On January 26, 1950, India commenced its journey as a 'Sovereign Democratic Republic'. On January 3, 1977, Indira Gandhi government redefined India as "Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic". Just 26 days after engrafting "socialist' and 'secular' in the Constitution's Preamble, it superseded Justice HR Khanna by appointing M Hameedullah Beg as Chief Justice of India.

The Preamble, which promised to secure to all its citizens "fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual" also added another important aspect- "unity and integrity of the nation". Sadly, these terms - "secular" and "unity and integrity of the nation" - have become intellectual political tools.

Politically influenced protests since 1977 had always been only on secularism issue and never on unity and integrity of the nation. Today, it has manifested into protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.

Since the 1970s, unity and integrity of India faces serious threat from continuous illegal migration from Bangladesh to north-eastern states, especially Assam, gravely threatening their culture, demography and landownership.

Students agitation and popular support to it came to a boil in 1983 through Nellie massacre of illegal Bangladeshi migrants, who had swelled the electoral rolls.

Rajiv Gandhi government finalised Assam Accord in 1985, promising identification of foreigners who came in after March 24, 1971 and deport them after deleting their names from electoral rolls.

Nothing changed on ground. Illegal migration continued with political patronage. Process for their identification was deliberately made complicated and lethargic. On November 8, 1998, then Assam governor Lt Gen SK Sinha (former deputy chief of Army Staff) sent a hair-raising report to AB Vajpayee government apprising it about grave consequences of unabated illegal migration to Assam.

Sinha's report, as quoted by the Supreme Court in Sarbananda Sonowal-I judgement [2005 (5) SCC 665], said, "The silent and invidious demographic invasion of Assam may result in the loss of geo-strategically vital districts of lower Assam. Influx of these illegal migrants is turning these districts into a Muslim majority region. It will then only be a matter of time when a demand for their merger with Bangladesh may be made. The rapid growth of international Islamic fundamentalism may provide for driving force for this demand.

In this context, it is pertinent that Bangladesh has long discarded secularism and has chosen to become an Islamic State. Loss of Assam will severe the entire land mass of north-east, from the rest of India and the rich natural resources of that region will be lost to the nation."

The Vajpayee government did little to address the grave situation. Sinha's predictions have come true. Nine border districts in Assam have become Muslim majority. Intellectuals remained silent. Rights activists did not bother. Craving for vote bank, politicians did not protest against government's lethargy.

Sinha had said, "Some political parties have been encouraging and even helping illegal migration with a view to building vote banks". There were enough funds available to bribe corrupt officials to forge residence papers of these foreigners. Alarmingly, Sinha's finding that illegal immigrants were "primary contributing factor behind outbreak of insurgency in the state" did not stir anyone.

SC in Sonowal-I said, "there can be no manner of doubt that the state of Assam is facing 'external aggression and internal disturbances' on account of large scale illegal migration of Bangladeshi nationals " and that Centre is duty bound to take all measures to protect Assam.

It struck down Illegal Migrants Determination through Tribunal (IMDT) Act and ordered identification of foreigners through Tribunals under Foreigners Act. Congress-led UPA government, duty-bound under Assam Accord and directed by the SC, did just the opposite. It exempted Assam from the purview of Foreigners Act to allow Bangladeshis a free run in Assam. SC in Sonowal-II [2007 (1) SCC 174] struck down the decision and forced Centre to set up Foreigners Tribunal.

No protest was organized since 2005 for immediate identification of foreigners in Assam. Activists spent a lot of ink and lung power to find ways and means to protect these foreigners. One example was Harsh Mandher, who petitioned the SC for release of foreigners lodged in detention centres of Assam on two grounds - they have already undergone sentence and condition of detention homes was appalling.

SC asked about living condition in detention centres, Assam said it was constructing a huge one with modern amenities. Departing from script, the SC asked the government on steps to locate nearly one lakh Bangladeshis who have mingled with population after tribunals declared them foreigners.

Finding that his petition to give succor to foreigners was having opposite effect, Mandher accused SC of bias and sought recusal of then CJI, who said, "if the court agrees with you, then it is ok. If it does not, then it is biased?" Some activist lawyers scathingly criticized present CJI-led bench for asking anti-CAA protesters not to take law into their hands. CJI did not stop protests. He merely asked protesters to remain non-violent to enable court to hear petitions challenging CAA in a congenial atmosphere.

Activist lawyers passionately talk about independence of judiciary. They don't waste a breath in accusing the SC of bowing to pressures when they do not get relief in any of their petitions against select governments or tycoons.

We saw how Gorakhapur children's deaths became a hot political issue, but not the Kota deaths. Why no protests to force governments equip hospitals better? Activist lawyers advocate purity of judiciary. But, when faced with criminal cases, we know of some of the prominent ones rushing to privately meet Judges to seek relief on judicial side. This double-talk must stop. Protest is a fundamental right and must be against both government action and inaction.

