The Act is not about religion but a religious identity. It is not about discriminating but helping those who are discriminated against. It is not about persecution, but providing dignity by granting citizenship.
The Indian parliament has enacted the Citizenship Amendment ACT (CAA), after passing the Bill in both houses after a rich and extensive debate with a vast majority. Last time, the Bill had lapsed because the Rajya Sabha did not pass it. “This Bill is in line with India’s centuries-old ethos of assimilation and belief in humanitarian values,” tweeted, PM Modi. Since then, in the name of protest, vulgar arson and rioting across India have created quite a storm.
What is this Act? What are the objections to it and has the protest taken such an ugly shape? All this requires some explaining.
What is Citizenship Amendment ACT (CAA)?
The CAA amends The Citizenship Act, 1955 to make Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi, and Christian illegal migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, eligible for citizenship of India. Under the 1955 Act, one of the requirements for citizenship by naturalization was that the applicant must have resided in India for 11 of the previous 14 years as well as during the last 12 months. The amendment relaxes the requirement from 11 years to 5 years as a specific condition for the applicants mentioned above.
Illegal immigration in India is an offense, so ‘illegal migrants’ cannot become Indian citizens. An “illegal migrant” is a foreigner who – enters India without valid travel documents (passport and visa) or enters with valid documents but stays beyond the permitted period. However, through this amendment, the Indian Government exempted specified groups – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Pharsis and Christians from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, who reached India on or before December 31, 2014, of illegal migrants. The essence of this exemption is to be an amnesty of sorts – a one-time pardon to those who illegally migrated to India fleeing “religious persecution.”
What was the need for CAA?
First, Islam is the state religion of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. It is a fact that India was divided on the basis of religion, and millions of Muslims chose the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a nation created for Muslims. Since then amount of persecution of minorities can be gauged from the fact that at the time of Partition in 1947, almost 16 percent of Pakistan’s population was Hindu, today they are just 1.5 percent. The proportion of non-Muslims population of Pakistan has declined from 23 percent to 3 percent. The Hindus in East Pakistan (Now Bangladesh) were 23 percent in 1951, and today they are 8 percent. On the contrary, since Partition, the Muslim population in India has grown from 9 percent to 16 percent.
No one has the gumption to deny that the minority population share in Pakistan and Bangladesh has decreased because millions are persecuted, converted, raped, and killed. The atrocities continue even today. Where would those Indic people and Christians go? In such a situation, like civilizational nations, which actively promote, protect, and nurture their heritage, the Indian Government Acted. Entirely in tune with settled constitutional principle, it made a clear case of positive discrimination on the humanitarian ground to help the religiously persecuted minorities of the three neighboring Islamic countries who have migrated to India, get Indian citizenship. Each of these groups has civilizational ties with India for millennia and more.
Remember, these people are not economic migrants in search of jobs or a better life. Their very existence was at stake because of their religious beliefs. Their only natural home in the world is the natural home of their ancestors for centuries, India.
A lot of erroneous allegations, propaganda, and fear-mongering are doing rounds to create confusion to instigate the crowds. Let us analyze these objections to CAA and see what the reality is.
Does CAA violate Article 14?
The fundamental criticism of CAA is that it specifically targets Muslims. How can the state differentiate between people based on religion violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality?
Article 14 indeed establishes the concept of ‘equality’ before the law, and the Indian constitution obligates the state to be religion-neutral. However, there is an exception called the “doctrine of reasonable classification.” It is a well-settled precedent that positive discrimination is not prohibited in the constitution if the criteria for classification are reasonable. What it means is that because of historical, social, or other reasons, some groups or a section of people can be given privileges over and above those ordinarily available to all citizens. For example, consider reservations based on caste or scholarships for minorities based on religion.
This objection also ignores the undeniable fact that if persecution has happened based on religion, a solution will inevitably touch and concern religion. The persecuted minorities from these three nations form a reasonable classification since all have faced systematic persecution due to their faith and their presence in countries with Islam as State religion. There is no doubt when this narrowly tailored ACT will be challenged in the Court; it will smoothly pass the test of constitutionality.
Persecuted refugees Vs economic migrants: It is fallacious to think that India as any business to interfere with the misgovernance of its neighboring countries and uplift the economic conditions of its citizens. They have to take care of their destiny in their own country. India’s resources are for its people, and there is no obligation, moral or otherwise, on the Indian state to use its precious resources to sustain citizens of another country economically. Hence there is no merit in the argument to treat the economic migrants at par with refugees of religious persecution.
Anti-Muslim: One of the worst lies spread is that CAB is against Indian Muslims. The fact is that CAA has nothing to do with Indian citizens, Muslim or otherwise. How does a law that seeks to grant citizenship to foreign refugees already living in India affect Indian Muslims? Indian Muslims are and will continue to enjoy all the benefits as any other legitimate Indian citizens of any faith.
