CAA: Prey to Propaganda?
Written on December 24th, 2019 by {"login"=>"jcbitshyd", "email"=>"journal@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in", "display_name"=>"Journal Club, BPHC", "first_name"=>"", "last_name"=>""}The Citizenship Amendment Act: Prey to Propaganda?
In this short piece, we want to focus on the tsunami of lies and propaganda that has engulfed this piece of legislation and the actual concern that needs to be addressed.
Firstly, it is important to debunk the central assumption of these protests- that the act is an anti-Muslim bill from a Muslim-hating government. It has been reiterated time and again that this law will GRANT citizenship to persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh who entered India before 31st December 2014. As the law stands, it can’t rescind Indian citizenship of any person. That’s amply clear if only one were to read the law. This means, the CAA, can’t in any way make Indian Muslims stateless, as is being claimed by many. To put it in simple terms, it is a law of inclusion, not one of exclusion.
The combination of NRC with CAA is another scenario that is being touted as the first signs of fascism in the Modi Government. People are worried that this Act will lead to a situation where Hindus/Sikhs/Christians/Buddhists who don’t have the necessary documents will be given citizenship through the CAA, while Muslims without the documents will be sent away to detention camps. This is the basis for the blatant fear-mongering along communal lines that is underway in the sub-continent. Let us consider this hypothetical scenario. Proposing that any and every non-Muslim who fails to produce documents if NRC were to be implemented (the NRC being another highly misinterpreted move) will be granted citizenship under CAA is extremely stupid, even at face value. The CAA clearly states this fast-track process of citizenship is for people only from the select three countries. If it were the case that every non-Muslim who fails to prove citizenship will be given one nevertheless, it would point to an inefficient Indian bureaucracy that can’t tell when it’s being played. Because it is either that or the government is working towards a deliberate move to make scores of Muslims stateless, something which can in no way be backed by proof.
Secondly, the details of a nationwide NRC implementation are awaited. Those who say everyone must produce documents proving they were/ their parents were in India before 1971 (as was the case in Assam), are either completely deceived by disinformation, playing factotum to those with ulterior motives, or are knowingly and willfully spreading this false narrative for cheap political benefit.
The rules/conditions for being a citizen explicitly state [1]-
“Any person born in India on or after 26 January 1950, but prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987, is a citizen of India by birth. A person born in India on or after 1 July 1987 but before 3 December 2004 is a citizen of India if one of the parents was a citizen of India at the time of the birth”
The ‘1971’ cut off date is specific only to the state of Assam, as the Assam Accord [2], an MoS between the Government of India and the people of Assam which, among other things, states
“Foreigners who came to Assam on or after March 25, 1971, shall continue to be detected, deleted and practical steps shall be taken to expel such foreigners.”
Furthermore, the anti-CAA protests are based on an assumed process of NRC implementation, which is inherently biased against Muslims. It goes without saying, these claims find no support from facts.
However, this is not to brand every dissenter as a fake-news disseminator who is either doing it wilfully or doesn’t know what he/she is doing. Yes, there are some genuine and glaring issues with the CAA. The pseudo rant above was to make the case that an inherent bias against Muslims isn’t one of the issues.
One of the genuine issues with CAA is the settlement of immigrants in the state of Assam. That’s why the initial protests against CAB sparked in Assam and neighbouring states. Assam has a history of the battle against illegal Bengali-Bangladeshi immigrants. As mentioned earlier, the MoS referred to as the Assam Accord ensures the expulsion of any ‘Foreigner’ who entered the after 1971. If the persecuted minorities are indeed settled in Assam, it would be a violation of the spirit and intention of the aforementioned accord while being constitutionally valid as the immigrants will be given Indian citizenship. The primary concern with the Assamese has always been the protection of their unique culture and traditions which they fear might face extinction as more and more ‘outsiders’ settle in their state. In addition to this, there will be increased competition for the already limited livelihood opportunities for the residents of the state. Tripura suffered a similar fate soon after the Independence when scores of Bengalis from East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) settled there depleting the Tribal culture decade by decade [3]. But rest assured, citizens of Assam don’t care what religion the immigrants belong to, they don’t want any immigrants to settle there.
This aside, these states (Assam and Tripura), which are most likely to be affected by the influx of immigrants don’t have the system of an Inner Line Permit (ILP). Meghalaya, a state which shares a border with Bangladesh, has recently passed a resolution to adopt this system. However, it is important to note that the CAA doesn’t violate the ILP policy. This is because the ILP system, which in essence gives the state government the right to decide who gets to reside in the state, or which outsider can visit the state for a pre-approved duration, can be preserved with CAA. This means the government would be granting citizenship, but the citizens could be asked to vacate and settle down elsewhere. This kind of a scenario raises two questions- a) the taxpayer funding this relocation of new citizens who aren’t permitted to reside in the region protected by ILP, and b) the ones asked to relocate, mostly poor non-Muslim immigrants, will be left on their own. Both these scenarios have moral and legislative problems of their own, and the Central Government has a huge task ahead, trying to decide between them.
Now, there is also a constitutional argument against CAA. Whether it meets the requisite criteria of intelligible differentia to circumvent Article 14, is one of the many questions the Supreme Court will be deciding in January next year. However, the ethical question of adding a religious screen to obtaining citizenship is one that is bound to evoke a unique answer from each individual based on his/her perception of India, her civilization and her constitution.
Now, let us not deny the fact that a huge portion of the blame for these protests spreading lies in the incompetence of the Central Government. Home Minister Shah is on tape talking about the implementation of NRC at his election rallies. Prime Minister Modi is now on tape denying any discussion on NRC ever happened. These contradictory statements project a dysfunctional government with no clarity on their own policies. It is now up to the Central Government to pull up its socks and make an actual effort to combat this barrage of boneheaded lies and propaganda, rather than proving their critics who call them inefficient right, and parroting talking points.
Sources:
[1]: https://indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in/acquisition1.htm
[2]: https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN_850815_Assam%20Accord.pdf
[3]: https://assam.org/news/how-tripuris-got-wiped-out-bangladeshi-refugees
Written by Siddharth Sampath and Tarun Agrawal