“ 2. In the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:— "Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act;".
The Citizenship Amendment Act (2019) has now settled its dust amidst the pandemic. The questions have still not been answered as where are we headed with this act that has its own life motto of shredding the idea of what India stands for, or perhaps now should it be called as what it used to stand for. From a debatable violation of article 14 of the Indian constitution, to the murders and chaos it has caused ,it has not yet been given a full closure. Heading towards its first birth anniversary as an act, there are things that deserves to be given a look back, and questions to be asked again.
The citizenship amendment act (2019) or simply CAA, is the fifth amendment to the Citizenship Act of 1955. It came out as an act after the President’s assent on the 12th of December 2019 which has sparked more controversies which were way more than what “Naya Hindustan” would have seen coming from a distance. It was the first time ever, where religion was specifically mentioned for the process of citizenship. The act basically allowed any religion, except people of the Muslim community to ease up their process of acquiring citizenship as long they were from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan. The people of Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist or Jain communities who had entered into the Indian territory on or before 31st of December 2014 were not to be considered as illegal migrants as they were clearly assumed, to be people who had come into India or perhaps even snuck into India due to religious oppression faced off from being minorities in the countries mentioned and thus they were to be given a certificate of registration or naturalization by the central government which would then grant them citizenship since the day they had arrived in India.
“The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." Art.14
The problems start from there. The pro CAA arguments kept stating a non-fact and kept glorifying it to be a fact that the 14th Article of the Indian Constitution would only apply to the “CITIZENS” of India but it is clearly mentioned in the book that it is applicable for every individual within the territory. Now the second question that may arise is how are the Muslim community of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh being affected when the article is only for the people within the country. The answer to that is, it doesn’t. At least not to an extent. It is mainly considered with the people who have come to India before the mentioned date in the act. The question we should be asking is why are the immigrants of a certain religion being excluded and why are the other sectors being included in the act for being exempted from the blame of being illegal immigrants? The answer to that was given by the government by mentioning them as being from the minority sections of the neighboring countries mentioned and they are tortured for being a member of a particular community. The answer only leads to another question of why are the Hazaras, Ahmadis and other backward communities who are being lynched, tortured and executed not being put on this act? It simply brings out another question of why are equals being treated unequal. The argument of minority Muslim communities being able to gain refuge in Muslim countries can be answered by the simple fact of how Dalits even after being Hindus are often tortured in a Hindu dominant country.
India was built on the idea of secularism, even though the word came into our constitution years later the Independence. However debatable the inclusion of the word is, it is to be remembered that it was never the Indians that had asked for a partition. If the government indeed wanted to help out the minorities of the neighboring countries why was Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Myanmar excluded? The minorities of those countries too suffer religious persecution and torture. The facts that in these countries, it is the people of the Muslim community that are in minority does bring many more controversial questions like does the government not want Muslims in a secular country like India?
But even with the CAA being flooded with accusations of killing the constitution and the things that it stood for, it is be questioned if the process if citizenship itself has always been secular or not. For that we need to look back at the time of the partition between India and Pakistan. The incident which made it pretty clear about each country’s religious leniency.
After the partition there were two sets of people-the people who were leaving India for Pakistan in other words Muslim and people coming to India from Pakistan, in other words Hindu. No act back then termed these migrants as Hindus or Muslims, but as refugees (the returned Hindus) and Evacuees (the Muslims those who left).
Chaos started in the Indian administration in the following year where a large proportion of the evacuees were returning back to India simply because of the fact that Pakistan was not a heavenly world or by far even close to being one as they had expected it to be, especially places like Karachi. This wreaked a havoc for the government that was led by Jawaharlal Nehru, as the relocation of these evacuees wouldn’t be possible since their old property was now being used for the rehabilitation of the refugees.
“Necessity is the mother of all Inventions”
Just like the saying went, this led to the creation of a permit system by the government of India. The permit system was applicable only for West Pakistan and in many ways, this was similar to the CAA but in a very subtle manner. The permit act let people come to India or in fact return to India (evacuees) only for reasons that were at an extreme level. Where close to 22,000 applications came in for resettlement in a month, only 2000 of them were approved by the Government of India. But a question did arise, why was this only a restriction of people in West Pakistan, why not East?
The makers of this law were clearly aware of the fact that in East Pakistan there were close 16 million Hindus who were either made to leave Pakistan, or coerced into converting. Hence for the citizens of West Pakistan, it was easy for them to gain citizenship in India whether they were of Hindu community or Muslim even though the act was made for the benefit of the Hindu community in Pakistan.
Now to answer the question of whether the citizenship procedure was always unsecular, it simply uses the condition of necessity. The permit act while on its face being extremely secular, it was done to avoid a chaos that would have been lit by the communal parties like the RSS and Muslim League and to ensure that equals are not to be treated unequally. The migration back then from East Pakistan, and the 2000 permits a month from West Pakistan included all minorities including those from the Muslim communities such as Shia Muslim, Ahmadiyya, Hazara etc. Unlike the modern the day amendment which is being claimed by the right-wing BJP led government to be an aid to the minorities but is something else in the practice, the permit act even though it had its hidden agenda to support the Hindu community was more secular than the CAA could ever be in its fullest function.
From the permit act to the citizenship act a lot has changed. Refraining from mentioning religion in the books but instead using the terms “evacuees” and “refugees” to calling them out a lot has changed. From being extremely secular in the face of the constitution, to being non secular in its face and soul, a lot has changed. From the days of subtly making sure the refugee Hindus of Pakistan were given more importance than evacuee Indian Muslims, to the days of giving more importance to a Hindu despite of the fact you are from India or Pakistan, a lot has changed.
The purpose of religion in one’s citizenship is not only questioned on its ethical policies, but on its functional policies too.
How are orphan children supposed to prove their religion? How are abandoned transgenders supposed to prove their lineage?
Also, What about atheists?
Comments
Post a Comment