuslimFundamentalism the Indian Subcontinent, B S Publishers, Chandigarh. - (1993): Demographic Aggressionagainst India: Muslim Avalanche against Bangladesh, B S Publishers, Chandigarh. Rai, Rambahadur (1992): 'GhuspaithRokne ki Yojana Kagazi Zyada' (The plan to prevent infiltration more a paper plan), Jansatta, September 30. Raina, Jay (1992a): 'Infiltration from Assam Assumes Alarming Proportions',Hindustan Times, September3. - (1992b): 'Plan to Deport Bangla Nationals', Hindustan Times, September2. Khatareki Ghanti Rakesh, S (1990): 'Ghuspaith: the Baj Chuki Hai' (Infiltration: warningbell has rung), Navbharat Times, May 30. HinduCommunalism', Ram,N (1993): 'Appeasing Frontline, January 15, p 9. Ramachandran,Sujata (1999): 'Of Boundaries and Border Crossings: Undocumented Bangladeshi 'Infiltrators'and Hegemony of Hindu Nationalism in India', Interventions: International Journalof PostcolonialStudies, 1 (2), 235-253. - (2002a): "ThereareMany Bangladeshisin New Delhi, but...': MethodologicalRoutines and Fieldwork Anxieties', InternationalJournal of Population Geography, forthcoming. - (2002b): 'Re-moving Bangladeshis: Unin documentedImmigrants New Delhi andthe 'Risks of EverydayLives", Paperpresented at the CanadianAssociation of Geographers' Annual Meeting, Toronto, May. Rangela,Renu(1992a): 'BangladeshiImmigrants III: Bribing Their way to Safety', National Herald, November 4. - (1992b): 'InfluxContinuesUnabated',National Herald, November 3. Rashtriya Sahara (1992): 'Bangladeshi Ghuspaithiyonka PataLaganeke Kaammei Tezi' infiltrators (Thetaskof identifying Bangladeshi acquires speedy pace), September27. BJP's Infiltration, Ray, T (1992): 'A New Mantra: ElectoralPlank',Frontline,November6, p 32. Ranabir Samaddar, (1999): TheMarginalNation: TransborderMigrationfrom Bangladesh to West Bengal, Sage, New Delhi. Sarin,A (1992): 'CongmenWreckPlanto Deport 28. Bangladeshis',IndianExpress,September Sarkar (1992): 'Khurja Riots 1990-91: Understanding the Conjecture', Economic and Political Weekly,May 2, 951-965. Pushback: Bhabhani (1992): 'Operation Sengupta, Indo-BanglaTies Suffer', HindustanTimes, November 7. Sonwalkar,Prasun(1992a): 'ID Cardsto Check Illegal Migration', Times of India, November20. - (1992b): 'Visa Rules Tightened for Bangladeshis',Timesof India, September22.

(1992c): 'BJP Plans Yatra on Infiltration', Times of India, July 28, pp 1 and 5. Srinivas, M (1992): 'Capital Blues', Frontline, November 6, p 30. Srivastava, Laliteshwar (1992): 'Nasoor Banti Bangladeshiyon ki Ghuspaith Samasya' (The growing irritant that is the Bangladeshi infiltrators' problem), Aaj, September 28. Statesman (1992a): 'CPI(M)Asks Centerto Check Infiltration',September 17. - (1992b): 'GovernmentPlaying with Fantasy' September 20. - (1992c): 'Eerie Calm in Yamuna Pushta', September 26. - (1992d): 'CMs for I-cards to Check Bangla Influx', September 29. - (1992e): 'Checking Infiltrationa HardTask', September 29. - (1992f): 'Migrants' Issue in Bangla House', October 20. - (1992g): 'Operation Pushback Suspended', November 6. - (1992h): 'Bangladeshi Refugees: Fear of DeportationSubsides', November 13. - (1992i): 'Handling Infiltration' (editorial), December 2. Telegraph(1993): 'BJP Notice to 'Clear' Delhi Colony of Bangladeshis', October 11. TheHindu(1998a):'SenaGovernment Dilemma in over Deportations',July 26. - (1998b): 'Deportation Issue Unlikely to Disappear', August 6. -(1992a): 'Bangladeshis' Deportation Stepped Up', September 11. - (1992b): '2,000 Bangladeshis to be Deported Every Month', September 11. - (1992c): 'BSF to IdentifyIllegal Entrants from Bangladesh' September 12. - (1992d): 'Dhaka Protests Deportation', September 22. - (1992e): 'Six CMs Will Meet in Delhi', September 26. Timesof India(1992a): 'Two Home GuardsHurt in East Delhi Rioting', October 2. - (1992b): 'Basu,BSFDiscuss IllegalImmigrants' Issue', October 23. - (1992c): 'Operation PushbackGrindsto Abrupt Halt', November 3. - (1992d): 'Pause in Pushback' (editorial), November 6. Tribune (1992a): 'B'deshMigrants EnjoyPolitical Patronage', September 27. - (1992b): 'CMs Meet on InfiltrationToday', September 28. -(1992c): 'MrsZiaMustThinkAgain' (editorial), October 10. Tiwari, Vibhavasu (1992): 'Vote ki Rajniti aur Videshiyon ki Ghuspaith' (Politics of votebanks and infiltration by foreigners), Navbharat Times, January 18. Vishwanathan, Prema, Ananda Mazumdar, Malabika Bhattacharya, Samudra Gupta Singh, SanjeevShrivastava, Kashyap,Indrajit Yogesh Vajpeyi and Prafulla Marpakwar (1992): 'Nowhere to Go', Indian Express Sunday Magazine, September 20. Weiner, Myron (1993): 'Rejected Peoples and Unwanted Immigrants in South Asia' in Myron Weiner (ed), InternationalMigration and Security, Boulder, Westview Press, San Francisco and Colorado, pp 149-178. DevelopmentReview,9 (2), June,pp 279-292.

- (1985):'ThePolitical of Demography Assam's and Movement', Anti-Immigrant Population

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003

647