Politics | Protests against CAB are more political than humanitarian

Amidst the enlightened classes’ outrage over exclusion of Muslims in the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB), 2019, meant to shelter persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhist, Jains and Parsis from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, the story of Aarti Devi has presented a contrasting narrative.

The 21-year-old woman, who fled to India from Pakistan in 2013, named her newborn Nagarika, (meaning Citizenship in Hindi). Devi is among those who are living in Delhi’s Majnu ka Tila, said to be the largest colony of such refugees from Pakistan in the capital. Devi and her family are among those who are confident that their future will change because of the CAB. There is a sense of similar jubilation in other camps in Delhi and other places such as Bhatti Mines Sanjay Colony settlement on the Delhi-Haryana border, and in pockets in Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bikaner, Indore, and Jammu.

One of the reasons for their plight not getting enough attention till date is that they go inconspicuous when you consider the tens and thousands of the poor people from the rest of India who live in Delhi’s shanties and eke out a living.

However, Devi’s story is important because the passage of the CAB has raised some questions and sparked a political, rather than a humanitarian debate.

Was it necessary for the government to bring this amendment? Will it stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court under Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees equality? Is the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) interested in political gains by showing that it has tried to fulfil one of its poll promises?

A barrage of attacks directed specifically at Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah (who is in the limelight since Article 370 was rendered inoperative in Jammu and Kashmir in August) hinge on two questions. In both its intent and wording, why has the CAB singled out a single community by its exclusion for hostile treatment? Why even some sects of Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan (all Islamic States) did not qualify for consideration of citizenship under the “religiously persecuted” category?

Other question are: why does the CAB not extend citizenship to those persecuted in Myanmar and Sri Lanka, from where Rohingya Muslims and Tamils came as refugees to India? Isn’t ethnic discrimination to be treated at par with religious persecution? Or is it plainly because the BJP is seen as a political party against the appeasement of Muslims?

In Assam and other Northeastern states, the CAB, which was approved by the President on December 12 and became a law, has triggered protests because the mood of the local people is that permanent settlement of illegal immigrants — whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims — will disturb the region’s demography and add to the severe pressure on land, water and other resources.

Coming back to Devi’s and Nagarika’s story, the lack of empathy for the non-Muslim migrants who reached India in a steady stream on account of religious persecution (and safety concerns for their womenfolk) is matched by near-absence of accurate official data on their numbers in Delhi, or in cities in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana. These states have reported figures ranging from 30,000 to 55,000.

Some of them have managed to obtain a long-term visas, hoping to become Indian citizens when they become eligible to apply for citizenship.

Significantly, most of the Hindu migrant refugees came to India in the past decade are from Pakistan’s Sindh and Punjab where Islamist activities have led to their persecution. There are also a few of them who had crossed over to Gujarat and Rajasthan in the early years of Independence.

All the non-Muslims who have escaped from Pakistan say they fled as they had to either adopt Islam or face severe retribution and finally leave the country because of the blasphemy law. As their living conditions are abysmal, they see citizenship in India will give them an identity and future.

Beyond the questions that the CAB has raised, does it benefit the BJP politically in states such as West Bengal? Here, many Hindu migrants from Bangladesh have remained without identity papers for years and their inclusion post-CAB could alter the vote-bank politics ahead of the 2021 assembly elections.

Even as West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee has stoutly pledged not to upset the vote-bank cart, the RSS leaders have spoken of the CAB bringing relief to 15 million people. Many of them could hope to become voters and may not necessarily choose the Trinamool Congress because of years of neglect. Similarly in Assam, Bengali settlers in the Barak valley could become new voters.

After all, the CAB, in its application, is not about opening doors to new migrants who wish to come to India but more about legalising those already in India and do not figure currently in any official rolls.

It can also be argued that the Opposition’s worry is seemed to be determined by what kind of alterations are possibly brought to the voter base and politics of the day in selected states.

Naturally, political worries and hopes go beyond the difficulties to prove who among the illegal immigrants entered India out of religious persecution or for the lure of better economy.

Shekhar Iyer is former senior associate editor of Hindustan Times and political editor of Deccan Herald. Views are personal.