In a firm stance against the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Tamil Nadu, Chief Minister MK Stalin reiterated the state government’s unwavering commitment to prevent the enforcement of the controversial legislation. His statement comes amidst a wave of opposition from various non-BJP ruled states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal, which have declared their refusal to allow the implementation of the CAA within their respective territories.
Stalin, addressing the concerns of the people, declared, “We will not in any way permit the law to be enforced in Tamil Nadu.” He emphasised the government’s commitment to safeguarding India’s unity and unequivocally rejected the CAA as unnecessary, urging for its repeal.
The Chief Minister criticised the Modi government for what he described as a hurried issuance of the notification, especially in the proximity of the upcoming Lok Sabha polls. Stalin contended that the CAA, with its associated rules outlined by the Union government, not only contradicted the fundamental principles of the Constitution but also posed a threat to the diverse and secular fabric of India. He highlighted the state’s previous opposition to the CAA, citing the resolution adopted by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly on September 8, 2021.
Stalin went on to express concern about the potential political motivations behind the timing of the CAA’s notification. He suggested that the move might be an attempt to divert attention from critical issues, such as the Supreme Court’s consideration of the electoral bonds matter. The Chief Minister underlined the divisive nature of the CAA, stating that it goes against the nation’s pluralistic character and harms the well-being of minorities and Sri Lankan Tamil refugees living in camps.
In response to Stalin’s firm stance, Tamil Nadu BJP President K Annamalai challenged the authority of the Chief Minister, reiterating that Stalin had no right to declare the non-implementation of the CAA in the state. Annamalai asserted that the CAA was a central piece of legislation, and State governments did not have the jurisdiction to reject its enforcement. He emphasised the need for all States to abide by central laws and questioned the legitimacy of Stalin’s claim.
“ஒன்றிய பா.ஜ.க. அரசு நடைமுறைப்படுத்தியுள்ள குடியுரிமை திருத்தச் சட்டம் (CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT – CAA) இந்திய அரசமைப்புச் சட்டத்திற்கு எதிரானது; தமிழ்நாட்டில் இச்சட்டம் நடைமுறைப்படுத்தப்படாது” என மாண்புமிகு முதலமைச்சர் @mkstalin அவர்கள் அறிவித்துள்ளார். pic.twitter.com/pPxa8fbxmO
— CMOTamilNadu (@CMOTamilnadu) March 12, 2024
Tamil Nadu BJP chief K Annamalai addressed reporters in Chennai, providing a comprehensive clarification on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) provisions and emphasizing India’s refugee policy.
Annamalai began by contextualizing the CAA, emphasizing that the legislation focused on refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, where religious minorities faced religious persecution. These individuals, including Hindus, Christians, Jains, Parsis, Sikhs, and Buddhists, enter India seeking asylum. The CAA, passed in 2019, grants citizenship to refugees who have been living in camps, with India following the Principle of Non-Refoulement, assuring that refugees won’t be sent back to their countries until conditions improve. He clarified that India is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees 1951 and 1967, indicating that refugees in India do not fall under UN law.
Highlighting India’s refugee policy, Annamalai explained that those seeking citizenship must have lived in the country for 11 out of 14 years. However, the CAA allows an exception for refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who were in India before December 31, 2014. For them, the waiting period is reduced to five years. Annamalai stated that India follows a systematic procedure to grant citizenship to those eligible under the CAA.
Addressing the misconceptions and debates surrounding the CAA in Tamil Nadu, Annamalai expressed concern that political parties were discussing the legislation without a comprehensive understanding of its provisions. He urged a more informed discussion based on factual information and clarified that the CAA aligns with India’s refugee policy, ensuring a humanitarian approach.
Turning the focus to the Sri Lankan refugees, Annamalai shed light on the 1986 standing order issued by the Home Ministry, stating that India would not follow the UN’s 1951 and 1967 Refugee laws. Instead, the country adheres to the Principle of Non-Refoulement. The order specifies that those who sought refuge in India during the crisis in Sri Lanka would not be sent back, even after conditions improved. Notably, the standing order reflects India’s commitment to humanitarian principles in handling refugee matters.
Former union minister Subramanian Swamy said “Stupid. It is for Kashmir and North east and not for TN.” This statement is going viral, with netizens joining in the comments to express their opinions and views.
Stupid. It is for Kashmir and North east and not for TN
— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) March 12, 2024
Legal experts have weighed in on the authority of states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal to block the central government’s outreach to persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh through the grant of Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019. They assert that the constitutional framework places the Centre exclusively in charge of all matters related to citizenship, including citizenship, naturalisation, and aliens’ entry, listed under entry no. 17 in the union list under the seventh schedule.
