Printed'Operation Pushback'_ Sangh Parivar, State, Slums, And Surreptitious Bangladesh Is in New...

8/3/2019 Printed'Operation Pushback'_ Sangh Parivar, State, Slums, And Surreptitious Bangladesh Is in New Delhi

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/printedoperation-pushback-sangh-parivar-state-slums-and-surreptitious 1/12

'Operation Pushback': Sangh Parivar, State, Slums, and Surreptitious Bangladeshis in New DelhiAuthor(s): Sujata RamachandranSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 7 (Feb. 15-21, 2003), pp. 637-647Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable 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 [email protected].

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

Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4413218?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4413218?origin=JSTOR-pdf




'OperationPushback'

S a n g h P a r i v a r , S t a t e , S l u m s , a n d Surreptitious

Bangladeshisn N e w D e l h i

When the Sanghparivar made unsanctioned mnmigrationy growing numbersof poorBangladeshiMuslims their new political strategy, the lenient attitudeof the ruling Congress

government owards the immigrantshardenedwith astonishing rapidity.Mid-1992 sawbriskeffortsmade under OperationPushback to deport them rom New Delhi. But the

Congress government'seasy capitulationto the parivar's rallying cry against unauthorised

immigrationwould become a precursor to its final surrender to the parivar'sdemolitionof the Babri masjidjust three monthslater.

SUJATARAMACHANDRAN

Introduction

T he dramatic hiftof Hindunation-

alist organisations; the Sangh

parivar,rom hemarginsocentre

stageof Indian ocietyandpolitics n the

pastdecade anda half has alreadybeen

addressed y a fertileandburgeoningit-erature[Hansen 1999; Jaffrelot 1996;Ludden 996;Lele1995;Basuet al 1993].

Duringhisperiod, heheightened romi-nence of these saffron forces of Hinduchauvinismn Indiaalso drewappreciableattentionowards heseeminglyunfamil-

iar, argelyunregulated,ndsurreptitious

population flows from neighbouringBangladesh.That is, their xenophobicdiscourses characterisedhese undocu-

mentedmmigrants,otso muchoreven

commonlyas 'aliens' or 'illegal immi-

grants',butratheras 'infiltrators' epre-sentinga visible threat o the long-termexistence of an enfeebledHindu-Indiannation [Ramachandran999; Navlakha

1997].1A substantialodyofpropagandatexts drafted

bythe

parivar'sdeologuesor supportersutsidethe fold chillingly,solidly, and in greatdetail outlinedthe

supposedmanifolddangersof 'infiltra-tion' [BharatiyaanataParty1994;Joshi

1994;B Rai 1992, 1993].Theapparitionof impoverished, lliterate and bigotedMuslimBangladeshismigratingn masseas a 'silent,invisible invasion'and 'de-

mographic ggression'on Indiabegantoloom arge Joshi1994;B Rai1992,1993].

An arrestingeatureof this new devel-

opmentquiteclearlywas the ferventac-

ceptance, y manyrespectablendians, f

the anti-Muslimand highly prejudiceddiscourseszealouslypromotedby these

organisations. utunfortunately,ventheIndian tate,bureaucracyndotherpoliti-cal partieswouldnot remainunaffectedfor ongby tspervasivenfluence.twouldthereforenot be an exaggerationo statethatn1992, hesituationfundocumented

Bangladeshi immigrants iving in this

country,markedlyMuslimones,began odeteriorate peedily.It is significant onote that manyof these undocumented

immigrantshad been living in severaldifferentpartsof India ormanyyearsas

de facto citizens. It was, however, noremarkable oincidence hat the centralandprovincial overnments'verdue ec-

ognitionof covertpopulationlows intothiscountrymaterialisedxactlyat a time

when heSanghparivarmade Infiltrators,

Quit ndia'one of theirprominent oliticaland ideological slogans [Ray 1992;Hindustan,October 19, September29,

1992].Mycontentions that t is preciselythesaffron urge n India hatprovidedpowerfulincentive to the Congress-led

governmento

laggardly ttemptotackle

it head-onpartlyby expelling undocu-mentedBangladeshisrom hecapital ity[Sonwalkar1992c].2

Drawingon extensive mediacoverageandinterviews onductedn New Delhi,a textured and hitherto unattemptedchroniclef these xclusionarylbeit ighlyrancorous xerciseshas beenprovidednthis article.The time line of these state-

sponsored ctivitiesagainstunauthorised

immigrants ynchroniseswith a tumultu-ous periodin recentIndianhistory, n-scribedby large-scale ommunal iotsin

various parts of the country [see, for

example,Chakravartit al 1992; Dattaet al 1990].While the adroit ollusionbythe parivar's anks n theseexclusionaryritualscannotbe overlooked, OperationPushback'xemplified hastyyethapha-zard ttempt ythe ongdominant nd hen

ruling Congress at salvaging its own

authorityn the face of the risingtideofHindunationalism.Additionally, Opera-tionPushback'was avulgarmanifestationof those partisan endenciesordinarilycamouflagedby the massiveIndianbu-

reaucracy. hisremarkable arrative lso

tells usof themoreor esswillingcollabo-ration between different agencies and

departmentsssociatedwith centraland

provincial overnmentsn New Delhiand

WestBengal.Ultimately,hese ocialevic-tionssignifieda less thanseriousattempton the partof the Indian tate to engagewith illegal'migratorylows romaneigh-bouring ountry.A finalargument eingsubmitted ere s that n addition o poli-ticalupheavalwithin hiscountry, ctivi-ties on the other side of the border in

Bangladesh substantiallynfluenced he

characterndduration f theseevictions.

Indifference, Impotance,Intolerance

The appearance of undocumented

Bangladeshi mmigrantsn New Delhi'sslumsor 'bastis'wasdefinitelynotanew-

sprungccurrence. vidence leanedromvariousourcestrongly uggestshat mallnumbers f Bangladeshisivedin severalbastis as earlyas the beginningyearsofthe 1970s[PaulandLin1995;TheIndian

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003637



Express,September 3 1992].3It is also

true hatfor the mostpart,and for many

years,heirpresencendgraduallyncreas-

ingnumbers ontinued o be tolerated ytheCongressbackedpower-brokersper-ating throughmanyslums.An earlyfea-tureon undocumentedmmigrantsn this

citycorroborateshisconsequential oint[Dutt 1990]. While acknowledginghat

the Foreigners' Regional RegistrationOffice(FRRO)hadsponsoreda studyof

Bangladeshiettlementsn thismetropolisas arback s1988, hemostlydisinterested

demeanourf the administrative achin-

ery owardshesemmigrantsasrecorded:

Apartrom ccasionalaids ntheir ettle-mentswhen heir hacksaredismantled,official action s rarely nitiated gainstthem. t is the FRROandspecialbranchof theDelhipolicethatmaysometimesdecideodosomethingbout heproblem.Then,a few peoplemightbe taken nto

custodyor a while...But,generally,he

police eave themalone ibid,p 55, em-phasismine).AnandPrakash, sub-inspectorf the

Kotwalipolice stationwas quoted n thesame report:"We took about30 peoplewho did not havepassportsntocustody.Twelve men were sentenced to fourmonths' imprisonment"(ibid, p 57).However,such decisive and draconianaction remained airly uncommonuntilmuch ater.Also strikings thatmanyof

theundocumentedmmigrantsnterviewedfor thisfeature nJanuary 990were "not

bothered bout heirstatusas foreigners.Their immediateconcern(at that pointwas) survival"ibid).

Nevertheless,media reports stronglyindicatedhat ngovernmentircles,con-cernoverundocumentedangladeshis as

growingin the late 1980s, even amonginterest roupswell known orsupportingthese immigrants.One illustrationwill

perhaps e suitablehere.Morethan hree

years beforethe first expatriationsook

placeanda formal trategywasinstituted,

JyotiBasu,the long-standing hief min-

isterofWestBengalandnow retiredromthe politicalscene, had sent a letter on

irregularmigrationo thenprimeminister

Rajiv Gandhi(Hindustan,February27,1989). Bengal has received substantialnumbers f undocumented angladeshisin recentyears[Samaddar 999].In thisofficialcommunication,eappealedo thecentralgovernmento focus its attentionon the relentless nflow of unauthorised

immigrantsromacross he border. t wasalluded that the state governmenthadnotified the centre several times of the

acutely large numbers of Muslim

Bangladeshis nteringIndiathrough tsbordersseealsoHindustan, ebruary8,1989 andGhoshChowdhury 992).

Atfirst, heCongress overnment ptedto putasidethisaggravatingssue,partlyfor hesakeof convenience ombinedwithimmenseconstraints osed by the forth-

coming generalelections.A few months

later, ts inability o command majorityof Lok Sabha seats in the countrywideelections andthe formation fter that ofa left andcentre oalitiongovernmenthatincluded he Bharatiya anataParty, ur-therpostponed nyofficial-leveldecisionon rregular angladeshisMalik ndSingh1994]. Consequently,when more thana

yearhadexpiredafterBasu's initialmis-sive to the primeminister, he NationalFront overnment ublicly roclaimedhatit was going to takester actionagainstundocumentedBangladeshis in West

Bengal(Hindustan,May 13, 1990).No-tably, henewspaperrticleexposing his

anticipated ecisionpointedout thatthe

Bharatiya anataPartyhad beenmakingan identicaldemand ora longtime.Theminister and deputyministerfor homeaffairswere to visit Kolkata or in-depthconsultations n variousmethods o curb

