Citizenship Amendment Bill

Video Link; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4hEN3Ggdsg Anchor: Frank Rausan Pereira Guests: Gautam Sen, Former Advisor, Govt. of Nagaland; J. Sai Deepak, Advocate, Supreme Court; Sandeep Phukan, Deputy Editor, The Hindu.

What is the Citizenship Amendment Bill?

• The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB) seeks to grant citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, , and Afghanistan.

• It seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, in order to grant Indian nationality to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians who come to from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Context:

• The home ministry has held marathon talks with leaders and stakeholders regarding the CAB.

• A large section of people and organizations in the northeast have opposed the bill.

• Congress, Trinamool Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist) and a few other political parties have been steadfastly opposing the bill, claiming that citizenship can't be given on the basis of religion.

Procedure followed by the government for giving clearances to refugees:

• The Indian constitution doesn’t have a refugee law and instead follows a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from 2014. It is based on clearance given by security agencies.

• “The Standing Operating Procedure stipulates that cases, which are prima facie justified on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, sex, nationality, ethnic identity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, can be recommended by the State Government/Union Territory Administration to the Ministry of Home Affairs for grant of Long Term Visa (LTV) after due security verification.”

• Many factors are taken into consideration before giving clearance to a refugee, some of them are:

• Principle of Non-Refoulement

• Principle of Non-Refoulement is a fundamental principle of international law that forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which they would likely be in danger of persecution based on "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".

• A test of whether they pose a threat to India’s security. Arguments for the amendments:

• Media reports constantly portray the bill as an image of religious bias. They portray the bill as a means to deny citizenship to a particular religious community i.e. the Muslim community. Media portrays the bill as a violation of Article 14, which doesn’t hold water.

• Article 5-11 states that existing citizens cannot be discriminated against religion on the basis of the law. However, the vestation of citizenship is different from existing citizens.

• Vestation of the status of a refugee: when an outsider enters the country, the country has the right to apply its security consideration prior to adhering to the principles of Non- Refoulement.

• The Government of India is within its right to apply discretion regarding which communities can enter the country.

• The scope of the amendment is restricted to three specific countries who have a religious identity by the virtue of their constitution and are targeting the religious minority. Thus the amendment is being used to address a particular audience.

• It would have been problematic if the amendments to the Citizenship Act had been proposed with religion as the basis and not limited the amendment to the three countries.

• The National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the Citizenship Bill are related as: • NRC is a process of excluding people who have come into the country but cannot prove their citizenship on the basis of documents and legacy data. The cut-off date for NRC was midnight on March 24, 1971.

• The immigrants who were unable to prove their citizenship on the basis of documents now get a chance to argue that they are a minority community who fled due to fear of persecution. Arguments against the amendments proposed:

• The Bill is facing opposition as:

• Certain minority communities like Jews (who migrate from Jerusalem to Mizoram) are unrepresented on this bill.

• The bill assuages the fears of the Northeastern cities.

Way forward:

• A few tribals in the northeastern cities have a genuine concern against violence. For example, the Nellie riots was one of the worst since World War II. (Pogroms are violent riots that are aimed at the persecution of a particular religious or ethnic group.)

• The Nellie massacre took place in central in 1983 and resulted in the loss of almost 2000 Bengal rooted Muslims.

• The violence that took place in Nellie, was seen as a fallout of the decision to hold the controversial state elections in 1983 in the midst of the Assam Agitation.

• Therefore, the issue has to be handled with sensitivity in the Northeastern regions.

• International relations of India might have to be dealt with carefully, especially with regards to countries like Bangladesh.

• Considering the minority Muslims who are affected:

• Ahmadi’s face persecution as the sectarian violence in Pakistan has reached its peak. However, they had voted in unison to be a part of the Islamic Republic in the 1940s. Here, the Citizenship Amendment Bill must be looked at in the context of a continuum of the existence of the two- nation theory.

• Rohingya Crisis: The Rohingya Muslims have been fleeing from Burma’s Rakhine State to escape from the ethnic cleansing. Security clearance has already raised a red flag and Bangladesh has already stated it as an internal security threat.

• India has to undertake a balancing act with respect to the rights of Indigenous people:

• The constitutional promises made to the states of the Northeast with respect to the protection of their indigenous identity has to be taken into account. India must balance the civilizational duties to people who are being persecuted in the neighbouring countries.

• Tripura has legitimate fears irrespective of Bengali Muslims or Bengali Hindus as they were worried about their indigenous identity being lost.

• The indigenous people in Tripura were outnumbered by Bengalis from , East Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

• There has to be a distinction between the two categories of illegal immigration. Both the categories of immigrants are illegal unless they are given the status of a refugee.

• One category of the refugees come to India with a specific need such as better opportunities, whereas the other group is running away from a particular place that has become an inferno for .

• When India steps in, it has to take legitimate concerns of the Northeast and share the burden with the other states.

• For example, Pakistani Hindus relocated largely to Delhi and Rajasthan and some parts of Haryana as these states do not view this as a threat to their indigenous identity.

• The government has given an assurance that the Inner Line Permit (ILP) would be extended. This could be conducive to the political and socio-economic development of the region.

• There is a political incentive involved, however, the question of, “which people being persecuted in the neighbouring countries have a right to expect some relief from India” has to be tested based on merits.

• Brahmaputra Valley and Barak Valley have different opinions regarding the Bill.

• The population residing in the Barak Valley would welcome the Citizenship Amendment Bill, as many families there do not possess a citizenship status yet.

Conclusion:

• The public has to understand the reason behind the introduction of the bill, instead of viewing it as a violation of Article 14.

• The public should be educated regarding the situation which requires the introduction of the bill.

• The Bill is believed to be an attempt to naturalize the citizenship of illegal immigrants in the region. Civil Society groups have strongly opposed the bill in its present form that seeks to make drastic changes in the citizenship and immigration norms of the country. However, one has to keep in mind,

that the scope of the amendment is restricted to three countries and is aimed at providing safety for the victims of religious discrimination.