Kausar Jahan, Chairman of the Delhi Haj Committee, has lauded the recent notification of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) by the Union Home Ministry. Expressing her views on the matter, Jahan emphasised that the CAA is designed to grant citizenship rather than strip it away, highlighting its significance in providing a dignified life for non-Muslims in neighbouring countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Jahan stated, “I welcome this. This is an act to give citizenship and not take it away. The condition of non-Muslims in our neighbouring countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh is not good. If the government wants to give them a respectful life, what is the problem with it? The Muslim community will not have any problem with this; there is no need to panic.”
#WATCH | Delhi: On the CAA notification, Delhi Haj Committee Chairman Kausar Jahan says, "I welcome this. This is an act to give citizenship and not take it away. The condition of Non-Muslims in our neighboring countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh is not good. If the govt wants… pic.twitter.com/eMoJhep6L2
— ANI (@ANI) March 11, 2024
Click here to read the complete document of the CAA
The Citizenship Amendment Act, passed in 2019, aims to expedite the citizenship process for religious minorities facing persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. The recent notification of rules for CAA implementation by the Union Home Ministry comes ahead of the announcement of the Lok Sabha election schedule.
Jahan’s measured response emphasises the need for a calm and rational discussion surrounding the CAA, urging the public to avoid unnecessary panic. The Chairman’s acknowledgment of the challenges faced by non-Muslims in neighbouring nations aligns with the humanitarian aspect of the CAA, providing refuge to those escaping religious persecution.
Also Read: Citizenship Amendment Act: Union Government implements CAA ahead of Lok Sabha Polls 2024
While the CAA has been a subject of debate and discussion, Jahan’s positive reception indicates that individuals in key positions recognise the potential benefits for affected communities. As the nation navigates conversations around citizenship and inclusivity, Jahan’s perspective adds a nuanced dimension to the ongoing dialogue.
CAA clears air about the bill not being discriminatory or being anti-Muslim?
For religious minorities, who are victims of oppression just because of their religious identity in their own countries, any action for their protection won’t dent secularism in India, as the contrary is being claimed. It would rather uphold and strengthen our secularism, which seeks to protect and promote the rights of every individual irrespective of his/her religion. The very purpose of this bill is to ensure well-being of minorities who are suffering religious persecution in these three countries viz Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afganistan. Since Muslims are neither minorities nor do they face persecution because of their religious affiliation in these countries, they are obviously not included here. It is important to note that the Citizenship Amendment Bill doesn’t discriminate against the
Indian Muslims who are its citizens, it only aims to protect those minorities who get persecuted in their home countries owing to their religious affiliation.
• Any foreigner of any religion from any country can apply for Indian citizenship if he/she is eligible to do so as per Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The CAB does not change these provisions at all. It only provides for affirmative preference to the migrants of six minority communities from three countries to apply for Indian citizenship if they meet the given criteria.
• Secondly, if we were to provide Citizenship to all Pakistani and Bangladeshi citizens then Partition of the country where we gave 1/3rd of our land will become redundant. So, once a set of territory has already been given that too specifically on religious grounds, it doesn’t make any sense to again give citizenship to those who chose Pakistan or Bangladesh as their homeland
As the CAA rules come into effect, the spotlight remains on fostering understanding and constructive discussions that address concerns while upholding the principles of justice and compassion. Jahan’s stance echoes the sentiment that the CAA, when implemented judiciously, can contribute to a more inclusive and compassionate society.
Comments