The Citizenship Amendment Bill which was recently passed by
the Parliament has become a casualty to fear mongering by a lot of sections of
people in the country. A lot of erroneous allegations are doing rounds to
create confusion and instigate the crowds. While most of these have inherent
biases against almost everything that the government proposes, there are few
who’re genuinely concerned about the state of our country. I hope to logically
get through to them. So, let’s lacerate this haze about this latest legislation
that has been adopted. This legislation aims to provide
that the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from
Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who entered India on or before December
31, 2014, will not be treated as illegal migrants. In order to get this
benefit, they must have also been exempted from the Foreigners Act, 1946 and
the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 by the central government. The
1920 Act mandates foreigners to carry passport, while the1946 Act regulates the
entry and departure of foreigners in India. The basic aim of this
legislation is absolutely unrelated to what propaganda that has been peddled the
Lutyens’ Khan Market Gang. The aim of this legislation is to correct the
historical injustice which has been done to all these communities. In a broader
perspective, Partition caused about one crore people to cross over the
boundaries and take refuge as paupers. The people who chose to live in then
Pakistan found themselves in an Islamic nation governed by religious laws. A
pact between Republic of India represented by then PM Pandit Nehru and Islamic
Republic of Pakistan represented by then PM Liaqat Ali Khan was signed to
ensure safety of minorities in both the newly formed nations, which came to be
known as Nehru-Liaqat Pact. However, let’s look at the situation of minorities
in both these nations. In India Muslims formed 9 percent of total population in
1947 while Hindus were 85 percent. In 2011 census, Hindus were pegged at 79.8
percent while Muslims are placed at around 15 percent of total population. The
amount of persecution in other nations can be gauged from some of the further
mentioned situation. Farahnaz Ispahani in her article Cleansing Pakistan of
its Minorites claims that “at the time of partition in 1947, almost 23
percent of Pakistan’s population was comprised of non-Muslim citizens. Today,
the proportion of non-Muslims has declined to approximately 3 percent.” In a
speech, Bangladeshi researcher Abdul Barakat claimed that “on an average 632
Hindus left the country each day and 230,612 annually. He says there will be no
Hindus left within Bangladesh within next 30 years.” This is in addition to the
frequent news of Hindu girls being abducted and forcibly converted in Pakistan
becomes a frequent headline. It’s not that we became aware of this today. Back
in 1950s, Bengali Dalit leader Jogendranath Mandal, who was a minister in East
Pakistan, had to flee to India on account of persecution of Hindus. It was
expected that India and the newly formed nations would protect their
minorities. While India stands by its minorities, others have miserably failed
to do the same. Henceforth it is only natural that India should fulfil its role
as a protector and truly implement the Nehru-Liaqat Pact.
Now let’s look at the outlook of this law and bust some
myths. First let’s look at legality of this legislation. Article 11 of the
Constitution says “Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law.
Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part shall derogate from the power
of Parliament to make any provision with respect to the acquisition and
termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship”, So
the parliament has sole right to regulate matters regarding the citizenship.
Some CMs have made tall claims regarding not allowing the implementation in
their states’. They shouldn’t get their hopes up. There have been claims made
by some sections that this law is violative of Fundamental Rights, granted to us by the Constitution. First, among these rights, only Article 14 and 21 are automatically extended to non-citizens. Others are reserved only for all current citizens of the republic. It is true that
Article 14 establishes the concept of Equality Before Law and Equal Protection
of Law, thus ensuring no one is discriminated on basis of religion. But there
is an exception. Article 14 makes provision for “reasonable classification”
wherein the principle of equality is relaxed. Thus, the principle of
affirmative action or positive discrimination is possible if the criteria for
classification is reasonable. All our policies for caste-based reservations,
special rights to minorities in India are possible due to this reasonable
classification. Even the Supreme Court has underlined this concept. In the case
of Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S R Tendolkar, the Court said “It is
now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does
not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation”. It put
forth the concept of “intelligible differentia” which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group,
and one which has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by
the statute in question. The object sought to be achieved as underlined in the
act is to give citizenship to some community instead of taking or denying any
community any benifit. Moreover, In the case of Parisons Agrotech Pvt Ltd.
