#I also did a lot of work back in the day in repatriation of indigenous remains in museum contexts and I will tell you:

[et-excrucior]

So I’m going to highlight something I’m not sure people who like skeletons and curiosities think about often:

the human skeletal remains you see for sale in oddities shops were invariably grave-robbed.

I worked with human remains in an academic research context in the US for more than a decade. One of the first things I tried to teach my students was respect for the remains in our collections, not only because they were people, deserving of dignity in their death, but also because most of the skeletal remains in academic teaching collections were not donated voluntarily. In most cases, we have no idea exactly where they came from or to whom they belonged.

Historically, there has been a huge international trade in human skeletal remains for teaching medical students. The trade reached its peak in the 19th Century and continued for much of the 20th, and while ostensibly the practice was banned in India in 1985, it does still exist illegally. In the US and Europe, most of the remains in teaching collections were sourced from India through bone traders. Bone traders were (are) lower caste people charged with disposing of human remains—often by cremation, but also by interring in graves—but instead of doing so, sold the remains on to medical schools in the US/Europe through the intermediary of anatomical and medical supply companies. These anatomical specimens are the remains of people who were, unknowingly and without consent of their loved ones, denied their humanity in death to satisfy the appetite of the West for anatomical specimens, despite the remains of their own people being considered largely sacrosanct.

Which leads me to my next point: this practice originated under British Colonialism in India. I hope I don’t need to draw this point out, but objectification of these remains by medical students and researchers is a furtherance of the Western colonial project and othering of people of colour. As medical students, we’re trained to divorce ourselves emotionally from the remains we learn from in the name of professionalism. Medicine can often be confronting, and it serves patients and doctors alike to be able to continue working calmly and objectively in the face of those challenges. But in a world where empires and scientific disciplines have been (and continue to be) built on a legacy of scientific racism and dehumanisation, it behooves us to consider exactly how those teaching specimens were acquired—and how they came to be for sale.

Any human skeleton or human bones you see for sale in oddity stores are invariably retired teaching specimens, or were otherwise originally purchased through an anatomical specimen supply company that leveraged bone traders for acquiring their wares. In other words, those remains were grave-robbed, or stolen from funeral pyres and morgues. It is vanishingly unlikely that they are remains of known, ethically-sourced provenance like informed donation. If they were, they would not have been relinquished to the general public to be sold for profit. There would be contractual obligations that dictate how those remains would be managed once they need to be retired from teaching/decommissioned.

Please keep this in mind when you see human remains for sale in oddity shops. Buy plastic or ceramic teaching models instead. Don’t unwittingly continue creating a market for stolen human remains.

[rahulkota87]

Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register for Citizens (India)— a combined look

While we are about to finish the second month of CAA and NRC protests across our nation and in the midst of it we will be celebrating yet another republic day. It could not have been more ironic, though also more real as to what holds true to our democracy if we hold it dear.

While there has been lot written on what is happening and if one should be worried or one should not be, whether this is instigated or the pressure against those who are protesting is instigated, I thought we need to keep the reading of the act’s, bills in question to keep it bare why somethings matter and if there is instigation or real problem lurking for us to them mend ways later knowing we stepped into something which was a problem from beginning (we have done this many time over now, whichever government it be). So let me begin with the same in as methodical manner as possible..

CAA 2019 specifically brings the following —

In the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: — “Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause © of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act.

then

(3) On and from the date of commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, any proceeding pending against a person under this section in respect of illegal migration or citizenship shall stand abated on conferment of citizenship to him

There are other aspects too in terms of reduction of terms of 11 years period to 5 years to identify a person for requesting citizenship, but that also is a polarising one with granting of such right only to specific people.

But lets get back to the basics from the CAA reading above -

Please note that this is not our refugee policy so we are not speaking about what is going to happen from here onwards, that would be a story for some other time, hopefully one which is debated and discussed first. Thus CAA is more like a one time sweep since it covers people who are in India on or before December 31, 2014.

With the cut-off date set at December 31 2014, the number of people who are likely to benefit from the amendments stands at 31,313, a figure submitted by the IB during a parliamentary committee hearing on the bill in 2016. But there is a larger expectation that millions of people who have been illegally residing in the country will now feel empowered to apply for citizenship (but again those covered in the communities stated in CAA).

So the above clearly states and also HM did state this in the parliament that this act is looking to make good of the past. This act is not future looking but is looking back and doing the one time sweep for correction. Getting people on-boarded as citizens (but only those who fit the bill above).

Next in line comes NRC, currently limited to Assam with Assam accords but is expected to be mandated to all states in India. Now lets read the requirement of NRC properly —

Following documents and conditions are necessary to prove Indian citizenship and be eligible to enroll in the NRC,

Electoral roll

Land and tenancy records

Citizenship certificate

Permanent residential certificate

Refugee registration certificate

Any government issued license/certificate

Government service/ employment certificate

Bank or post office accounts

Birth certificate

State educational board or university educational certificate

Court records/processes

Passport

Any LIC policy

Above these widespread protests which are happening in the nation when one reads these 2 acts together, there is a different problem and different fight which is happening in North East, where the original Assam Accords and NRC base definitions came from . The main reason for this has been that north-eastern states have for long faced large scale migration from neighbouring countries and resultant protests from indigenous residents over the strain this migration placed on the social, economic and political fabric of the region right since the 1960’s . The protests here is on account of specific regions not covered in CAA and thus against legitimisation of all immigrants from any country irrespective of their faith as they still believe that this will again undermine their right to land and will be overrun by other population.

Specific lines from the act are which when you draw on the map will show how much of the other is left out where people are stating that the Assam accords and NRC they or their ancestors were promised is undermined —

Nothing in this section shall apply to tribal area of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura as included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and the area covered under “The Inner Line” notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873

++++++++++++++++++

Now lets look at the above together, once NRC is established and all people of India have to prove their citizenship then one of the above documents would be required. You would note something like Aadhar card has been ignored since it has been given to all people in India and government did not consider is as apt base line document since rigour of establishing citizenship was not strong while providing Aadhar. One glance the list and a lot of us would say this is easy for anyone, but those who would have worked with low income family groups would note how much problem this bodes to them.

So NRC will ask for the document and if one does not have any of the above and is from the communities listed in CAA can then claim citizenship under the amendment, especially if they are in India before December 31, 2014.

Those who are not covered then have the question to answer not just to the government but themselves about which country do they belong to even after having a few generations of living in India.

Some examples are -

Tamil hindus who were repatriated back from Sri Lanka in 1970s, the generations since then working in tea gardens of south do not have proper paperworks to claim citizenship. How do we classify them or do they claim they have come from Pakistan or Afghanistan?

Muslims who are not having proper documents (I take this as a point since NRC issue will not be a problem for Hindus, Sikhs, Parsi, Christian since they have at the very least an option to claim themselves to be one to be covered under CAA requirement (stating their ancestors came in India from the said countries), thus the point of HM a lot of illegal immigrants will come forward and register themselves).

Thus this pushes those from minority communities or those persecuted from other regions to keep their original past aside and get covered under the scope provided, which would not be fair to them and if they stick to who they are, they are currently unsure of how they will be perceived — an undocumented person in this nation after a few generations of his / her family living under the said democratic constitution of India.

The combination of the reading of the two acts reveals much more problem. Independent reading of these two acts may not show something as a problem though any divisive policy statement undermines our constitution. But there seems to be little to look away from when we read the act properly together and the amount of burden it will leave on the individual to prove their right to be called Indian. Some might say this is collateral for nation strength, but some will say this is central to reducing the secular aspect of our constitution.