Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019
Written on December 21st , 2019 by {"login"=>"jcbitshyd", "email"=>"journal@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in", "display_name"=>"Journal Club, BPHC", "first_name"=>"", "last_name"=>""}Over the past couple of weeks, we have witnessed a wide range of opinions, strikes and bans over the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019. The bill passed the Lok Sabha on December 4, 2019, and was passed by the Parliament on 11th December 2019, officially making it a law.
What is the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019?
Multiple criteria need to be satisfied for a foreign migrant to become a citizen of India. These are laid out in part II of the Indian constitution. According to this, an illegal migrant is defined as a foreigner who has entered the country without the required documents or someone who has entered with the documents but has stayed beyond the requisite time. These migrants may be deported under the Foreigner’s Act, 1946(which regulated the entry of foreigners into India) and the Passport Act, 1920(which requires foreigners to carry their passport at the time of entry). These 2 acts empower the central government to regulate entry into the country.
Through this act, the central government plans to exempt certain groups from these 2 acts. This includes Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who have come to India to seek asylum due to religious persecution in these countries. They would not need to carry a passport or have the permission of their government to be considered for Indian Citizenship.
Citizenship by Naturalization is a process which lets one become a citizen of India on certain grounds. One of the qualifications is that the person must have resided in India or been in central government service for the last 12 months and at least 11 years of the preceding 14 years. The Act creates an exception for the aforementioned groups with regard to this qualification. For them, the 11 years’ requirement will be reduced to five years.
Additionally, the citizenship of a beneficiary of the Citizenship Amendment Act may also be revoked under conditions such as fraudulent application and so on at any point even after the citizenship has been granted. Further, the Act adds that the provisions on citizenship for illegal migrants will not apply to the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura.
It may be noted that the Act fastracks the citizenship of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, in case of those who have entered India from before 31st December 2014. It does not prevent anybody from other religious backgrounds or from other countries from applying for Indian citizenship, provided they have the required documents. All others can follow the regular due procedure and undergo the 11 years’ naturalisation process to acquire Indian citizenship, once they are eligible to apply.
What was the response?
The act has faced widespread criticism from opposition parties, state governments as well as parties that had supported it in the Lok Sabha. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called it "fundamentally discriminatory", adding that while India's "goal of protecting persecuted groups is welcome", this should be done through a non-discriminatory "robust national asylum system".
Among the main opposition against the Act is that it is said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution — the Right to Equality. The opposing parties have been steadfastly opposing the Act, claiming that citizenship can't be given based on religion. The government has maintained that the Citizenship Amendment Act is aimed at addressing the human rights of the people belonging to minority communities from neighbouring countries who have faced persecution for their beliefs and religious practices. However, if that were the case, it is still unclear why the Tamils of Sri Lanka, Rohingyas from Myanmar and other persecuted Muslim sects from these nations have been excluded.
The government clarifies that Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are Islamic republics where Muslims are in majority hence they cannot be treated as persecuted minorities.
It also assures that the government will examine the application from any other community on a case to case basis.
The Home Minister, Amit Shah, stated that the Act was supposed to uphold the Nehru-Liaquat Ali pact, which stated that India, as well as Pakistan, had to be responsible for the minorities in the other country. He claimed that this pact was not upheld in Pakistan and the Act aims to rectify that. However, many critics have said that the situation when the pact was signed decades ago was very different from now, and is hence irrelevant. Moreover, it is unclear why Afghanistan is included in the Act as the country was not mentioned in the pact. The government also stated that this Act aims to protect the dwindling population of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, the statistics behind this are incoherent.
The Situation in Assam
Assam has long been affected by a large influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. This immigration was so rampant that the demographic makeup of the state itself was at risk of being altered. This situation was unique to Assam and lead to massive fear and consternation among the indigenous Assamese people of being overrun by said immigrants. Between 1979-1985, a massively popular movement was started by various organizations to urge the Central Government to stem the flow of these illegal immigrants. The protests even turned extremely violent at times and thousands of immigrants lost their lives. These protests ended in 1985 with the signing of the Assam Accord, which promised to identify and expel foreigners who entered Assam after March 25, 1971.