'illegal' flows. It is believed that thedecision o ssuephoto-identityocumentsto Indian esidents n borderdistrictswas

given prominence.Attentionwas nowdirected owards tronger order ontrols

to blocksuchmigrationsRakesh1990].Ultimatelyhowever,it was an Indian

governmentedby heCongress arty nderthe eadershipf Narasimha aothatafter1991 nstatedheharshestmeasuresgainstundocumentedmmigrants.Highlytrou-bled by uncontrolled iolenceconcomi-tant withthe Sangh-inspired amjanma-bhumimovement, isregimealsosufferedfrom the arduous task of eliminatingirregularBangladeshis.It must be alsomentioned hata good yearor so would

lapse before the Congress-Rao overn-

ment finally launchedtheir notorious'ActionPlan'againstBangladeshis. ocu-

mentary evidence apprises us of the

government'swillingness inallyto own,

upto thegrowingpresence fBangladeshiimmigrants, et it continued o waver nitsdecision ofirmly ein ntheirnumbers.As acase npoint,considerhestatementsmadeby thehomeministerat theend of1991.ShankarRaoChavanhadcandidlyconceded n parliamenthat the exceed-inglygenerous ttitude ifeamongprovin-cial-level authorities towards undocu-

mented mmigrants admostlycontribu-ted o thevast ncrease nforeignnationals

immigratingoIndia Hindustan,Decem-ber3, 1991).ThedesperateircumstancesinIndia ue othesemmigrants,eavowed,hadpromptedhe centralgovernmentoforthwithgrantprovincialbureaucraciesthe egalauthorityoinitiate ternproceed-ings directedat them(ibid;see also Na-

tionalHerald,September 0, 1992).Nevertheless,differentource eriously

disputedthe veracityof the minister's

articulations,making hecentre's ength-enedvacillation ven moreconspicuous.Areport ublishedutofIndorenMadhyaPradesh dvised hat recentlyssuedorderto all Indianprovinceso identify oreigncitizenslivingin theirareaswas provingto bea 'gigantic risis' or hisgovernment(NaiDuniya,January5, 1992). tprocee-ded to provideus with this rathervital

insight:

Itis widelybelieved hat ollowinghesedirectivesheUttarPradesh overnmenthad identified10,000 Bangladeshisndifferentocations ndarrestedhem or

allegedlyentering he countrywithoutpassports.t is alsobroadly cceptedhat

despite epeatedlynviting nputrom hecentral overnmentn how to deal withthese'uninviteduests',a prolongedi-lence from hisquarter adforcedUttarPradeshoeventuallyeleasethedetain-ees)afterheyhadurnishedersonalonds(ibid,translation ine).

Afinalarticlewould aycompletely are

the reasons or thisextendednactivitynprioryears,dubbed cathinglyby anedi-torial as the state's 'ostrich-likepolicy'(HindustanTimes, October 13, 1992).

Curiously, it quoted an unidentifiable

thoughobviouslydisgruntledndividual

highly-placedn governmentircles: Noonewanted orock heboat. Earlier)herewas a lot of buck-passing y governmentagencies.Besides, herewerevested nter-ests- politicalpartieswanted o use themas a vote-bank'IndianExpress,Septem-ber23,1992; ee alsoSeptember8,1992).

I will return o this questionof 'vote-banks'a bit lateron. Suffice it to say,forthe longesttime, the Indiangovernmentand manymajorIndianpoliticalpartiesremainedeeplyambivalentbout ndocu-mentedBangladeshimmigrants.Butbymid1992aturning ointhadbeenreachedwhen the heretoforeargelyostentatiousalbeitemptyshowof officialdealingsonunsanctionedmmigrationgave way tobrusquedisplaysof coercion.In this de-tailed laboration f 'Operationushback'and he ActionPlan'againstBangladeshis

638 EconomicandPoliticalWeekly February 5, 2003



dischargedn its premiermetropolis,ofvital mportances theburgeoningncum-brance fjingoisticsentiments, difficultburdenhathad obeencounteredntenselyoneven ermsby governmentsnIndia nd

Bangladesh. angladesh'shrillandswiftbacklashwill be examined ater,but in

India,a moderatelyecular tatethathadsuccumbedporadicallyo ethnicandreli-

gioustensions n the past,hereand nowcompletelyhed tsthinveneerof neutral-

ity.Narasimha ao'srulemarkedtshighpointwhen thestateactivelyembracedsoftsensibilityowardshe orcesof Hindu

chauvinism,characterisedapropos byFronltline'sditor as a 'disgracefuland

highly iskyurrendertohe orces f Hinducommunalism'Ram 1993:9].The final

eye-catchingndicationorthisdisturbingtrendwas thatthe Indianstate now un-

officiallyassigned heunsavoryabelsof

'illegal'immigrantr 'infiltrator' lmost

exclusively to Muslim Bangladeshiimmigrants.4

It mustbe reiterated ere thathighlyalarmedby its considerablyweakened

politicalposition, heRao-Congress ov-ernment uddenlyswunginto actionbylaunchingts 'ActionPlan'to curbclan-destinemigration.Althougheffortswereundertakenn manypartsof thecountry,maximumxertionswereactually xpen-ded againstBangladeshi mmigrantsnNew Delhi. On initialscrutiny, hedeci-siontoconcentrate n thiscity mayseem

surprisingand somewhatunusual. Ourastonishments only compoundedwhenwe learn that even the questionablegovernmentstimateson undocumented

Bangladeshis in this city, between

2,00,000-3,00,000migrants n most ac-

counts, s minisculecomparedo aggre-gates orotherplaces nnorth-easternndiacloserto theBangladesh order Srinivas

1992]. Surelyan effective andcertainlypractical trategy o restrictunauthorised

immigrants ouldhaveconverged, t eastinthebeginning, ngeographicalreas n

proximityoBangladesh, amely nprov-inces like AssamandWest Bengal.5

Asasign,however,avouring ewDelhifor'Operation ushback'wasmochmoretactical.Thismetropoliss thecapital ityof Indiaandmuch inancialpowerresideshere. Moreimportantly,t is the seat ofcentralisedoliticalpowerwhile unction-

ing as the headquartersf the massiveIndian dministrative achineryhatrunsthecountry.Attheendthough, t wasthe

forthcoming ssemblyelectionsfor NewDelhi held in January1993 that would

dramaticallyet the stage for the unre-strained ggressionowardsunauthorised

Bangladeshis.reviouslection esults ad

already ndicated hatseveralprominentCongress eaders,who hadexertedcon-siderablenfluence n thecityin thepast,wereexperiencing noticeabledecline n

authority.This trend was conspicuousmoreovern 'bastis'and jhuggi-jhonpris'

(slumsand quatters)hathadbackedhesepoliticiansoranextended eriod yvotingen masse orthisparty,known omewhat

sardonicallynpopular arlances ts'votebank'[Tiwari1993;TheIndianExpress,September10, 1992].

For ourpurposes,he termdenotes he

exploitative ystemofpatronageperatingbetweenhigh-rankingeaders,heiragentsor powerbrokerswithin these marginalspaces,andbastior slumresidents. ince

manyslums are unauthorisedncroach-ments npublic paceorgovernmentands,

their permanenceplus the occasionaladditionaldispensation f basicbenefitsto poorurbanites resignificantly ootedin thesepowerarrangements.ikeotherIndianresidents,Bangladeshisiving inthesebastishadalsoenjoyed hebenefitsof these meagredisbursements. t hadalso extraordinarilymeant that most

Bangladeshishad receivedthe identicaltreatment s other mpoverishedndians.A greatmajority f themhadbeen ssuedration-cardsorobtainingubsidised oodrations under the government'spublic

distributioncheme,given identificationtokens for their individual huggis or

squatters, nd theirnameshadbeen re-corded in the voting registers(Punjabi1992). The erosionof Congress powersignalled that these informal thoughweighty rrangementsetween hisparty'spoliticiansand slum residentshad beenunsettled.And theunhappy utcomewas

gravefor manysquatters ndespeciallyundocumented uslimBangladeshis, hohad to forfeit the support hat had been

previouslyextendedto them by Delhi-

level Congress eaders.It is preciselyatthis precariousuncture hatthe 'ActionPlan' and 'OperationPushback'com-menced n this city.

II'ActionPlan' f Detection,Identification,eportation

In September1992, shortlyafter'Op-eration Pushback' began, an official

spokespersonorthegovernmentf Indiaconfirmed hat the expulsionof several

hundredthousandBangladeshisliving'illegally' n borderprovinceswas immi-nent(Patriot,September9, 1992b).Thestatehadrecentlyestablishedhreestepsto deal with unauthorisedmmigrants:detection, dentification, ndfinally de-

portationibid).HavingalreadydetectedlocationswhereBangladeshis xistedin

largenumbers,his pokespersonndicated

that hecentral nd tategovernments erenow vigorouslyinvolved in identifyingBangladeshisrom hese ndianreasibid).

Accountsquotinghomeministrynfor-mants eportedhat heNewDelhiadmin-istration adsetupaspecial ActionPlan'to identify the undocumentedBangla-deshis,andwas workingout methods oevictthemby delegatingmorepowers othe police and foreigners'registrationofficers[Kaw 1992;Kumar1992;Raina1992aand1992b].Armedwithinforma-tion providedby selected NGOs (non-

governmentalrganisations),ntelligenceagenciesand ocalpolice, welveareashatweresaid to includesizeableconcentra-tions of undocumented angladeshim-

migrantsnd allingunderhe urisdictionof five police stations were identified

(National Herald, September 15, 1992;TheHindu,September11, 1992). Fromthese ocalities,accordingothisproposal,2,000-2,500undocumentedangladeshiswere obeevicted rom hecityeachmonth,includinga quotaof morethan 400 im-

migrantso be sentfromeach of the five

policestationsTheHindu,September 1,1992b).Transit ampswerecorrespond-inglylocatedwhere ndividualsdentifiedas Bangladeshi itizenswouldbe tempo-rarilyhousedbeforebeingtransportedothe border Raina1992b].

Interestinglynough,all of the'Bangla-deshi prone areas' recognised by the

government ndreportedwidelythroughthe press were also insignificant and

marginal paces occupied by the urban

poor (The Telegraph, October 11, 1993).

Many of them consisted of slum and

squatterclusters known as bastis andjhuggi-jhonprisf varying izesplacedattheperiphery f upper,middleandlowermiddle-classmohallas rneighbourhoodsinsundry arts f thecity NationalHerald,September15, 1992a;Rangela 1992b).Thesheer nsignificance f these bastis s

exposedthrough heirdescriptiveabel-

ing. That is, they acquired dentityandcharacterwholly in relation o the richmohallasthey abut. Some slums werecatalogued rimarilyhrough earbyand-marks ike police stationor monuments,

EconomicandPoliticalWeekly February15, 2003 639



and prominentland use features like

'shamshanghat' (cremation ground),'gandanala' open ewers), barapul'(bigbridge) earoronwhich heyweresituatedand n manycasescontinue o exist even

today.Othersncluded esettlementcolo-

nies' forformer quattersn theoutlyingareasof thecity,includingSeelampurnd

Seemapurin east Delhi.

