Detecting Illegal Migrants: Thinking the Other Way

The reflections of EAM Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar on navigating the Emergency offer more than a personal anecdote; they illustrate a calibrated decision-making framework. Faced with a politically sensitive question during his Civil Services interview, he chose neither confrontation nor endorsement, but a carefully balanced response that preserved both integrity and outcome. That restrained, outcome-oriented thinking has relevance far beyond diplomacy.
Manipur today confronts a prolonged and evolving crisis. Recent developments, including reported targeting of the Tangkhul community, underline the volatility and widening fault lines. Among various explanations advanced by scholars and policymakers, the issue of illegal migration from across the Myanmar border remains central to public discourse. Yet, despite periodic assertions, there is little indication that a nationwide mechanism like the National Register of Citizens will be operationalised in Manipur in the immediate term, particularly before the next Census cycle.
If a direct route is administratively or politically stalled, a lateral approach deserves serious consideration. One such pathway lies in strengthening the integrity of the electoral roll through a rigorous and transparent Special Intensive Revision. Unlike the NRC, which is an exhaustive citizenship exercise, the SIR operates within the established framework of election management. It is periodic, legally grounded, and administratively feasible.
A credible SIR, conducted with institutional independence and robust verification protocols, can serve as a functional filter. Individuals found to be ineligible or improperly enrolled in electoral rolls can be lawfully removed. While deletion from the voter list is not, in itself, a declaration of non-citizenship, it creates a documented basis for further scrutiny. More importantly, it narrows the field of ambiguity.
The downstream effects are significant. Electoral rolls often act as foundational identity databases, indirectly linked to access points for welfare schemes—ranging from the Public Distribution System to other state benefits. Delisting ineligible entries would restrict such access, thereby reducing systemic leakages and discouraging fraudulent inclusion.
To reinforce this mechanism, the Manipur Legislative Assembly could consider a narrowly tailored legal provision: aligning state-level population records with authenticated electoral data. If an individual is duly removed from the electoral roll following due process, a corresponding flagging mechanism in state-maintained demographic registers could be instituted. This would not replace citizenship determination but would create administrative coherence across databases, enabling more targeted verification drives.
Critically, such an approach avoids the polarisation often associated with large-scale citizenship exercises. It works within existing legal architecture, reduces administrative burden, and builds incrementally toward the broader objective of identifying and addressing illegal migration.
The lesson drawn from Jaishankar’s approach is not about evasion, but about precision. In complex, high-stakes environments, progress often depends less on grand declarations and more on methodical, strategically sequenced actions. For Manipur, where urgency must be balanced with stability, thinking the other way may not be a compromise—it may be the most viable path forward.