Citizenship Amendment Bill | Hollow arguments and farcical allegations

Demonstrators protest against the Bill during a strike called by the North East Students’ Organisation (NESO) in Agartala, Tripura on December 11. (Image: PTI)

On December 11, the upper house of Parliament passed the historic Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB), 2019, two days after the lower house voted in favour of it. The Bill provides a narrow window of a clear path to Indian citizenship to the non-Muslims from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who arrived in India before December 31, 2014. The Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhist, Jains and Parsis from these three officially Islamic countries fleeing religious persecution will no longer be deported back and will be eligible for Indian citizenship even if they lack valid documents to prove their identity. With this, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has fulfilled yet another major promise in its 2019 election manifesto.

This Bill, which became a law on December 12, is also a recognition of the plight of the world’s forgotten minorities, especially the Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who have been persecuted and marginalised due to their religious identities. The persistent discrimination, assaults such as forced conversion, the kidnapping of young girls and repeated episodes of open ethnic cleansing have caused a drastic decline in the minority population over the past several decades. The CAB recognises that there is no hope of the situation improving in these countries anytime soon and that to alleviate their misery such communities must be granted citizenship on the humanitarian grounds. Now they will be eligible to apply for Indian citizenship after a five-year stay as against the 11-year stay in India needed under standard procedure.

The Bill, however, has drawn an objection from two quarters: one being the opposition parties who argue that the CAB is discriminatory against Muslims and undermines the secular foundations of the republic. Second is the public anxiety in the states of the Northeast about the adverse demographic impact of any such naturalisation of the immigrants and refugees.

The argument that the Bill is discriminatory against Muslims is a hallow one and fits well in the usual political rhetoric of Indian politics where even India-US nuclear deal was termed as anti-Muslim! First, the Bill has nothing to do with the Indian citizens, including Muslims. It simply aims to facilitate the citizenship process for the religious minorities from thee specific countries where Muslims are in the overwhelming majority. Second, illegal Muslim immigrants from these countries are economic immigrants who could be granted work-permits instead of citizenship. Third, Muslims from these three countries can still apply for Indian citizenship, but will be governed by the standard laws and procedures. Unlike the misinformation being spread, the CAB doesn’t have any provisions for jail or deportation of the illegal Muslim immigrants. It only deals with the non-Muslim immigrants from three specific Islamic countries.

The allegations of the Bill violating the Article 14 is also farcical. Article 14 doesn’t automatically supersede other articles of the Constitution as there are always reasonable exemptions, else various special provisions for the minorities under Article 26-30 would also become void.

Also, equality before the law doesn’t mean treating everyone similar irrespective of the context. Instead, it means equals would be treated equally, whilst un-equals would have to be treated unequally. It provides for special treatment to persons in different situations, such as the religious minorities in the three Islamic countries who are oppressed legally and not just politically or socially.

Questions have also been raised as to why the Muslim sub-sects such as Ahmadis or the ethnic groups such as Hazaras or Baluch have been excluded? It is because the Bill takes into account the religious minorities and not ethnic minorities and India doesn’t consider Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Also, it is not for the Indian law to wade into the theological or sectarian disputes within Islam in a neighbouring Islamic country.

Then why exclude Tamils refugees from Sri Lanka or Rohingyas from Myanmar? Why not include Nepal and China in the list of the states too? Or why not have a generic policy promising faster citizenship to all those fleeing religious persecution from any part of the world?

The answer is the State capacity and resource constraint to expanding the scope of the policy to include all possibilities. Second, a single act doesn't need to address all the problems. It doesn’t become discriminatory or unconstitutional because of its limited scope. Third. Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka aren’t looking for Indian citizenship but autonomy and security in northern Sri Lanka where the situation has been fast improving on the ground. Similarly, Rohingyas can continue to remain as refugees until the situation in their home regions improves. Providing citizenship to Rohingyas is neither needed at this stage nor desirable given the serious security concerns raised regarding the radicalisation and involvement in terror activities within India, such as the attack on Bodh Gaya in Bihar.

It is the second objection regarding the demographics of the Northeastern states that has real merit. Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram are kept out and Manipur is protected via the Inner Line Permit (ILP). The sixth schedule areas in Assam, Meghalaya and Tripura are also kept out of the ambit of the preview of the Bill. However, given the massive influx of the immigrants in the past, the concerns of the citizens, especially in Assam are valid.

The solution perhaps lies in distributing the new citizens across the country in different cities and towns as was done with the Tibetans or the refugees during Partition. Proactive redress of the fears and concerns of the Northeast will go a long way in creating a broad consensus on absorbing the new citizens of the republic.

Abhinav Prakash Singh is assistant professor, Shri Ram College of Commerce, University of Delhi, Delhi. Views are personal.