If India wants to build trade relations with the UK post-Brexit, it should rethink plans to displace millions of people

The proposals could render so many citizens stateless, that the danger of another Rohingya-style crisis cannot be discounted

I am a British-Bangladeshi who lost family members in the atrocities of the brutal Bangladesh war of independence in 1971. I came to this country in the mid-1970s, but my parents recounted the horrors of what they remembered and, in particular, what my mother witnessed; a self-inflicted penance for them, (and for me) never to forget.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court in India mandated the final draft of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) – a list of Assam citizens with proof of their arrival to the state by 24 March 1971, the day that Bangladesh became independent.

Originally completed in 1951, the register contained the names of Indian citizens. Between 1979-1985, the All Assam Students Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGP) initiated a movement for the identification and deletion of foreigners from the voter list, as well as their subsequent deportation. This movement resulted in the creation of the Assam Accord, which stated that relatives of those listed on the original NRC in 1951 and other migrants registered between 1961 and 24 March 1971, would be accepted as Indian citizens. The NRC’s latest update is the result of the AASU’s constant demands, the ramifications of which are enormous.

The most glaring consequence of the register update is its potential to render almost 4 million people stateless, thus sparking another Rohingya-style crisis. Many of these unregistered citizens fled to India and settled in Assam following Bangladesh’s independence. Those who were mere infants at the time only know the region as their home; it’s the place where they spent their childhood, went to school and are now raising their own families. Not only are these people now at risk of losing their rights, they face the loss of their homes and, essentially, their freedom.

It is alleged that if a citizen does not have his or her name on the register, they may dispute the decision on a prescribed form. The irony is that in many cases, they will be submitting the same document that was rejected in the initial rounds of verification.

Some Bengali campaigners believe that this is a deliberate attempt to incite violence and drive Muslims out of the community, as the majority of those who are not on the NRC are Bengali-speaking Muslims, who have been targeted in the past. And while some Bengalis did arrive before the cut-off date, many do not have the legal documentation to prove it, with a number of Bengalis having travelled to other states before settling in Assam.

To make matters worse, later this year, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 will amend the 1955 Citizenship Act, granting citizenship to illegal immigrants from certain religions, excluding Islam.

India is an emerging economy, an economy that the very people on the register contributed to. So just how Britain will justify boosting trade with India post-Brexit in light of such a register is well worth questioning.

Although Britain’s global trade policy has been shaped, in part, by the EU, the need for transparency in global trade deals once that 40-year membership ends, will be more urgent than ever. In a time when countries are creating registers with the main purpose of causing displacement, or to question the validity of people’s identities, discussions around the UK’s global trade ethics following Brexit is imperative. Our government has the power to choose which country to start trade deals with. It has the authority to lay down its priorities and carry out negotiations without too much scrutiny from MPs.

More than half of the Commonwealth’s population is Indian, and its GDP comprises a sixth of the Commonwealth’s total. Therefore, as MPs continue to examine Britain’s relationship with this economic power in order to enhance trade, India too needs to understand that its failure to register innocent people stands directly in the way of its ambitions to become more of a global force.