Theargumenthat hese exertionswereasmatterf course irectedgainstBengali-

speakingBangladeshis racticing he Is-lamicreligionhas beenpreviously stab-lished.In addition o religion,languageand citizenship, the location of the

'Bangladeshi-prone'pacesalso exposestheenormity f theweak structural osi-tionof these mmigrants t the bottomoftheurban ocialscale,and ts momentousrole in these displacements.To put it

differently,t is beingheld thatthe sub-

sistence-levelxistence f thesemmigrants

in India made them effortless andreadymadeargetsof the Indian tate and

Sanghparivar.A non-Bangladeshiesi-dent f a slum ntervieweduringhecourseof fieldworkpithilyuncovered his link.

'Log garibi ko nahi, garibonko hatanachahatenhain (People do not want toeliminatepoverty; heywantto eliminatethepoor)',she remarkedinterviewwith

Sakeena,September11, 1998).6Severalyears later, in the midst of a

raging ontroversy urroundinghe extra-

ordinary mancipationf Bengali-speak-

ing deporteesby a large mob in WestBengal,7 hese ntimateiesbetween lassand the xenophobiccharacterof these

deportations erehumorouslyelineated.In that,a cartoonby Unny carrying he

tongue-in-cheekabel BusinessasUsual'renderedhesedurable onnections rans-

parentThe ndianExpress, uly28, 1998).In its image,the figuredepicteda basti

obviouslynot the abodeof affluentanddesirablemmigrants.While severalpoorfolkwere eenattendingospitablyotheir

guestin thebackground, solitarypolice

personnelspoke to his superioron hisportableadio: Ascientist xpelledbytheUS is here,Sir. Says he grew up in this

migrants'slum. Shall we deporthim?"

Truly, sthecartoonoeloquentlyhowed,in these anti-immigrantperations, heviciousauthorityxhibited ythestateand

Sangh parivarbranded nly specific im-

migrants, ategories hapedbythegreatlyrestrictedmaterialrealities faced on a

regular basis by these undocumentedimmigrants.

Tentativeforays were taken too into

immigrationolicyreform. hesencludedthe guidelinesto set up a new law thatwould makeit mandatoryor all privateor publicsectoremployers o report he

hiringof foreigncitizens,even thosere-cruitedon a casual andparttime basis.Eventhough upposedlyworkedout,the

policywasultimately ever ormalised.ntermsof format, heproposed egislation

was verysimilar o the Immigration e-form andControlAct (IRCA)passed nthe US during hemid 1980s.Quitesim-

ply, the numbersof undesirablemmi-

grantswere o beregulatedimultaneouslywithinandattheborders,speciallynsideitsspatial nd erritorialomains. utunlike

IRCA,a main eature f whichwas sanc-tions or penaltieson peoplewho know-

inglyhiredunauthorisedorkers,mploy-ers wouldactunder hisintendedplanas

spiesfor thelocal policeandadministra-tion by confirming he presenceof mi-

grants[Mahler1995]. P K Dave, thenlieutenantgovernor or New Delhi haddisclosed in an article that owners of

factories,businessesandheadsof house-holdswould be askedto furnishdetailedinformationo thepoliceabout hepeopleemployedbythem.Thiswastoinclude he

employees' native place, duration of

employmentandtheirphotographsTheHindu,September 1, 1992a).Finally,hehad advisedcity residents o cooperatewith the police in their driveto identify'illegal' Bangladeshis ibid).

It is unclearwhy thisstrategywas notlegalised.It is very likely that the real

prospectof oppositionby otherpoliticalpartieso the ntended olicydissuadedhe

Congress-ledgovernment. t is equallyprobablehatthecontinuous ccretion f

Bangladeshisnto the informal ector ofthis city's economy, togetherwith the

unendingdesire orcheap mmigranter-vantsandcasual abourers y well-to-dourban wellers,mayhavehadsome bear-

ing. The unconventionalrganisation fthisvastanddiffusiveegment fthe ndian

economydoes not lend itself, to beginwith,to effortlessregulation y thestate.Theanticipationf heighteningestraintson this highlynebulous et of economic

practicesmayhavebeenperceivedas anadministrative ightmare y the alreadybeleagueredDelhi bureaucracy.

In he ewweeksbefore he actionplan'wasformallyaunched,heelectioncom-missiongave a nation-widedirective o'revise' electoralrolls to disenfranchiseundocumented immigrants (NationalHerald,September , 1992).Apparently

the commission issued this orderafter

receiving several complaintsabout theinclusion of many Bangladeshis n thevoters' ists(ibid).Chiefelectoral fficersof the states and union territorieswereasked o catalogueareaswithlargenum-bersof foreignnationals nd akestepsto

prevent their enrolment as voters

(HindustanTimes,September 3, 1992).

Ineffect,electoral numerators ouldnotmerelyreformvoter ists,but createnewsets of namesbybeginningroma 'cleanslate'andabandoningllprevious ecords

(HindustanTimes,September, 1992).Avitalpart fthisregistrationxercisewould,

naturally,nvolve inquiries nto voters'

citizenshipstatus,and local police andenumerators ouldcarryout the verifica-tions.Extra pecialcare, t wassuggested,would be takento enlist votersfrom the

alreadyidentified bastis dominatedbyBangladeshimmigrants.

There s ampleevidence hat hedetec-tion andapprel;,sion of undocumented

Bangladeshisookplace n manypartsofIndia see,forexample,Rashtriya ahara,

September 7, 1992;Hindustan, eptem-ber27, 1992;TheHindu,September12,

1992). Whatremainedvague, however,was the documentary roof required norder to firmly and, without a doubt,establish ndiannationality.Homeminis-

tryofficialsasserted hatwhile hesecouldbe produced s evidence, hesimplepos-session of ration-cardsr for thatmatter

registrationn old electoral olls would nitself not constituteas 'automatic ndian

citizenship'Hindustan imes, eptember2, 1992). Up to this point, ration-cardsissued through he government'spublicdistributionsystem had served as the

principalmeans oestablishdomicilesta-tusby Indians,particularlyy those whodidnothave theresourceso procure nyotherdocuments.Documents ike pass-ports, ntil ery ecently, eremeantargelyfor hosewhocouldaffordotravel utsidethe country.

Similarly,the systemof issuingbirthcertificateshasremained ather udimen-

taryandspotty nIndia,operatingargelyinurban reas.Onlypersons,whoholdorhaveowned and ntheirnativeplace,canlikewiseprovidedocumentsuchasprop-ertydeeds.Again, hismaynotalwaysbethe case especially orthose whoexistedas landlesspeasantsbeforeshifting o bigcities.Withtheexceptionof ration-cards,jhuggitokensandnames n voters'lists,thevastranksof theurbanpoorin Indiahave not been issued, and until the




verification rives idnotdesperatelyeed,additionalertification.o, inthe absenceof a standardisedystemfor identifyingIndians,hispersistentmbiguityurround-

ing the citizenship tatus,particularlynthecase of the extremely argenumbersof residentsof its numerous lums andresettlementolonies,wouldbefore onghaunt successive Indian governments.

Indeed, even though mostly affectingpoverty-strickenMuslim Indians and

Bangladeshisasilydispensablennormal

circumstances,several Indian govern-mentswouldthrough he 1990speriodi-cally ace he cathingtingofverbal ttacksandopen protestsagainstthese coerced

repatriations.It s into hismaelstrom factivity, few

weeksafter he nitial victions, hatunionhomeministerS B Chavanpresided verthe chief ministers' pecialconference n

'illegal' migrationromBangladeshThe

Hindu, September 26, 1992; Tribune,September 7, 1992;Patriot,September17, 1992). Ministersof nearly all the

provincesncloseproximityotheeastern

boundary articipatedn thiscrucialmeet-

ing which resolved o take 'firmaction'

againstunauthorisedmmigrantsR Rai

1992; National Herald, September 27,

1992). In his openingremarks,Chavanobserved that massive immigrationbyBangladeshis, eginning n Assam,then

affectingWestBengal,Bihar,and othernorth-easterntatesand atelythecapital

city, had resulted in many social andpolitical upheavals (Hindustan Times,

September 9, 1992). Whileconfirmingthataccuratestimates n 'illegal' migra-tion were not available, he ministerun-derscoredhat his problem' adacquiredsevere dimensions ibid;Aaj, September29, 1992). Whatevermaybe thecompel-lingmotiveorcause orthemigration,' e

added, thecontinuous low is a matter fserious concern for all of us' (Patriot,

September29, 1992; see also Indian

Express,September 3, 1992a).

M M Jacob,then ministerof state forhomeaffairs,proposedhe establishmentof monitoring roups hatwouldperiodi-cally review the activitiesundertakenyprovinces ndgovernmentodies o check

irregular migration (Hindustan Times,

September 9, 1992).A number f other

regulatory easures,ncluding arbedwire

fencingalongtheboundarywithBangla-desh,andusingretailrationoutletsunderthepublicdistributionystem okeep rackof freshmigrantarrivals,were similarlyconsideredseealso Sonwalkar 992aand

1992b].Finally,the chief ministersen-dorseda scheme orissuing dentity ardsto Indian citizens living in the border

districts, rovidedhat t was mplementedthroughapprovedegislation HindustanandTheStatesman,eptember9, 1992b).Yet,ina fate similar otheprevious trat-

egy proposingcompulsoryreportingofunauthorisedmmigrantsby employers,

the governmentailedto execute it.Like 'Operation ushBack',the chief

ministers'workshopbetrayedhedrasticactions of a governmentincreasinglyconfrontedythesteady rosion fits own

legitimacy.An op-ed piece in Aaj pub-lishedromVaranasiUttarPradesh)entlyinsinuated his notion:

The(critical) uestion boveall here s,whatdesperateeedmotivatedhecentral

governmentounexpectedlyevealanxi-

etyabout, ndpursuenswerso theprob-lem of Bangladeshi infiltration by

organisinghemeeting f chiefministersfrom West Bengal, Bihar, Assam,Arunachalradesh,ripurandMizoramand representativesrom Meghalaya,ManipurndNagalandnSeptember7?After ll,politicalevelopmentsf thepastforty-five earshave hown hat heCon-

gressparty's osition n these nfiltratorshas beenundesirablyoft from heverybeginningSrivastava,992;translationand talicsmine).

