No other country would have debated so passionately on citizenship as India. Strangely, popular leaders of even other countries such as Mahathir Mohamad, president of Malaysia, politicians of USA, and others have not felt shy of commenting and advising India, without giving an iota of credence to its sovereignty. Would they dare utter a word about the Uighurs of China? Or against Trump who is fighting his senate for building a wall to prevent the ‘poor’ Mexicans from sneaking in? Is it indicative of India’s economic weakness or its power of democracy?
Unfortunately many of the Indian politicians are more desirous of their public display of secular credentials to score in the electoral arena, rather than with a vision to their country’s welfare. In such a charged atmosphere, has the Indian citizen got any clarity on the citizenship amendment act (CAA)? After all he is the one who has to accept to share the resources with this new class who are going to be included as citizens?
For many of us, CAA is limited to only providing a ‘onetime window’ to enable specific category of people to get the Indian citizenship: The Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, and Parsis, who survived forcible conversion from the three countries, escaped and illegally entered India, were categorised as illegal migrants. As of December 31, 2014, they numbered 31,313: Hindus (25,447), Sikhs (5807), Buddhists (2), Christians (55), and Parsis (2). Those belonging to two religions were not in this list: Muslims and Jews. A small number of Jews have already migrated to Israel. No Muslims or Jews came to India over the last 70 years on grounds of religious persecution.
Should we bother at all about persecution of our neighbours? Historically, It is our culture to have a humanitarian approach to those knocking our doors, be at our house or at the borders. Ever Since independence, We have liberal policy of handling such refugee influxes with the exiting causes being religious, ethnic or others. These refugees should be logically sent back to their parent nations once peace returns. If normalcy does not return, we are compelled to resolve the issues. While the ethnic persecution seems to have abated especially in the neighbouring Sri Lanka, religious persecution continues to persist in some Muslim nations. So the Indian lawmakers considered it appropriate to give a onetime waiver in terms of the mandatory number of years of residency to these persecuted minorities considering their hardships.
Why does it exclude Muslims? Is it ultra vires the Constitution of India, especially Articles 11 and 14? Is it divisive, and violative of human rights because it discriminates against Muslims?
Though large Muslim population would have crossed the Indian orders, the reason for migration is not religious persecution: better opportunities could be a prime mover though creating unrest might be a hidden agenda (as perceived by NIA). This has also been corroborated in the case of Myanmar Rohingyas by Bangladesh. Recently, after CAA, Bangladesh has indicated its readiness to consider genuine cases for rehabilitation. The case of Ahmadiyas also belong to this suspicious category.
Article 11 in fact empowers Parliament to bring such an amendment as the CAA. As for the CAA violating Article 14, there are precedences of Supreme Court of India judgments to take cues. on the interpretation of this Article: A simple example is of a Brahmin claiming reservation in education and schools on a par with Scheduled Castes because of Article 14 guaranteeing “equality before law”. The Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that equality before law is only for those equally placed: Hence Brahmin is not equal to an SC or ST. Here on religious persecution, the Muslims of Pakistan etc., are not similarly placed.
Can’t an immigrant Muslim become Indian citizen at all? Yes. Of course yes. Any immigrant Muslim can become an Indian citizen under the naturalisation section: if he/she is ordinarily resident of India for 12 years (throughout 12 months preceding the date of application and 11 years in the aggregate). Hence, though there is no provision in CAA to deny any rights of Indian Muslims, they continue to enjoy their rights under the existing sections!
What are the concerns of Indian Muslims? There is nothing absolutely in CAA. But, there is a fear that like in Assam, a National Registry of Citizenship (NRC), might be called at a later date. Knowing the Hindutva agenda of the present regime, Indian Muslims are apprehensive that they might be selectively excluded and expelled from india! This applies to other Indian nationals also.
Is there a need for NRC? Should you not keep a list of people who are in your ‘house’? While a stranger comes to the house knocking your front door, the illegal immigrants sneak without your knowledge. Without NRC, it would be impossible to stem the infiltration of these illegal job seekers in a country as large as India. The increase in militancy also can’t be lost sight off. With NRC, it would be easy to weed out the illegal immigrant for thwarting militancy as well as protecting the job opportunities of the citizens.The need for such a registry can not be denied as it is long felt such registry to plan the allocation of resources among the citizens. The perceived threats of documentary evidences that might be called for to prove the citizenship as a prelude to NRC, is imaginary as no rules have yet been framed. Such is the practise not only in the western world, but even in Pakistan and Bangladesh! Why should there be any objection?
It is interesting to now about the origin of NRC: in the aftermath of Bangladesh war, there was aclot of immigration into Assam. This led to conflicts and economic downslide of the local population leading to violent agitations against these immigrants. Indian government bought peace promising to protect the rights of locals. It was in 1971. Supreme Court mandated to create NRC for this purpose. There were practical difficulties in the appropriateness of the registry under the existing citizenship provisions. There is a similar situation in north eastern states as well. These states want to exclude all refugees from the citizenship! In a nutshell they want to exclude all refugees!
So can we put this problem in the back burner? Can a refugee continue to be so for generations? Would it be practical to confine them within a boundary of protection for decades? If they sneak out and start looking for employment in the country at large, could we able to stop it practically? Already it is happening. We are seeing illegal Bangladeshi migrants at work in even south, especially in places like Bangalore and Thiruppur in Tamilnadu. This creates unrest amongst the locals as it strips the already dwindling opportunities.
NRC would at least, enable identifying these illegal immigrants and deny them equal opportunities with the locals if not summarily confining them in camps, if they can’t be deported.
Misinformation galore! The opponents in north east and Assam want NRC; The agitators in other states do not want NRC. Immigrant Muslims want citizenship on par with others, else they feel deportation, hence no NRC; Politicians who want their votes, are desirous of enumerating them as citizens! other suspicious Indians feel they may be harassed to prove their citizenship with documents which they may not have, so no-NRC. For Logical Indian, who are thinking ahead for the future generations, they want to take bull by the horn! So NRC is needed, but without undue harassment; Considerate Indians feel, there should be a livelihood for the persecuted ‘minorities’ to live in honour as a citizen of a state; identify them to give citizenship and purge the other terror mongers! If an immigrant Muslim is living in the country for over 12 years, give them citizenship.
Are the violent agitations of the opposition parties, SECULAR and educated friends are short sighted only to confront the progress of BJP in the election front but loose the country in the long run?
Nattu’s Page 