A PIL had been filed in Assam requesting an NRC to be conducted to weed out the illegal immigrants, as the natives were slowly becoming a minority in their own state. It left 19 lakh citizens of Assam stateless. If the CAA were to be implemented, all the non-Muslim immigrants from the specified countries that are left out by the NRC would still be able to get Indian citizenship, occupy land and own property in Assam. A large section of people and organisations opposing the Act also say it will nullify the provisions of the Assam Accord of 1985, which fixed March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for deportation of all illegal immigrants irrespective of religion. These led to huge riots fueled by fears of reduced employment opportunities and resources for the natives. This further prompted the government to shut down internet services in the state and temporarily close all the roads and railway lines to Assam.
With the Central government aiming to conduct a nation-wide NRC, the issue has shifted from deportation on the basis of illegal immigration to a communal one in the public eye. There is growing concern that of all those whose names are not included in the nation-wide NRC, the non-Muslims will be protected by the CAA, leading to mass-deportation of Muslims.
The government has guaranteed that no Indian citizen will be affected by the CAA. However, certain implementational tactics (such as Birth certificates not being issued by the Health Department, and discrepancy in the birth date by a few days, leading to the person’s name not being included in the NRC) in Assam have only fueled the dissatisfaction over the NRC. It may be noted here that we only have verbal promises from the Home Minister about the nation-wide NRC. There has been no formal procedure laid out yet regarding this.
While there is little to no evidential backing to this narrative, communal statements made by members of the ruling party, moves like the strike down of section 370 followed by the internet ban and the internet ban in Assam have done little to assuage the national dissent over the issue.
The protest started in Assam, Delhi, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura and quickly spread to the rest of the country. On December 15, 2019, the police forcefully entered Jamia Millia Islamia and AMU, where major protests were being held. Police used batons and tear gas, leading to students getting injured and being detained. This move has been criticised nationwide and led to universities nationwide to stand by their counterparts and carry forth the protests. There are reports from all over the country of protesters conducting rallies and in some cases, even burning buses and trains and vandalising public property.
The governments of Kerala and West Bengal have openly criticised the act and stated that they would fight against it. Several organizations have petitioned the Supreme Court of India to declare the bill as illegal and unconstitutional, and on December 19th, the police issued a complete ban on protests in several parts of India. There are multiple celebrities and public figures who have openly criticised the Act, furthering support against the Act. Demonstrations have surpassed national boundaries as well, spreading to international universities like Oxford, Harvard, MIT, Yale, Columbia and Stanford.
Multiple debates have emerged over not just the Act, but also the nature of violence of the protests and the level of police brutality employed in each case. There are internet bans in multiple parts of the country like Assam and parts of UP and Delhi. There seems to be no common ground for anyone to stand on when it comes to the Act. Critics have called it unconstitutional, with the government accusing Congress of fear-mongering and spreading false claims. In times of such severe divide, with alarming terms like fascism being thrown around at increasing frequency, it is imperative that we try to stay informed, without getting pushed around in the rapid streams of a thought process we don’t fully understand.
Sources:
http://164.100.47.4/BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/Asintroduced/370_2019_LS_Eng.pdf
http://prsindia.org/billtrack/citizenship-amendment-bill-2019
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/controversial-citizenship-amendment-bill-faces-crucial-rajya-sabha-test-today-1627225-2019-12-11
https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/does-citizenship-amendment-bill-violate-fundamental-right-to-equality-1626641-2019-12-09
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/citizenship-amendment-bill-decoded-what-it-holds-for-india/articleshow/72466056.cms?from=mdr
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/if-nrc-is-deployed-across-india-how-will-you-prove-your-citizenship/birth-certificates-could-be-rejected/slideshow/70509701.cms
https://www.insightsonindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/National-Register-of-Citizens-NRC.pdf
https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/nehru-liaquat-pact-that-amit-shah-referred-to-defend-citizenship-bill-1627036-2019-12-10
https://www.news18.com/news/india/what-experts-have-to-say-about-liaquat-nehru-pact-that-found-resonance-in-parliament-during-citizenship-debate-2419489.html
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/citizenship-amendment-bill-debate-govt-issues-8-point-myth-buster-on-controversial-bill-1627154-2019-12-10
https://bitshyd.news.blog/2019/10/12/nrc-this-way-or-that/
https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/assam/documents/papers/illegal_migration_in_assam.htm
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/Nellie-Indiarsquos-forgotten-massacre/article15402276.ece
https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN_850815_Assam%20Accord.pdf
Written by Mrunalini Ramnath and Kevin K. Biju.