But anotherarticleboldlyobserved:

Itis difficult o avoid he mpressionhatthedecisiono summon

specialmeetinginDelhiof chiefministers..specificallyodiscuss heproblemf illegal nflux rom

Bangladeshnto this countryhas beeninfluencedycalculationsaving close

bearing n thepoliticsof Delhi than hemorerealapprehensionsbout helong-termmpact f such nfluxn areas n the

neighborhoodf BangladeshTheHindu,

September6, 1992).

III'Operationushback':Aggrandisementnd

AggressionIt is plain thus far that the Indian

government'snflated ndeavoursotacklethequestion firregular angladeshis ere

proving neffective rom the verybegin-ning.Butanevenmoreantagonisticnder-

takingwouldbe theaggressive ampaigntodeport ndocumentedangladeshisromthecapitalcity. Fittingly ermed Opera-tionPushback,' preliminaryet of evic-tions was carriedout in New Delhi on

September , 1992. In this reallyforced

upon houghhighlypublicisedndeavour,agroup f 132persons, 7men,23womenand 22 children, were identified as

Bangladeshi nationals and roughlyremoved romalargeresettlementolonycalled New Seemapurin eastDelhi(Na-tional Herald, September 15, 1992).Accostedby severalpoliceofficersfromthe Seemapuri police station, these

unauthorisedmmigrants ere aken otheold Delhirailway tation.Fifteenofficers,

includingtwo females from the DelhiArmed Police (DAP), escorted the

deportees n theninety eatscoach n theSealdahExpressrain uringheir 6hours

journeyoSealdahnWestBengal Indian

Express, eptember0,1992a).Once here,afterbeinghandedover to an advanced

party being led by the Foreigners'Re-

gionalRegistrationOffice (FRRO), heywere deliveredby two BorderSecurityForce(BSF)andarmytrucksas well as

Kolkata olicebus otheHaridaspurheckpostbeforebeingsent acrosstheborder.An official with the FRROfurtherex-

plainedhiselaborate rocedure:we have

alreadynformedheBorder ecurity orce.These chaps would be deportedby the

pushback ystem' ibid; ee alsoTheTimes

of India,September10, 1992).Ratherastonishingly,n the beginning

the local administrationehementlyde-niedthat Operation ushback'wasbeingcoercedupon hehelpless mmigrants.n

fact, n anewspapernterview t this ime,

Seemapuripolice station SHO (stationhouseofficer)Rathiwhoaccompaniedhe

deportees o the railwaystation,openlyavowed that the deporteeswere enthusi-

asticallyreadyto return o theircountry(ibid;see alsoHindustanTimes,Septem-ber10,1992). Theyareherebecauseheywant ogo, all of themarevolunteers,' e

espoused ibid;Asif, 1992a).But anotherunidentifiedfficer rom hesamestationlet tslip hathepolicehad orciblyounded

up people for threedays andheld themunderdetentionordeportation.There s

nosectionunder heIndianPenalCode oarrest uch ndividuals.TheyaredetainedunderSection3C of the Foreigners'Actand ervedQuit ndiaNotices,' heofficialadmittedTheIndianExpress,September10, 1992a).

By the sametoken,all the unfortunate

deportees ascertained the involuntarynature f 'Operationushback'.Ham pnimarzi se nahi ja rahen hain (We are not

leavingof our own free will),' they af-firmedibid).Tohighlightnecase,Khalid,a 'kabadiwala' (rag picker) being

Economic and Political Weekly February 15, 2003 641



discharged andidly ivulged: Iambeingforced o go. I am theonly one frommyfamilywho is beingsentaway.My twokidsandwife arestill here" Asif,1992a].Another deportee Shamsuddin added:Givenachance, (will)return... amgoing(toBangladesh) ecause wasunlucky obeontheroadwhen hepolicecame ooking(for us) (Thle ndianExpress,September

10, 1992a).It appearedhat KhalidandShamsuddinwerenotthe only deporteesto leave behind heir mmediateamilies.

Reportedly,more than three fourths ofthosedismissed rom hiscountry tillhadcloserelativesn the samebasti.Manyofthese detainees also claimed that theypossessedration-cards ndhad exercisedtheir votes in previouselections.

The fundamentalbjectiveof 'Opera-tionPushback'wastransparent,hat s, todeter new 'infiltrators'and intimidate

existingones.But whatwasarrestingwas

itsrepulsive itualisedcript.These evic-tions,it is conceredly noted,wereinsti-

gatedontheIslamicProphetMohammed's

birthdayand, not surprisingly,a greatmajority f not all of those who were

deportedbelongedto the Muslim faith

[Joshi1992].Andas ifthesymbolicnatureof theseexpatriations erenotalreadyelf

evident,heunfortunateeportees ad heirheads havenand heirmeagrebelongingsburnt n frontof thembeforebeingcastout of Indian erritoryhrough he North24 Parganas istrictof West Bengal [A

Chakrabarti992]. As mentionedn theAnandaBazarPatrikaof Kolkata,whenaskedwhy the few clothes,beddingandevenutensils f thosebeingsentbackwere

beingdestroyed, BSFofficerreportedlyresponded: So thatthey can tell peoplethere hatnothing anbebrought ack.Weare even burningheirmoney" Karlekar1992, emphasismine].Over and above,thisofficer nformedhePatrika eporter,the poor deportees would be soundlythrashedn advanceof the final shove.

Geographicalocationsncloseproxim-

ity to the actualborder, t seems, wouldprovide he appropriateites for this un-

necessarybrutality.Again, the messagepermeatingheviolenceof thisfinalprac-tice cannot be easily ignored. As theofficerexplained,this unkindtreatmentwould be carriedout in plain view of

Bangladeshicitizens across the border,activelydiscouraginghemfromenteringIndiaatanyfuturedate(ibid;Chaudhuri,1992).Ultimately hough, he ceremoni-oustonsuringwhilehumiliatingly egrad-ingitsvictims,exemplifiedhepurging f

Indiansoil from the insidiouseffects ofinfiltrationhroughhepurificationf theunclean bodies of these Muslimimmi-

grants.Therawrejoinder f therequitingIndian state was being forcefully and

metaphoricallywrittenon the physicalframesof its victims.

Notably and with remarkablehaste,concernedauthoritiesookgreatpainsto

establish hatthis first set of expulsionswere not a freshhappeningTheIndian

Express,September10, 1992b).In fact,

they stoutly insisted that 'OperationPushback' eganmore hanayearagoon

September1, 1991 [Ahmed1992].Thatsmallgroups fundocumentedmmigrantshad been deportedpreviouslyunder hisscheme wassimilarlyunderscoredibid).No wondermorethanone accountbasedoninformationurnished ylocal authori-tiessuggests hat heyhadbanishedmorethan700 unauthorisedangladeshisrom

this city in precedingmonths(see, forexample,NationalHerald,September 5,1992; TheHindu,September11, 1992aand 1992b).8 What is, however,unac-counted or andsingularly xceptionals

why those early deportations nder his

'Operation' scapedthe omnipresent t-tentionof the Indianpress (TheIndian

Express,September3, 1992b;TheTimes

of India,November3, 1992). Afterall,even theeminentlyconcealedandsecre-tive character f the laterevictionshadreceivedwidespread,albeit not entirely

unfavourable,overagenIndian ewspa-persandmagazines.

Consequently,otwithstandinghecen-tral overnmentndDelhiadministration's

widespread roadcast f their operation'to combat irregularmigrationthroughregularpress channels,their vociferous

pronouncementsabout already havingevicted substantialnumbersof Bangla-deshisand hat oounderhesameexercisecarriedan ominouslyunconvincinganduntruthfuling.Equivalentlylimsy wasthiscity policecommissioner'sevelation

adayafter heevictions hat hefirstgroupof deporteeshadnotbeenreturned,longwith their families, because they were

widely dispersed n variouspartsof the

city[Karlekar992].Theyhadnotaccom-

panied heirrelatives, henthe Commis-sioner M B Kaushalhadcontended,be-cause hedetainees' elationsimply ouldnot be located(ibid).

But as a hard-hittingommentarybyKarlekar1992) causticallydetails:"thewhereaboutsf their amiliescouldhavebeen ound ut rom thedeportees)...They

would havebeenforthcoming.Afterall]no one wants to leave one's wife andchildrenbehind n a country romwhichone isbeingexpelled ibid)."Correspond-ingly, an The Indian Expresseditorial

analysesthe rathercrudelyworkedoutmethodof detectingBangladeshisSep-tember11, 1992):

...It is notdifficult o imaginewhatcan

happeno theirwives andchildrenwhoremainere.Thequestionrises,whyweretheir amilies,whosewhereaboutsouldeasilyhavebeen ound ut rom hem, otsentbackaswell?Theabsence f aplau-sibleexplanation ill onlyreinforcehe

impressionnegathersrom eportsnthe

deportationhatpeoplehad beenpickedupat random.

