172 E. L. RHOADS AND R. DAS West Bengal, and Tripura. It was in Assam that the issue became most politically contentious, when for a local constituency by-election in 1979, the electoral roll was found to be substantially comprised of foreigners. This led to the rise of a powerful nativist movement led by the All Assam Students Union (AASU) between 1979 and 1985.142 The government responded with the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act (IMDT) in 1983 and the Assam Accord between the central and state governments in 1985. The IMDT Act created an Assam-specific exception to the 1946 Foreigners Act by removing the onus of proving citizenship status from suspected individuals to their neighbors, who could report the presence of allegedly illegal migrants.143 While this law was limited in impact, the question of illegal migration of “almost exclusively Muslims” from Bangladesh triggered egregious xenophobia.144 The Assam Accord was far more decisive. This agreement specified that (a) all those who had migrated to India before 1966 were considered citizens; (b) those who had migrated between January 1966 and March 1971 could remain in India after registering as foreigners, and would be considered citizens ten years after registration; and (c) those who had entered Assam after March 1971 would be subject to deportation.145 The 1985 amendment to the Citizenship Act included these provisions in a new section (6A) titled “Special Provisions as to Citizenship of Persons Covered by the Assam Accord.” Additionally, Section 3 of the Citizenship Act was amended to specify that anyone born after the Constitution took effect but before July 1987 would be classified as a citizen, but anyone born after that date could only qualify for citizenship if one of their parents was a citizen. This dilution of birthright as the basis for citizenship was further consolidated in a 2004 amendment to the Citizenship Act which states that even if born on Indian soil, a person’s citizenship is conditional upon at least one of their parents being an Indian citizen and the other not being an illegal migrant at the time of birth.146 As Jayal observes: … since most of the migrants from Bangladesh were Muslims, this covertly introduced a religion-based exception to the principle of citizenship by birth, undermining the jus soli principle. These provisions were a response to the political situation in Assam – where anti-migrant sentiment was at a fever pitch – but already contained the seeds of the politicization and incipient communalization of the issue of migrants.147 Changes were also made to the 1955 Citizenship Act, introducing a region-specific exception for Rajasthan and Gujarat to handle migration from Pakistan. The amendment reads: In respect of minority Hindus with Pakistan citizenship who have migrated to India more than five years back with the intention of permanently settling down in India and have applied for Indian citizenship, the authority to register … shall be the concerned collector of the district where the applicant is normally resident.148 142 Jayal 2013, 64. The IMTD Act was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2005. 144 In 2005, the Supreme Court noted that the Act had resulted in expulsions in less than half a percent of all cases initiated. See Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India. 145 The Assam Accord 1985. 146 Bangar 2017. 147 Jayal 2019, 35. 148 Quoted in Jayal 2013, 67. 143