It is only those Muslims who are illegal migrants here that will not be regularized under CAB as they are not victims of religious persecution that is the basis and the fundamental premise of this law. By definition, somebody who belongs to the religion of the state itself cannot be subjected to religious persecution.
India does accept all kinds of refugees, including Muslims, and the doors have not been shut for them as the general naturalization law under section 6 of the Citizenship Act remains available. One famous example is Adnan Sami. Taslima Nasreen, a politically persecuted person from Bangladesh, was also given asylum in India. The CAB, in no way, deals with the deportation of illegal immigrants. Deportation is a subject matter of an already existing law – the Foreigners Act.
Many are also falsely arguing that any Hindu can become an Indian citizen under CAB. It does not automatically give citizenship to Hindus. They must have come from only these three countries and also lived in India, as stipulated in the law. Only after such qualification, they can apply for citizenship. For example, there are lots of Tamil Hindus from Sri Lankan who are living in camps in India, but they have not been included in CAB. The exclusion of Sri Lankan Tamils does not make this law anti-Hindu, either.
The biggest beneficiaries of the CAB will be Dalits and lower-caste Hindus from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Their daughters are routinely picked up, married against their will, and are forcefully converted to Islam. For seventy years, these poor people ran for their lives and settled in Kashmir. But there, they were denied jobs, dignity, and fundamental human rights because of Article 370. No one outraging today against the CAB raised any concern. Now that India is giving equal rights to Dalits in Jammu & Kashmir – it is called anti-Muslim! India gives refuge & citizenship to Dalits from Pakistan and Bangladesh; it becomes anti-Muslim. So, by opposing the CAB, they are once again showing their anti-Dalit mindset using Muslims as a shield.
Why not Ahmediyas, Tamils, or Rohingyas: There is a fundamental difference between persecuted religious minorities and ethnic violence. Ahmediyas and Shias are victims of sectarian and ethnic violence and not religious persecution like Sri Lankan Tamils. Similarly, Rohingyas don’t fall in this category of minorities who bore the brunt of Partition and hence are persecuted.
Also, there are reports that Rohingyas and other influx of migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh are a threat to our national security as they bring an inherent risk of terrorism, bomb factories, and street violence. It goes without saying that without the CAB, genuine persecuted minority refugees in the country would feel harassed by the NRC process, causing further misery to the already marginalized and vulnerable people.
Concerns of North-East States: Although it is true that some people in north-eastern states, particularly in Assam, are protesting against CAA, their reason is entirely different. The protestors in Assam and other North-East states are against giving citizenship – neither Muslim migrants nor the non-Muslim persecuted refugees – regardless of religion, unlike the opposition to the Act over the exclusion of Muslims.
Their fears of demographic change, loss of livelihood opportunities, and erosion of the indigenous culture have triggered deep anxieties. However, the Government has been sensitive, and CAB has a specific provision that excludes autonomous tribal regions under the Sixth Schedule. It means the areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram would be excluded. Moreover, Article 371, which provides exclusive rights to North-eastern states, will not be affected. States with an Inner Line Permit (required to enter states of Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Mizoram) that are excluded and extend this benefit to Manipur as well.
A broader question to the political parties raking up this issue is- if you are pro-minority in India and that you believe in the protection of minorities within India, then why is it that you oppose persecuted minorities from the neighborhood? Just like they didn’t have any argument against the abrogation of Article 370, they do not have any logic or reason to oppose CAB except lies and emotional rants based on fake secularism and election strategies based on fear-mongering.
Congress Party refuses to accept how they failed the nation in 1947. Who could dispute that Hindus were the victims of Partition? Who could believe that economic migrants should be treated the same as refugees escaping for their lives? These political parties coming together under the fake-secular umbrella with the single aim of pushing a radical Islamist agenda is terrifying.
The Partition of India was a cataclysmic event that violently uprooted millions of people from their homes, for no fault of theirs. The people who chose to live in then Pakistan found themselves in an Islamic nation governed by religious laws. It was Congress leader and PM Jawaharlal Nehru who signed the Nehru-Liaquat Pact to ensure minorities are taken care of in their respective countries. While India not only stood by its minorities, it also gave them several privileges, Pakistan didn’t. When that hasn’t happened, shouldn’t the Congress itself lead from the front that India should fulfill its role as a protector?
The politicians, community leaders, students, media or the left-liberal commentators, not a single voice criticizing the CAB is telling how it is against Indian Muslims with a single reasonable argument. All of them are shamelessly indulging in malicious fear-mongering spreading panic and paranoia with their toxic propaganda and outright lies. Sooner they put an end to this nonsense; it is better.
This Act is not about religion but a religious identity. It is not about discriminating but helping those who are discriminated against. It is not about persecution, but providing dignity by granting citizenship because they are not followers of the state religion of Pakistan and Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Without a doubt, one has to credit both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah their articulation and firm determination for dutifully fulfilling an essential and long-pending civilizational duty.
Leave a Comment