What mergesmeaningfullyere s thatin spite of its prejudices,governmentagencieswere not entirely nsensitive othe few swift andsharpcriticismsof the

highly suspectandruthlessnature f this

entire 'operation'.Thoughthe strongestoppositionothisfatefulexercisewasyettomaterialise,omeexamplesof theearly

disapprovalspecially hoseappearingnthe pressare worthyof reference.First,Nikhil Chakravartty's1992a) vitupera-tionwrote:"As a partof Operation ush-backorperhaps preludeoit,thegovern-mentdemonstratedts irresponsiblem-

petuosityby forciblydeporting132 mi-

grantswhoseheadsweretonsured n the

birthdayfProphetMohammed"seealso

1992b). ournalistMJAkbar1992)mildly

termedhedepilatoriesn embarrassment.'Aneditorial ppearingnalesser-known

journalRadianceViewsWeeklyNovem-ber1-7, 1992,p 2) challenged he under-

lying motivesof thecentralgovernment:We also ailtounderstandhyOperationPushbackwasstarted n (the)Prophet'sbirthday.Was hischoosingsic)of (the)dateof torment...byhelocalpolicede-liberate r ustaccidental?s it alsoacci-dental hatsoonafter he BJPpassedaresolution o this effect at its Bhopalmeeting,hedeportationf 'illegal mmi-grants,'most of whom happen o be

Muslims tarted?Likewise, a rare newspapereditorial

entirely opposing this 'inhumaneand

unjust'methodof deportationirmlyde-clares that 'thisis not the remedy'(Edi-torial,Pioneer,October15,1992).Otherswouldsquarelydeemsqueezing he 132odddeporteesnto a smallcompartment,thattoo fora longjourney,as unfairandexcessive(Editorial,ndianExpress,Sep-tember 1,1992andSeptember0,1992a).Conceivably, he most stronglywordedcritique, and already quoted from in




previousparagraphs,would come from

Hiranmay arlekar1992).Withoutminc-

ing his words,he described his processof 'dispatching angladeshis' s the'wan-

tonbrutalitythat) ares hewarts nIndia's

face' (ibid;see also Chibbar,1992 and

Sengupta,1992).As withprintedirades, highlysurpris-

ingtwistcamefrom he CPI-M Commu-

nistPartyof India-Marxist)uledgovern-ment nWestBengal.Thisprovince penlyexpresseddispleasurewith the actionsoftheBorderSecurityForce(BSF)andthecentral government by unexpectedlyrequestinghat future expatriationsof

Bangladeshis e conducted hroughbor-derareas utsideheir rovinceChaudhuri,1992;Pioneer,October27, 1992). State

intelligencegenciesnformed ioneerthatina tensemeetingbetweenBSFofficials,led by DGP T. Anantachari nd chiefminister yotiBasu, he Minister everely

admonishedheastonishedorce for sul-lyinghisgovernment'sumanitarianepu-tationby roughly tonsuring he haplessdeportees. asunotonlydemandedroperassurancesromthe BSF that suchinhu-mane ncidentsnot be repeated gain,he

sharply rotestedgainst isprovince eingused as a principalconduit for these

expulsions (Times of India, October 23,

1992).Shortlyhereafter, hile a satisfiedBasu nformed ewspersonshat he BSFhadagreed o complywithhis requests,BSFofficials eportedlyriticisedheWest

Bengalgovernmentorunderminingheirpainstakingfforts.This tategovernment,theseanonymousources rgued, ppearedfar moreconcerned bout he welfareofnon-citizen mmigrantsnstead of help-fully providing onstructive olutionstothis really 'seriouscrisis' (ibid).

Thechiefminister'snflexiblejudgmentof 'Operation ushback'ingularly epu-diated his stand at an earlier interview

duringwhich he had advised he BSF to

strengthenheirpatrolsalongthe border

(Observer of Business and Politics, Octo-

ber16, 1992).This latestdeportmentlsoappearedquite contrary o a resolution

formerlyaken yhispartynmid-Septem-ber when it had backed he centralgov-ernmentponsoredewaction lan ocheckclandestine migration (The Statesman,

September 7,1992).LikeCPI-M,hepro-tractednconstancyf manymajor ndian

political parties towards unauthorised

Bangladeshiswould renderthe processand its outcomeeven morechaotic,par-ticularlyn succeedingdeportationam-

paigns like 'OperationFlush Out' and

'Operation ind andEvict'(see National

Herald, November 3, 1992; The States-

man,September 9, 1992a).

IV'Operationush-in':

RepudiationndRetaliation

As earlier ections ave hown,he ndian

governmenthad to immediately rapplewithother roublesome,lbeitunintended,

consequencesof these evictions, even

thoughthey were carriedout on a verysmall cale.But heworstwasyet ofollow.

Thoughmeantto characterise robuststate irmly ncommand f itsgeography,'OperationPushback'hadquiteliterallyconcerned he forcefuldrivingback ofthesevery mallnumbersfundocumented

immigrants nto Bangladesh.This was

largely ecause n his pecificnstance he

neighbouring overnmenthad failed to

cooperate with its Indiancounterpart.Previously,mmigrantspprehendedt heborder ythe BSF hadsimplybeendeliv-ered to BangladeshRifles (BDR), its

equivalent (Hindustan Times,October 10,

1992).Sureenough,newsstories romDhaka,

Bangladesh,nstantaneouslyetrayedhatits immigration fficials had decided todetainaround 5 odddeporteesentfromNew Delhi at the Benapole mmigrationoffice (The Economic Times,October 15,

1992).

In heBangladeshi ailyStar,ManzurulKarim,henhomesecretary,adexplainedtheirunexpectedactionsn hispuzzlingway:'Weare ryingoverifywho heyreally re.We are awaitingdetails.They mustbeIndian Bengalis" (Hindustan Times, Sep-tember15, 1992).Theunderlyingeason-

ingwouldquicklymanifest tself muchasthecertitude hata higher evel authorityhad ssued heunusual ummons.ForeignMinisterMustafizur ahmanpelledtout

by saying:"wewill notaccept thedepor-tees)unless he Indian uthoritiesrovide

documentshat heyareourcitizens"ibid;Abedin, 1992). Still, KhaledaZia, then

Bangladesh'sprimeminister,unmistak-

ablyconfirmed er ountry'controversialdemeanourwith this starkproclamation:'Theyarenot ourheadacheincetheyarenot Bangladeshis' (The Economic Times,

October 15, 1992; see also Tribune,October10, 1992).

Justasthe mmigrants' rinding overtymade hemaneasycasualtyof theSanghParivarandthe Indianstate'smachina-

tions, hegovernmentnBangladesh ould

also forsake them. It emerges that a

delegation f unauthorisedmmigrantsad

desperately ought heintervention f the

BangladeshiHigh Commission in the

capitalon theirbehalf[Vishwanathant

al 1992].But the officialcallouslydisre-

gardedheirpleaforhelponthefrivolous

premise hatas manyof them hadbeen

registeredsvotersnIndia, ndpossessed

itsration-cards,heywouldnotbe consid-eredBangladeshi itizens.This,as a fea-ture oaptlyput t,"(was) sgoodassayingwe don't wantyou back" ibid).

To make mattersworse, successive

governmentsnBangladeshave mbraceda similar convenient attitude towardsundocumentedmmigrantsetained nthe

suspicionof beingBangladeshis.That s,

theyhavestronglydenied hattheywereits citizensmakingthemeasily expend-able.Thereader nlyhas orecallKhaledaZia andherseniorbureaucrats'exatious

pronouncementsntheprevious aragraph.Yet, one of my respondentsustifiedherhomegovernment'sdvantageousmnesiain a exceedinglygenerousmanner:

Theyknowwe existhere inNewDelhi)inlargenumbers. ut heydon'tacknow-

ledgeourpresenceecauset embarrassesthem. t shames hem hat heyhavenotbeen able to takecareof theirown whoarenowforced o seeka homeelsewhere

(interviewwithRateeba, pril15,1998).The persistenceof hostility towards

Indian victions urther iolated he terms

of anagreementeachedbetweenBorderSecurityForcesandBangladeshRifles inthepreviousyear[Ahmed1992;see also

Pioneer,August27, 1992].Accordingly,Bangladesh adconsentedo takebackallthose who were repatriatedhrough he

judicialprocess.Asaquasi-judicialutho-

rity,Delhi'sForeigners'RegionalRegis-trationOffice had been deemed as the

agency o sendback hese mmigrants. ywayof finalstipulation, eporteeswere obe questioned ointly by both agencies,andonce it was satisfactorilystablished

that heywere tscitizens, heyweretobeacceptedntoBangladesh.As withbellig-erenceover'Operation ushback',ndian

governmentources et it be known hatafterinitiallyacceptingsmallgroupsof

deportees, Bangladesh had adamantlyrefused o receiveanymore mmigrants,claiminghat heir itizenshipouldnot beverified ibid).Thesame nformant,ow-ever,admitted hat tsobjectionswerenot

wholly unsubstantiated. fter all, Indiahadall butaccepted heseimmigrantss

quasi-citizensy ssuing hem ation-cards

Economic and Political Weekly February 15, 2003 643



and even conferring the privilege to

participaten the nation'selectoralpro-cess, rightsusuallyreserved or citizens.

Yet official repudiationworkedpecu-liarly nunisonwithopenoutrageagainstthese deportationssee Dhar 1992; The

Hindu,September22, 1992). Both the

governmentand media in Bangladeshvociferously registered their protests

against his, in theirown words, 'brutaland nhuman'pisode Chopra992;Habib

1992c]. In a unanimousresolution,the

Bangladeshi parliament strongly con-demned he Indiandeportationid as 'yetanother esign'againsthiscountrywhichwas "unilateral,llegal, unfortunate,nd

against ll internationalaws" TheStates-

man,October20, 1992).Ten days later,the Bangladeshi government formallylodgeda 'strongprotest'against he de-

portationwith the IndianHighCommis-sionerinBangladesh,KRaghunathHabib

1992a,1992b,HindustanTimesSeptem-ber21, 1992]. n heobjection otehandedto theIndianHighCommissioner, angla-deshcomplainedhat Indiahad failed to

provideany advancenotificationof the

deportation r for thatmatter, he list of

deportees (The Hindu, September22,

1992).Threedayslater, oreignministerRahmanervently enied n theHouse hat

largenumbers f its citizens were livingin India,declaringanew that his countrywouldnotrecognise hepeople dentifiedasBangladeshisytheIndian overnment

(Editorial, Independent,November 4,1992).He wouldonlyadmit o atemporarytwo-waycirculation f personsacross hetwo countries' ommonborder,ontinuingoverseveraldecadesdue o'religious, ul-tural ndhistoricaleasons'Habib 992c].

An irateBangladeshigovernmentandmediare-labelled OperationPushback'as 'Operation ushIn', heavily accusingthe Indiangovernment f tryingto con-

venientlyget rid of its own rejectedciti-zens(ibid).Meanwhile, qually ncensed

bythisepisode,newspapers ponsored y

fundamentalist angladeshigroups likeJamaat-e-IslamindMuslimChhatra ikyaParishadeemedtasan aggressiongainstthe Muslimpopulationibid).'Inan evenmoreunanticipatedostilereturn, ulmatAliKhan,henvice-presidentf therulingBangladeshNationalParty BNP) issuedan aggressivestatement,characterisingthe 'operation'as a vicious expulsionof IndianMuslims in a deliberatdbidto destabilise his country's democraticsystem Pioneer,October12, 1992).