v. Union of India, the Apex Court held that the equality clause does not
forbid geographical classification, provided the difference between the
geographical units has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved. Similarly, the persecuted minorities from these three nations form a
reasonable classification, since all have faced systematic attacks, persecution
and communal violence due to their presence in Islamic nations. All of the
above being said, I’m sure this legislation would stand the test in the Supreme
Court as well. Indian Muslims or for that matter any current Indian citizen, is
in no way affected by this amendment. They are and will continue to enjoy all
the benefits as legitimate Indian citizens. So, in essence this act is only a relaxation given to members of these six
communities in the period of naturalisation, reduced from 11+1 years to 5+1 years,
provided they fulfil all the conditions. The bill deals with refugees who
are foreign citizens. Government has NOT prohibited any person of any country,
Muslim or not, to apply for citizenship of our republic through the legal
means. Any such process take place under
other acts like Foreigners Act, 1946 and the MHA will continue to grant
citizenship to everyone through that means, just as it was the case before
enactment. India has also declared that any refugee entering India post 2015
shall be examined by the above-mentioned acts irrespective of their religion.
Let’s examine the claims of some smaller groups within the Islam. But before
that let’s keep in mind that there is a fundamental difference between
persecuted religious minorities and ethnic violence. Ahmadiyya and Shias are
victims of sectarian and ethnic violence which has nothing to do with religious
persecution. Thus, they can’t be compared to persecuted religious minorities
like Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians. Moreover, from a
legal point of view, if we include cases of ethnic violence along with
religious persecution, it cannot be called as “reasonable classification” and
it will violate Article 14.
One other issue that has been raised is increment in
population. I think it’s a genuine concern. But as act clarifies that
relaxation made to people from these communities only applies to those who came
to India, till the cut-off date of 2014. After which even members of these
communities have to go with the usual 11+1 years of naturalisation, as provided
by Citizenship Act, 1955. Now let’s look at some of the issues and raised by
some in North-East regarding them suffering, due to influx of non-local
refugees. The government has been sensitive to the needs of the Northeast
people from day one. It was for the time in history of India that a separate
ministry to co-ordinate between and look into implementation of needs of
North-East was established under the PM Modi’s leadership. These provisions on citizenship for illegal migrants
will not apply to the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura,
included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. These tribal areas include
Karbi Anglong (in Assam), Garo Hills (in Meghalaya), Chakma District (in
Mizoram), and Tripura Tribal Areas District. Further, it will not apply
to the “Inner Line” areas notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier
Regulation, 1873. In these areas, visits by Indians are regulated through
the Inner Line Permit. Currently, this permit system is applicable to
Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland. Thus, persecuted refugees
won’t be settled in all these areas. Moreover, Article 371 which provides
special rights to North-eastern states will not be affected. The rights include
usage of customary laws, land rights, rights of local bodies, local
representation, etc. India is a civilisation whose base has always been
protected and nurtured by tribal community and therefore it is of utmost
importance to protect their indigenous nature. One other issue which has been
raised by some sections of society has been the inclusion of other religiously
prosecuted communities across the world. It has always been a consistent stand
of Government of India regarding citizenship in which it has instead of making
blanket laws, focused on country and situation specific laws. Weather it has
been about Tamils or Tibetans of any other communities. The government is clear
that all other refugees would be dealt with under existing laws like Foreigners
Act 1946 and the established process would be followed. CAB specifically focus
on persecuted religious minorities. It doesn’t mean other class of refugees
would be ignored. One final issue that has propped up has been the issue of
Rohingya Muslims. There are fundamental differences between Rohingyas and other
refugees. CAB is specifically for three nations- Pakistan, Bangladesh and
Afghanistan- where the minorities bore the brunt of partition and hence are
persecuted. Rohingyas don’t fall in this category as they primarily originate
in Myanmar. Also, there are conclusive reports that Rohingyas are a threat to
national security of India. Rohingyas have contacts with terrorist
organizations like ISIS and LeT. Not just India, PM of Bangladesh Sheikh Hasina
is on record calling Rohingyas as a threat to national security.
One red flag regarding this bill is how would citizenship
be dealt with regard to converts. It is not beyond imagination that for an
issue like citizenship, conversion from other religion to any of the six
provided in the act is an absolute probability. It is unclear as of now how
government proposes to deal with such situations. This can be further clarified
only after the MHA comes out with notification and guidelines to apply for
citizenship. I am hopeful the apex court will look into that aspect. All in
all, this legislation not only furthers our country’s great panoramic cultural
continuity of last 5000 years but also adds another feather to it. This
legislation not only is in accordance with Vasudaiv Kutumbakam principle
that we so dearly value, but also creates exceptions where our National
security and Interest is compromised. This is the ultimate example of New
India, which holds its’ culture and values but at the same time is willing to
go to any and all lengths to protect its integrity and people.
No comments:
Post a Comment