The passing and implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) marks a momentous shift in the nation’s approach to citizenship. In the heart of the historic decision lies a complex mosaic of historical events, demographic and ideological shifts. The genesis of the CAA can be traced to the tumultuous Partition of British-occupied Bharat in 1947. An era, marked by the fallacious stance of the Muslim League, led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which propagated the notion that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist – a premise that was put to the rest as millions of Muslims chose to remain in Bharat, despite the formation of East and West Pakistan exclusively for Muslims. The violent emergence of Bangladesh from Pakistan obliterated Jinnah’s claim that a singular Muslim state was the panacea for communal harmony and coexistence.
In both these countries, the aspiration to uphold and foster Islamic tenets often translated into systemic and legislatively endorsed persecution of minorities – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. These communities have their historical roots in the erstwhile cultural landscape of Bharat but they have faced, and continue to face, relentless religious persecution and systematic violence in what they considered their homeland. Their ordeals have been marked by forced conversions, forced marriages, massacres, extreme violence against women, and the desecration and destruction of sacred sites and educational institutions. Despite the 1950 Liaquat–Nehru Pact and the Bangladesh Constitution of 1972 espousing minority rights and secularism, the reality remains fraught with contradictions, particularly as these nations declared Islam as their state religion.
This was also echoed in Afghanistan’s constitutional journey, from the 1931 endorsement of Hanafi Shariah to the 2004 Constitution that sought to balance Shia and Sunni Islam yet declared that no law could contradict Islamic tenets, laying the groundwork for state-endorsed discrimination against minorities. The Taliban years starkly exemplified this, as their strict interpretation of Sharia law further marginalised religious and ethnic minorities, evidenced by the tragic destruction of the giant Buddha statues of Bamiyan. The extreme persecution of minorities resulted in a situation where there are hardly any Christians, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists or Sikhs left in Afghanistan.
It is against these neighbourhood realities that Bharat’s CAA was conceived and implemented, setting the stage for a law aimed at providing refuge to persecuted minorities from these countries, whose cultural footprints emanate from Bharat. The CAA, thus, is not merely a legislative act but a response to a historical legacy of division, persecution, violence and discrimination, offering a new path towards inclusivity and protection for those fleeing persecution.
International Examples
In the intricate mosaic of global legislation addressing the plight of persecuted minorities, Bharat’s CAA emerges with a distinct humanitarian ethos, paralleled yet contrasted by international counterparts. Notably, the United States’ Lautenberg Amendment, introduced in 1990, similarly targets religiously persecuted minorities, facilitating their resettlement from the Soviet Union and, following a 2004 extension, from Iran. Like the CAA, it identifies specific religious communities as historically persecuted, excluding Muslims from the Soviet Union and Iran, thereby hastening the path to citizenship for these selected groups.
In stark contrast, the United Kingdom’s Nationality and Borders Act of 2022 embodies a markedly different approach, empowering the government to revoke citizenship without notification under Clause 9—a provision that has sparked controversy for its potential to disproportionately affect British Muslims, highlighting ethnic and religious divides. The case of Shamima Begum, often cited in debates, underscores the law’s focus on revocation rather than protection, raising ethical and human rights concerns.
While the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments in the United States echo the CAA’s intent to shelter historically persecuted groups, the UK’s Nationality and Borders Act diverges, prioritising national security over humanitarian considerations. This juxtaposition illuminates the CAA’s unique position in the international legal landscape as a beacon of refuge, distinguishing Bharat’s legislative approach to addressing religious persecution without resorting to the revocation of citizenship
Commitment to Human Rights
To conclude, the CAA unequivocally embodies Bharat’s commitment to providing sanctuary to persecuted minorities, standing out as a beacon of humanitarian leadership on the global stage. It is crucial to reiterate that the CAA is not an act designed to revoke citizenship nor is it anti-Muslim or discriminatory in nature. Instead, it represents a unique and targeted legislative effort aimed at extending a hand of protection to those with historical and cultural ties to Bharat who have suffered injustices in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
By enacting this legislation, Bharat not only responds to a historical legacy of division and persecution but presents an example to the international community. The CAA is a unique testament to Bharat’s commitment to universal values of dignity, safety, and human rights.
CAA underscores Bharat’s dedication to balancing national sovereignty with a profound sense of global humanitarian responsibility – ultimately enhancing Bharat’s stature on the world stage as a beacon of hope and sanctuary.
Leave a Comment