Bangladesh's erbal ebuttal o 'Opera-

tion Pushback'ndubitably emonstratesthatas theIndian ationwasbeing wayedby the surgeof communalhatredduringthis period,in a somewhatcomparablefashion its neighbourwas undergoingsteadygrowthn the undamentalistorcesof theIslamic amaatFeldman 999].Forourpurposes, hekey andconnectedde-

velopmentswere hat hehighlyxenopho-

bic tenorof theSanghParivar ndIndianstate's weak capitulation o its gratingdemandshadsharplyntensified heanti-Hinduandanti-Indianentiments n this

country.All indications ttest o the factthatKhaledaZia's governmentwas en-

countering normousnternal ressureoharden ts attitude owards ts dominant

neighbourJahangir 992b).The unwar-ranteddisplayof crueltyandsavagenesstowards the first deportees had onlystrengthenedhisopposition TheIndian

Express,October21, 1992).

The severe compulsions mposed byextremist oliticshadprovedoverwhelm-

inginbothcountries, ut tsconsequenceswere farmorestaggeringor India.Hereother cracksand discordantnotes werealso beginningto manifestthemselves.

Plainlyput,the IndianStateembodieda

'badlydividedhouse', at least as far as

OperationPushbackwas concerned,andanother eud was developing,this timebetweentwo differentministries Ghosh1992]. In the absence of a coordinated

approach,t seems that the ministryof

externalaffairswas prettysoreover thepoor timing of this 'operation',which

began nauspiciouslyfter hisdepartmenthadput nconsiderablefforts oimproveIndo-Bangla elations.

On thecondition f anonymity, senior

ministryofficialgrumbledhatthe home

ministryhad initiallynot notified themabout Pushback', ndhadevenfailedtoinvitethem to attend everal nter-minis-terialmeetingsassociatedwiththiscam-

paign.Hisargumentanalong hefollow-

ing lines:

Itbegan heoperation ithout uildingnational onsensus.The meetingof theseven hiefministers asheld hreeweeksafter the operationstarted...Hadthepushbackperationeenkeptnabeyanceforsome imewecouldhaveused tas aleverin countering angladesh'sffen-sive (ibid).

Buthomeministry fficials ncharge fthis 'operation' irmlystoodby it: 'OurForeign ecretaryuring isvisit oDhakalastJunehadconveyed ndia's ough tandon infiltration' ibid). Distinctly,and a

sentimentechoed elsewhere, the high-ranking ureaucratsn the homeministryhad aunched 'highly ensitiveandriskyoperation'withoutanymeaningfulwide-

ranging utreallyobligatory omestic nd

diplomaticconsultationsBose 1992].

VBravado ndContraction

For a relatively hortduration t least,the Congress-led entralgovernment e-mained undeterredby these mountingcriticisms. The Delhi administration

bravelyproceededosendsmallgroups f

Bangladeshiso the border venafter hefirstbothersomeet of evictions Jahangir1992a].But,thesedeportations ere car-riedoutveryquietly,asauthoritiesradu-ally desistedto broadcastheirdiscrimi-

natory endeavours throughthe press.Fearing dditional ppositiono itsshady

modusoperandi,overnmentourcesnowinsisted hat hehighlysensitivenature fthis 'operation'did not reallyneed the

'publicityblitzkrieg'it had previouslyreceived(HindustanTimes,October10,

1992a).

Despitebecoming ncreasinglyurrep-titious, 'OperationPushback'wouldnotcommand rolonged xistenceor even far

reachingeffectiveness.Widely reportedaccounts fsporadic iolence nslums ike

Seemapuri ndYamunaPushta bjectingto these evictionsbecame an infrequent

aggravationor the troubled overnmentand tsbickering ureaucracyTheIndian

Express,NationalHerald,Patriot,Pio-

neer,TheTimes flndia,October , 1992).Hostile residentsresisting deportationspelted tonesatthe ocalpolicethat nturnresortedto violence (HindustanTimes,

September 6, 1992).Shamshad, local

teashopowner explainedthe migrants'difficultposition:'we have been livinghere for twelve yearsand now suddenlythe local police want us to leave' (TheStatesman, eptember6, 1992).Another

majorrritantor thegovernmentwasthatmanyof thedeporteeswouldbefore ongreturnback to theirsquattersn the vast

spacesof slums n the Indian ity [Bansal1992, Ramachandran1999, Rangela1992a]. An unidentified enior official

responsibleorthe'operation'onfirmed:'weareactually rovidinghemwithafree

holiday,even betterthana travel-leaveallowance.Mostofthem tay nBangladeshfor a couple of monthsand then comeback' (The Statesman,September20,1992). Indeed, the ambitious plan to

644 Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003



'pushback'unauthorisedBangladeshis,that ooata considerableinancial xpensewas provingacutelyto be a 'half-bakedone' (ibid).

Equally mbarrassingas thatKhaledaZia'sgovernmentnBangladesh,owmorethanever compelledto adopta strong,belligerent emeanourgainstanincreas-

ingly partial,soft Indianstate, directed

BangladeshRifles to block the entryofthesedeportees Hindustan,October21,1992;Patriot,September 1, 1992).The.

exceptionaloutcome in mid-October,mere month and a half after the initial

deportations egan,was that some 150

personsexpelledby BSF were instantlydrivenby BDR back into India [Mitra1992].Manyof thesewereunauthorised

immigrants hohadbeen sentfromNewDelhi in separate roups.Since BSF re-fused to let themset foot intoIndia,andBDRvehementlyerseveredhatheywere

notBangladeshi ationals,manyof these'statelesspersons'were seen squattingdefenselessly nthezero inebetween hetwo territories t Haridaspurn North24

Parganasdistrictof West Bengal (ibid;Habib1992a).

Tensionalso rapidlybeganto build atthis border,when as angryreactions o

OperationPushback,Bangladeshicivil-iansnear hebordereportedlyurled tonesandother bjects tresidents ntheIndianside (Pioneer, October 14, 1992; A.

Chakrabarti,992).Fora brief tretch,he

BorderSecurityForce(BSF)consideredcarryingn with hedeportations ypush-ing backundocumentedmmigrantsntoPakistanhroughhewesternborderTheStatesman,November6, 1992).But,un-

precedentedppositionothedeportationcampaign, ndtheirharshmethods,nowforcedBSF officials to admit heirblun-der.AseniorBSFofficialprivatelyermedthetonsuring ndothercruelties nflictedon thedeportees s a 'silly act', thathad

jeopardiseddiplomatic ies betweenthetwo countries A Chakrabarti992; see

also Haq 1992].Elsewhere, everalreli-giousandvoluntary rganisationsnclud-

ing AmnestyInternationaltepped n onbehalfof the undocumentedmmigrants(Asif, 1992b,1992c, 1992d, 1992e;TheTimesof India, November6; National

Herald,October 5,1992;RadianceViews

Weekly,October11-17,1992).InfluentialDelhi-level Congress leaders had also

begun to push the government o end

Operation ushbackEditorial,RadianceViewsWeekly,November22-28, 1992).Havingbeenexposed o the realthreat f

large-scaledeportations,cantyevidenceindicates hatBangladeshi mmigrantsnNew Delhi hadshifted heir upport ackto theCongress TheStatesman,Novem-ber6, 1992).Prompted y a selfish needfor their continued oyalty through he

approachingNew Delhi assemblyelec-

tions, Congress politiciansreadilycon-sented to mediate on the immigrants'

behalf ibid).Consequently,n thewakeof mounting

international nd internalpressure,and

self-seeking ntervention y senior Con-

gresspoliticians,Operation ushbackwas

suspendednearlyNovember, sabruptlyasithadbeen nauguratedAhmed1992].

Thoughno officialcircularwasissuedtotheeffect,hardly nycasesof deportationwerereportedn thismonth TheStates-

man,November 3,1992; eealsoJahangir,1992a). But sporadic deportationsof

Bangladeshiswouldcontinue n the next

few years,for instance, hrough Opera-tion FlushOut' organised he followingyear(TheIndianExpress,September 2,1992). In these subsequentexpulsions,thedirect ssistance f theSanghParivar's

workers,nd ontentiousunction ssumed

by slum evel power-brokers, ould be-comegradually pparentRamachandran2002a 2002b].

Concluston

TheSanghParivar's elentlessquest n

theearly90s forpolitical egitimacyandauthorityrhegemony otospeakhad, nthe first instance,much to do with thesuddenhyper-visibilityf undocumented

Bangladeshisn India.Crucially, everal

major Indian political parties, longrecognised or theirunusual argesse o-wards he immigrants,lsoyieldedto its

severely xenophobic and anti-Muslimrhetoric.Prominentmong hesewasthe

rulingandnowdissipatedCongress arty,thatwithgreatanfarehoughwithoutmuch

preparation,mplementedn'actionplan'

todetect,dentify, nddeport nauthorisedBangladeshis.OperationPushback, he

accompanyingtrategyoexpel heseweakand convenientscapegoatssingled outMuslim mmigrantsccupying heinsig-nificant pacesof slums andsquattersnIndia'scapitalcity.Randomly ickedupby the local police, the initialdeporteeswerealsosavagelysubjectedo thecoer-cive andcommunalmpulses f theIndianstate and its bureaucracy.

Nonetheless,what surfacesclearly inthis fluid narratives thatotherdevelop-

mentswithinandbeyond hegeographiesof thiscityandnationwoulduncommonlyconfront this coarse exhibitionof saf-fronisedIndian ingoism. In particular,Bangladesh's somewhat controversialstancequestioninghe citizenshipof the

deportees,nd uccessful ttemptstblock-

ing theirentrycontributedo the swiftdemise of 'OperationPushback'.The

persistenceof documentary eficienciesthatconfirmIndiancitizenshipposed a

furtherchallenge.inally ndperhapsmost

importantly, or these poverty-strickenimmigrants,hisstrategy ignalleda new

soberingphase of their alreadyfragileexistence n India.A detailedaccountoftheirchanging ealitiess, however,yettobe composed.1tl

Addressor correspondence:sujataramhotmail.com

Notes[Thisarticle spart f alargerdoctoral-levelesearch

project titled "Infiltrators, Quit India': Un-documentedBangladeshisand 'Thin'Hegemonyof Hindu Nationalism'. A somewhat differentversionof this paperhas been publishedin theNovember 2002 issue of the SingaporeJournalof Tropical Geography. For their comments,criticisms,andencouragement,my deepgratitudegoes to JonathanCrush,Bob Stock,JayantLele,andAlistairWentworth. would also like to thankan anonymousreviewer for suggestions.]

