Justifying the need for Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, (CAA) lawyer and author J Sai Deepak stated that independent Bharat has an obligation towards the Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan.
He said “if you read Articles 5-11 of Constitution it is completely Pakistan centric.” These articles deal with Indian citizenship and the powers of the state to regulate citizenship. Articles 6 and 7 specifically speak of grant of citizenship to those who migrated from Pakistan. Deepak noted that the conversation around India’s obligation to Hindus and Sikhs in these three countries started way back in 1945, when the demand for Pakistan was raised.
Retorting to this point, lawyer Anas Tanvir said “CAA makes Indian citizenship easy only for Hindus from these three countries. What about Tamil Hindus from Sri Lanka and what about Buddhists from China? CAA has not done anything for a section of Hindus.”
Deepak responded to this stating that since the end of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the situation has normalised to an extent that Tamil Sri Lankans are not forced to flee. He said “It is ultimately the question of how a country treats Hindus. We cannot equate how Hindus are treated in Pakistan and Afghanistan to Hindus in Sri Lanka.”
Deepak and Tanvir were in conversation with CNN News18’s Rahul Shiv Shankar at the Rising Bharat summit. The two lawyers, who are on the opposing sides at the ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court on CAA, debated about the law’s constitutionality.
The CAA makes illegal migrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan eligible for Indian citizenship. It only applies to migrants who entered India on or before December 31, 2014. Though enacted as far back as 2019, the rules to implement the law were notified only in 2023.
Tanvir noted that the CAA is unconstitutional for being in violation of article 15 of the constitution. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. To elaborate his point, Tanvir stated that section 3(1) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which was introduced in 2003 grants Indian citizenship to a person born to an Indian citizen and a refugee, who is not an illegal immigrant. He said “A Hindu can take advantage of this section and become an Indian citizen, while a Muslim cannot.” According to Tanvir, the CAA clearly violates the constitution owing to such inconsistencies.
Deepak retorted stating that there is a sea of difference between a refugee and an immigrant. He said “ A Pakistani Hindu refugee who comes through a legitimate channel is being equated to an illegal immigrant from Bangladesh. When an illegal immigrant marries a citizen, it is not recognized in law” He questioned Tanvir about his opinion on the Uniform Civil Code (UCC), which is a constitutional aspiration.
Tanvir however said “UCC is a part of directive principles of state policy and not a fundamental right.”
What is Bharatiya life?
Deepak said “It’s impossible to take religion out of Bharatiya life. Religion and culture go hand in hand in identifying civilisational identity of Bharat. As far as I am concerned, Hindu Dharma and civilisational aspects define what is Bharatiya dharma.
Responding to this, Tanvir said “My understanding Bhartiyata or dharma is unity in diversity. This is my definition of dharma. I differ from Sai Deepak. When we brought the constitution in 1950 we decided everyone is equal. When we make dharma the base of Bhartiyata, we must look like other western democracies wherein citizenship is not granted based on religion. “
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
