The CAA is not anti-Muslim; it just prioritises citizenship for persecuted minorities, not others, from three neighbouring countries. Future legislation may address concerns for Tamils and Rohingyas. Recognising historical context, it aims to assist six religious groups seeking refuge in India. Importantly, the CAA doesn’t prevent Muslims from these countries from applying for Indian citizenship
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) marks a watershed moment in India’s electoral system. The government amended the Citizenship Amendment Act 1955 to facilitate citizenship acquisition for religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, reducing the qualification period from 11 years to 5 years under the new law.
The Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) was initially introduced in Parliament in the Lok Sabha in 2016 by amending the existing Citizenship Act 1955. Subsequently, the Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC), which submitted its report on January 7, 2019. The Lok Sabha passed the Bill the following day, but with the dissolution of the 16th Lok Sabha, the Bill lapsed.
By December 9, the Bill was reintroduced by Home Minister Amit Shah in the 17th Lok Sabha and passed on December 10. The Upper House, Rajya Sabha, also passed the Bill on December 11, 2019. This outlines the journey of the present CAA through both houses of Parliament, culminating in its establishment as a crucial piece of legislation.
The Act is drawing both national and international attention for three main reasons: First, it offers citizenship to six persecuted religious and undocumented groups who arrived in India from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan on or before December 31, 2014. These groups include Hindus, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Christians.
Second, it excludes Muslims from these countries from applying for citizenship in India.
Third, the Narendra Modi Government introduced the Act just one month before parliamentary and assembly polls in some states.
Now, the critical question arises: why is the Act sparking Opposition ire and protests in some States?
The central point of controversy is its alleged discrimination against Muslims, as it does not offer citizenship to Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Critics argue that Muslim minorities such as the Baloch, Shia, Ahmadiyya of Pakistan, Hazras from Afghanistan, Rohingyas from Myanmar, and Tamils from Sri Lanka face religious persecution in their homelands, yet they are not covered by the Act. Second, critics contend that the CAA violates Article 14 (Right to Equality), the first Fundamental Right mentioned in Part III of our Constitution, by providing a classification of citizens based on religion, which is prohibited under this Article. Third, it allegedly seriously violates the historic Assam Accord signed between the All Assam Students Association (AASU) and the Rajiv Gandhi-led Congress Government in 1985. This accord set the cutoff date for entry of illegal migrants to Assam as March 24, 1971, whereas the current Act pushes this cutoff date to December 31, 2014. Moreover, there is widespread fear that once these illegal migrants from six religious groups become citizens, they will have access to all other rights and facilities like the locals, thus burdening Assam's limited economic resources.
Meanwhile, the matter has reached the Supreme Court, with nearly 237 petitioners approaching the top court to stall the immediate implementation of the CAA. Under this Act, the Government can fast-track the grant of Indian citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. The lead petitioner in the case is the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML). During an oral mention of the case last week by a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, efforts were made to calm the apprehensions of all petitioners regarding the fast-tracking of the citizenship acquisition process by the Union Government. Again, the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the question of staying the operation of the new Citizenship Amendment Rules of 2024 on April 9. However, so far, there is no official statement from the Government indicating that it would not grant fast-track citizenship to the aforementioned groups of people.
Today, the main arguments emerging in the Supreme Court include: the rules governing the CAA are based solely on religious grounds; once citizenship is granted, it cannot be reversed; and the Act has eliminated the scrutiny of new citizenship applications by District Collectors and the recommendations of respective State Governments. Opposition parties and various petitioners are also arguing that if the Government could wait for the last five years, it should be willing to wait for a few more months to implement the CAA.
Now, the irony lies in why countries like America are so concerned about an internal issue of India. India is a democratic country, and its Constitution provides equal rights and opportunities to all its citizens, including religious minorities, since its independence and the very inception of the Constitution itself. American Senator Ben Cardin is raising the seriousness of the issue by branding this Act as controversial and also questioning the intentions of the Indian Government as it deeply impacts Muslims, especially during their holy month of Ramzan. He speaks about the Indo-US relationship, based on shared values, where we need to be concerned about the protection of human rights for every person regardless of religion. It is true, we need to respect the human rights of all minorities, including Muslims.
But sadly, the people of India in general and the Government of India in particular do not need to learn lessons on human rights from any foreign parliamentarian like Cardin. India’s long history and cultural traditions have displayed enough of our tolerance and mutual co-existence, demonstrating how this land has accepted people from various civilisational roots. Instead, Cardin should focus on how his own country is engaged in wars after wars in many Muslim nations, especially in the West Asia, leaving behind a trail of human rights violations for years now.
By now, the US should have been able to stop its closest ally Israel from carrying out bloodshed against the Palestinians, a war conducted in the name of fighting Hamas militants. Before pointing fingers at Vladimir Putin (for the Ukraine invasion) and Xi Jinping (for the alleged genocide of Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang), America should introspect and assess its actions worldwide.
The Ministry of External Affairs has already termed the American statement on the CAA as “misplaced, misinformed, and unwarranted”. It has categorically said: “The CAA 2019 is an internal matter of India, showcasing the inclusiveness of Indian society. The CAA is an act of granting citizenship, not of revoking it.”
For the Opposition parties in the country (INDIA Bloc), their aim is not simply to oppose the NDA Government at the centre, but specifically the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. With the CAA, they have yet another issue to raise concerns about the Muslim minority in the country. Frankly speaking, for decades, the Congress ruled this country and many of the States. The grand old party, with its visionaries on board, should have already addressed the plight of persecuted minorities, including the Tamils from Sri Lanka, in India.
It is clear that the CAA is not against Muslims. This Act is designed to offer expedited citizenship only to persecuted minorities as mentioned in it, not to others. Therefore, a new legislation can be considered by the Government in the future for Tamils and Rohingyas. In fact, this new law acknowledges the historical background of partition and aims to address the plight of these six religious groups who sought refuge in India. The CAA does not prohibit Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan from applying for Indian citizenship.
The CAA does not violate Article 14. In the 1997 case of David John Hopkins vs Union of India, the Madras High Court clarified that the Union Government’s right to refuse citizenship is absolute and not fettered by equal protection under Article 14.
Similarly, in the 1991 case of Louis De Raedt vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the right of a foreigner in India is confined to Article 21, and they cannot seek citizenship as a matter of right. These judgments make it clear that citizenship is not a matter of right for any foreign citizen in this country. It must be emphasised that the Union Government has the final power to decide the acquisition and termination of citizenship and all other matters under Article 11. Additionally, the CAA has been implemented under the Seventh Schedule, which includes citizenship in the Union List, making Parliament the sole authority to decide on this matter. State governments, currently refusing to implement it (such as West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala), have no final say in this matter.
Also, the CAA does not change or dilute the Assam Accord, as it is applicable throughout India. It does not apply to the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura, nor to areas under the Inner Line Permit prescribed by the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation 1873.
Lastly, the Opposition and the hundreds of petitioners should have enough faith in the apex court of this country, as the matter has already been brought before it. The court will decide the fate of this Act, determining whether it violates the basic tenets of the Constitution, including secularism, and other pertinent issues raised by the petitioners so far.
(The writer is currently President of the Global Research Foundation.)