1 In this article, words like undocumented,unauthorised,ndclandestinehavebeenapplied

to refer to 'illegal' Bangladeshiimmigrants.2 Thepersistentlowofundocumentedimmigrants

from Bangladesh nto Indiacontinuesto be avexed issue. For many years, leading Indian

politicalpartiesadoptedanunusuallygenerousattitude towardsthese immigrants,who wereallowed to remain in the country. Forceful

attempts oexpel theseimmigrants as becomea current eature,confinedlargelyto big citieslike New Delhi and Mumbai,in more recent

years.However,apoliticalagitationnAssaminthe late 70s andearly80s centredon Bangla-deshi immigrantsand Bengali-speakers[seeHazarika, 000, 1994 andWeiner1993, 1985].

3 There is a long historyof cross-bordermove-mentsbetweenIndiaand

Bangladesh,ncludinglarge-scale flows associated with the re-

organisationof colonial economy in Bengal;partitionof the Indiansubcontinent n 1947;and subsequentformationof Bangladeshin1971 [for selective accounts, see Kudaisya,1996; P Chakrabarti, 1990; and IndianCommission of Jurists, 1965].

4 Akin to the Sanghparivar, heIndianstate hastreatedHindumigrants s 'refugees'or victimsof the growing Islamic fundamentalismin

Bangladesh[Buch 1993].5 The surreptitiousnature of these population

movements poses numerous difficulties in

calculating ccurate stimatesofundocumented

Bangladeshis n India.Government stimates,

EconomicandPoliticalWeekly February15, 2003 645



however, suggest that provinces close to the

border ike WestBengaland Assam haveeach

receivedfourmillion immigrants,while Bihar

has some two million unauthorised

Bangladeshis.6 UndocumentedBangladeshi mmigrantsace a

precariousexistence in New Delhi. For the

benefitof my participants,heyhavebeengivenfictitiousnames,and ocationswhere nterviews

were conductedconcealed.

7 In this unusual though politically motivated

episodethatoccurrednJuly 1998,a

largemob

liberateda small group of Bengali-speaking

deporteessent from Mumbaiat the Uluberia

railwaystation n West Bengal. It was allegedthat he Maharashtra JP-ShivSenaprovincial

government had branded Indian BengaliMuslims as 'illegal' Bangladeshisettlers and

forcibly attempted o evict them (see Hilndu,

August 3 and July 26, 1998).8 There is considerable inconsistency in the

numbersof Bangladeshis deportedunderthis

operation. n one accountciting figures issued

by theForeigners'RegionalRegistrationOffice

(FRRO), it is suggested that nearly 3,000

immigrantsweredeporteduntilearlyNovember

1992 [see Rangela 1992a]. Another report

suggests that more than 5,000 Bangladeshiswere deported, including 1700 immigrantswere sent by the New Delhi administration

[Ahmed 1992].

References

Aaj (1992): 'Bangladeshse GhuspaithRokne ki

Karya Yojana', (A plan to halt infiltration

from Bangladesh),September29.

Abedin, Joynal (1992): 'Dhaka Won't Accept'Illegal Immigrants", Hindustan Times,

September15.

Ahmed,SyedZubair( 992): 'OperationPushback

Grinds to AbruptHalt' The Tinmesf India,November3.

Akbar,M J (1992): 'Footloose and BorderFree'Telegraph,October 25.

Asif, A U (1992a): 'Bangladeshis' Deportation:a 'Quit India Operation' Radiance Views

Weekly,September20-26: 11-12.- (1992b): 'Janhit Raksha Parishad Press

Conference:'Stop Deporting Bangladeshis"Radiance Views Weekly, September 27-

October3: 12.- (1992c): 'Memo to Home Minister on

'Bangladeshis'Deportation'Radiance Views

Weekly,September27-October3: 10, 12.- (1992d): 'Bangladeshis' Fate Hanging in

Balance' RadianceViewsWeeklyOctober4-

10: 12.- (1992e):'GoSlow onDeportations:DelhiPolice

Chief Summonedby HC in ContemptCase'Radiance Views WeeklyOctober 11-17: 12.

Bansal,L M (1992): 'BangladeshiGhuspaithiyeJhansaDekarPunah illiLaute', Bangladeshiinfiltrators trick authorities,return to New

Delhi), NavbharatTimes, September 18.

Basu,Tapan,PradipDatta,SumitSarkar,TanikaSarkarand SambuddhaSen (1993): KhakiShorts and SaffronFlags: A Critiqueof theHinduRight, OrientLongman,New Delhi.

Bharatiya Janata Party (1994): Bharat Mein

Videshiyonki Ghuspaith, The Infiltrationof

Foreigners n India),BharatiyaJanataParty,New Delhi.

Bose, Ajoy (1992): 'On a Short Fuse' Pioneer,November 16.

Buch,M N (1993): 'IllegalEntrants:BJPBetraysa CommunalBias' Statesman,July 3.

Chakrabarti,Ashis (1992): 'Illegal Immigration-III:WireFencing heOnlySolution',Hindustan

Times,November 25.

Chaturvedi, D N (1992): 'Illegal ImmigrantsGalore', Tribune,January24.

Chakravartty,Nikhil (1992a): 'Neighbouringon

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.

Chakrabarti, rafulla 1990): TheMarginalMen:

TheRefugeesand theLeftPoliticalSyndrome,LumiereBooks, Kalyani, West Bengal.

Chakravarti, ma,PremChowdhry,PradipDatta,

Zoya Hasan, KumkumSangariand Tanika

Sarkar1992): 'KhurjaRiots 1990-91: Under-

standing the Conjuncture' Economic andPolitical Weekly,May 2, 951-965.

Chibbar,Y P (1992): 'Savage TreatmentMetedOut to Bangladeshis', PUCL Bulletin,October4.

Chopra,Nora (1992): 'Needed: Lots of Care',Pioneer, October21.

Datta, Pradip, Biswamoy Pati, Sumit Sarkar,Tanika Sarkarand SambuddhaSen (1990):

'Understanding Communal Violence:NizamuddinRiots', Economic and Political

Weekly,November 2: 2517-26.

Dhar, M K (1992): 'Feud Likely Over Bangla

Migrants', HindustanTimes,September28.

Economic Times(1992): 'DeportationssueMayStrainIndo-BanglaRelations', October 15.

Dutt, Anuradha 1990):'In Search of a Haven',IllustratedWeekly f lndia, January 1:54-57.

Feldman,Shelley(1999): 'Feminist nterruptions:the Silence of East Bengal in the Story of

Partition',nterventions:nternationalournal

of Postcolonial Studies, 1 (2): 167-82.

Ghosh, Manash(1992): 'OperationPushback:a

Blow to Indo-Bangla Ties', Statesman,November4.

Ghosh,Chowdhury,Dilip (1992): 'BanglaInfil-

trators,TheirProblem',Patriot,September24.

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:

Democracyand HinduNationalism n India,PrincetonUniversityPress, Princeton,New

Jersey.

Haq,E(1992): 'DeportationssueMaySourIndo-

Bangla Ties', Independent,October 10.Hazarika, anjoy 2000):RitesofPassage:Border

Crossings,ImaginedHomelands, ndia's Eastand Bangladesh, Penguin, New Delhi.

- (1994): Strangers of the Mist: Tales of Warand Peace from India's Northeast,Penguin,New Delhi.

IndianCommission of Jurists(1965): RecurrentExodusof Minoritiesrom East PakistanandDisturbances n India:A Report o theIndianCommissionof Jurists by Its CommitteeofEnquiry,IndianCommission of Jurists,NewDelhi.

Hindustan(1989): 'Bangladeshse GhuspaithkiHalatVisfotak'(InfiltrationromBangladeshexplosive), February27.

- (1989): 'Bangladesh e Ghuspaith' Infiltrationfrom Bangladesh),February28.

- (1990): 'Ghuspaith Rokne ke Liye Kathor

karyavahi Hogi' (Tough steps to preventinfiltration),May 13.

- (1991): 'Pak,BangladeshiNagarikonke Bharat

Mein RahneparChinta'(Concernexpressedover Pak, Bangladeshi citizens in India),December3.

-(1992a): 'BiharneGhuspaithiyon aPataLaganeka KaamTez Kiya'(Biharspeedsupthe task

of identifying infiltrators),September27.- (1992b): 'HamariChetavaniSahi Sidha Hui:

BJP (Ourwarningsprovedto be true:BJP),

September29.- (1992c): 'Bangladeshiyon ki Ghuspaith

RashtrahitaMei Nahin:Advani'(Bangladeshiinfiltration is against national interests:

Advani), October 19.- (1992d): 'Bangladeshiyonki Vapasi ke Liye

BegumZia Doshi' (BegumZiaresponsibleor

therepatriationf Bangladeshis),October21.HindustanTimes(1992a): 'Plan toDeportBangla

Nationals', September2.- (1992b): '132 Bangla Nationals Deported',

September 10.- (1992c):'Dhaka Will Not Accept 'Illegal

Immigrants", September15.- (1992d): 'Indians May Be Issued I-Cards',

September23.- (1992e): 'Police Beat Up Jhuggi Dwellers',

September26.- (1992f): 'CMs for FirmStepstoCheckMigrants

Influx' September29.- (1992g): 'Deportation ssue May StrainIndo-

Bangla Relations',October 10.

-(1992h): 'NoLetUp nBangladeshiDeportation',October 10.

-(1992i): 'MessagefromSeemapuri',October13.- (1992j): 'No Headway in Indo-BanglaTies',

December 31.IndianExpress1992a): IllegalBangladeshis orm

Vote-bank', September 10.

-(1992b): 'GovernmentDeports132Bangladeshisfrom Capital', September10.

- (1992c): 'UncertainFuture for Bangladeshis',September 12.

- (1992d): 'Deporting Bangladeshis' (editorial)(1992): September 11.

- (1992e): 'BanglaRefugees Seeking Homeland

Here?', September23.- (1992f): 'GovernmentAgencies Face Uphill

Task', September23.- (1992g): 'Five Hurtas Bangladeshi Migrants,

Cops Clash', October 2.- (1992h): 'Khaleda Government Blamed for

Deportationof Refugees', October21.

Independent (editorial) (1992): 'Dhaka Takes

Tough Stand', November 4.

Jaffrelot,Christophe1996):TheHinduNationalistMovementand IndianPolitics, Viking, NewDelhi.

Jahangir,Rahman 1992a): 'IndianBid to DeportRefugees', Independent,November 19.

- (1992b): 'Bangla Envoy to Meet Rao on

Deportation ssue', Independent,October22.

Joshi, Manoj(1992): 'PorousBorder',Frontline,November 6.

Joshi, Shrikant 1994): Ghuspaith:EkNishabdaAkramana (Infiltration:A Silent Invasion),Lokhit Prakashan,Lucknow.

Kaw, Sanjay (1992): 'Panel on BangladeshiInfiltratorsSet Up', Statesman,March 8.

Karlekar, Hiranmay (1992): 'DispatchingBangladeshis',IndianExpress,September19.

646 EconomicandPoliticalWeekly February15, 2003



Kudaisya,Gyanesh 1996): 'DividedLandscapes,

Fragmenteddentities:EastBengal Refugeesand Their Rehabilitation n India, 1947-79',

SingaporeJournal of Tropical Geography,17 (1), 24-40.

Kumar,Umeshwar (1992): 'Sarkar ne Bangla-

deshiyonkeKhilaafKamarKasi'(Government

tightens its belt against Bangladeshis),NavbharatTines, September 11.

Lele,Jayant 1995): Hindutva:TheEmergenceofthe Right, EarthwormBooks, Chennai.

Ludden,David ed)(1996):ContestingheNation:Religion, Community and the Politics of

Democracyin India, Universityof Pennsyl-vania Press, Philadelphia.

Mahler, Sarah (1995): American Dreaming:Immigrant Life on the Margins, Princeton

UniversityPress, New Jersey.Malik, Yogendraand V B Singh (1994): Hindu

Nationalists in India, Vistaar, New Delhi.

Mitra,Manojit(1992): '150 Refugees Sittingon

Zero Line', Independent,October 12.

NaiDuniya(1992):'VideshiNagrikonkoPakadneka NirdeshVikatSamasyaBana'(Instructionsto nabforeignnationalsprovesto be serious

problem),January25.

Navlakha,Gautam1997): 'Bangladeshisn India:

A Numbers Game' in T K Bose and RManchanda (eds), States, Citizens and

Outsiders:The UprootedPeoples of South

Asia, South Asia Forumfor HumanRights,Kathmandu,p 353-359.

Nayyar, Kuldip (1992): 'Tension Prevails in

Bangladesh',Statesman,September2.

National Herald (1992a): 'Leave Out ForeignNationals: EC', September2.

(1992b): 'Plan to Deport 15,000 Illegal

Bangladeshis', September15.- (1992c): 'They Must Go Back' (editorial),

September15.- (1992d): 'Bangla Protestagainst Immigrants

Deportation', September21.- (1992e):'ChavanHailed orCallingCMsMeet',

September27.- (1992f): 'CMs OkayI-cardsProposal o Check

B'desh Infiltration',September29.- (1992g):'Bangla nfiltrators 'SeriousThreat",

September30.- (1992h): 'Firingin East Delhi', October2.- (1992i):'AtrocitiesonB'deshis:JanhitParishad

DemandsProbe', October 15.- (1992j): 'Influx Creating Problems: SJP',

November 3.Observer fBusinessandPolitics(1992):'Basu for

StrictVisa Act toStopInfiltration',October16.

Patriot(1992a): 'CMs Meeton BanglaRefugeesCalled', September17.

- (1992b): 'No Takers for Illegal Immigrants',

September21.

- (1992c):'CMsOkayI-cards oCheckMigrants',

September29.- (1992d): 'Government. Close to Deporting

B'deshi Infiltrators',September29.- (1992e): 'Two Hurt n Delhi Clash',October2.

Paul, Madan and Sharat Lin (1995): 'Social

Insecurity,Vote-banksandCommunalism:A

Study of BangladeshiImmigrants n Delhi',Social Action, 45 (4), 468-478.

Pioneer (1992): 'India,Dhaka to JointlyTackle

Illegal Immigration',August 27.- (1992): 'BanglaRefugeesClash with Police, 5

Hurt',October2.- (1992): 'TensionoverDeportation',October14.- (1992): 'This is Not the Remedy' (editorial),

October 15.

-(1992): 'BSFUnhappywithBengaloverInflux',October27.

Punjabi,R (1992): 'BanglaRefugees Are Once

Again Nowhere People', Independent,November 12.

Radiance Views Weekly(1992): 'BangladeshisInfiltrators r Refugees' (editorial),27 (52),November 1-7, p 2.

- (1992): 'Bangladeshis Ordeal Near End?'

(editorial),November 22-28, p 2.- (1992): 'Delhi HC Asks Administrationo File

Detailed on 'B'Deshis' Deportation',November 22-28: 11.

Rai,Baljit(1992):MuslimFundamentalismn theIndian Subcontinent, B S Publishers,

Chandigarh.- (1993):DemographicAggressionagainstIndia:

Muslim Avalancheagainst Bangladesh,B S

Publishers,Chandigarh.Rai, Rambahadur1992): 'GhuspaithRokne ki

YojanaKagaziZyada' (The plan to preventinfiltration more a paper plan), Jansatta,

September30.

Raina, Jay (1992a): 'Infiltration from Assam

Assumes Alarming Proportions',Hindustan

Times,September3.- (1992b): 'Plan to Deport Bangla Nationals',

HindustanTimes, September2.Rakesh,S (1990): 'Ghuspaith:Khatareki Ghanti

Baj Chuki Hai' (Infiltration:he warningbell

has rung),NavbharatTimes, May 30.

Ram,N(1993): AppeasingHinduCommunalism',Frontline,January15, p 9.

Ramachandran,Sujata (1999): 'Of Boundaries

and Border Crossings: Undocumented

Bangladeshi'Infiltrators'and Hegemonyof

Hindu Nationalism in India', Interventions:

International ournalof PostcolonialStudies,1 (2), 235-253.

- (2002a):"ThereareManyBangladeshisn New

Delhi, but...': MethodologicalRoutines andFieldworkAnxieties', InternationalJournal

of Population Geography,forthcoming.- (2002b): 'Re-moving Bangladeshis: Un-

documented mmigrantsnNew Delhiand he

'Risks of EverydayLives", Paper presentedat the CanadianAssociation of Geographers'AnnualMeeting,Toronto,May.

Rangela,Renu(1992a): 'Bangladeshi mmigrantsIII: BribingTheir way to Safety', National

Herald, November4.- (1992b):'InfluxContinuesUnabated',National

Herald, November 3.

Rashtriya Sahara (1992): 'Bangladeshi Ghu-

spaithiyonka PataLaganeke Kaammei Tezi'

(The askofidentifyingBangladeshinfiltrators

acquires speedy pace), September27.

Ray,T (1992): 'A New Mantra:nfiltration,BJP's

ElectoralPlank',Frontline,November6, p32.

Samaddar,Ranabir1999):TheMarginalNation:TransborderMigration rom Bangladeshto

WestBengal, Sage, New Delhi.

Sarin,A (1992): 'CongmenWreckPlan toDeport

Bangladeshis', ndianExpress,September 8.

Sarkar(1992): 'KhurjaRiots 1990-91: Under-

standing the Conjecture', Economic and

Political Weekly,May 2, 951-965.

Sengupta,Bhabhani1992):'Operation ushback:

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',Timesof India, July 28, pp 1 and 5.

Srinivas,M (1992): 'Capital Blues', Frontline,November6, p 30.

Srivastava,Laliteshwar(1992): 'Nasoor Banti

Bangladeshiyon ki Ghuspaith Samasya'(The growing irritant that is the

Bangladeshi infiltrators' problem), Aaj,September 28.

Statesman1992a): 'CPI(M)AsksCenter oCheck

Infiltration',September17.

- (1992b): 'GovernmentPlaying with Fantasy'September20.

- (1992c): 'Eerie Calm in Yamuna Pushta',

September26.- (1992d): 'CMs for I-cards to Check Bangla

Influx', September29.- (1992e): 'CheckingInfiltrationa HardTask',

September29.- (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'DelhiColony of Bangladeshis',October 11.

TheHindu 1998a): SenaGovernmentnDilemmaover Deportations', July 26.

- (1998b): 'Deportation Issue Unlikely to

Disappear', August 6.

-(1992a): 'Bangladeshis' Deportation SteppedUp', September 11.

- (1992b): '2,000 Bangladeshisto be DeportedEvery Month', September11.

- (1992c): 'BSF to IdentifyIllegal Entrants rom

Bangladesh'September12.- (1992d): 'Dhaka Protests Deportation',

September22.- (1992e): 'Six CMs Will Meet in Delhi',

September26.

Timesof India(1992a): 'Two Home GuardsHurtin East Delhi Rioting', October 2.

- (1992b): Basu,BSFDiscussIllegalImmigrants'Issue', October 23.

- (1992c): 'OperationPushbackGrinds oAbruptHalt', November 3.

- (1992d): 'Pause in Pushback' (editorial),November 6.

Tribune1992a):'B'deshMigrantsEnjoyPolitical

Patronage', September27.- (1992b): 'CMs Meet on InfiltrationToday',

September28.

-(1992c): 'MrsZia MustThinkAgain'(editorial),October 10.

Tiwari, Vibhavasu(1992): 'Vote ki Rajnitiaur

Videshiyon ki Ghuspaith'(Politics of vote-

banks and infiltrationby foreigners), Nav-bharat Times, January18.

Vishwanathan, Prema, Ananda Mazumdar,Malabika Bhattacharya, Samudra Gupta

Kashyap, ndrajit ingh, SanjeevShrivastava,

Yogesh Vajpeyi and Prafulla Marpakwar(1992): 'Nowhere to Go', Indian Express

Sunday Magazine, September20.

Weiner, Myron(1993): 'Rejected Peoples andUnwanted Immigrants in South Asia' in

MyronWeiner(ed), InternationalMigrationand Security,Boulder,Westview Press, SanFranciscoand Colorado,pp 149-178.

- (1985): ThePoliticalDemographyf Assam'sAnti-Immigrantovement', opulationndDevelopmentReview,9 (2), June,pp279-292.

Economicand PoliticalWeekly February15, 2003 647

Printed'Operation Pushback'_ Sangh Parivar, State, Slums, And Surreptitious Bangladesh Is in New...

Documents

Transcript of Printed'Operation Pushback'_ Sangh Parivar, State, Slums, And Surreptitious Bangladesh Is in New...