India’s rich history of secular pluralism crosses the Rubicon line
by Anwar A. Khan
As per news reports, the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) amends a 1955 citizenship act prohibiting illegal immigrants from becoming citizens of India.
It stipulates 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 (...) shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act." For these migrants, the requirement of residence in India for citizenship by naturalisation will be relaxed from 11 years to 5 years.
Islam is not mentioned among the faiths listed by the bill. Critics say the bill is unconstitutional and discriminatory toward Muslims.
Opposition politicians in India are holding protests outside the country's parliament in New Delhi over this controversial law.
People from different faiths and backgrounds have united over opposing the law because it is seen as threatening the secular fabric of India.
Up to 7 million people have recently joined 620km human chain in India to raise their voice in a louder tone against this law. It was organised by the Left Democratic Front (LDF) across the Southern-Indian states.
It is the first time that the country is seeking to grant nationality on the basis of religion. The law, which many coined as 'anti-muslim,' sparked widespread criticism and violent protests, particularly in the northeastern Assam state.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government has said the so-called Citizenship Amendment Bill was meant to protect besieged minorities. But critics say it undermines the country's secular constitution by not offering protection to Muslims while others argue it will open India's northern states to a flood of foreigners.
The Indian Express newspaper ran an editorial saying that the law unfairly targeted India's 170 million Muslims. It says, "It is a political signal of a terrible narrowing, a chilling exclusion, directed at India's own largest minority. India is to be redefined as the natural home of Hindus, it says to India's Muslims. And that they must, therefore, be content with a less natural citizenship.”
Sensible and conscientious people look at the bill and the controversies surrounding it as protests are raging in the Southeast Asian nations. The CAB is a dangerous turn in the wrong direction; it runs counter to India’s rich history of secular pluralism and the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law regardless of faith.
"This a spontaneous public outburst," said Nehal Jain, a master’s student in communications in Guwahati. "First they tell us there are too many illegal immigrants and we need to get rid of them. Then they bring in this law that would allow citizenship to immigrants," she said. She has added,
“I want to assure them, no one can take away your rights, unique identity and beautiful culture. It will continue to flourish and grow”.
But President Modi hailed the passage of the bill and said it was in line with "India’s centuries-old ethos of assimilation and belief in humanitarian values."
Other critiques are motivated by the fear of immigration, particularly in Assam state, where a movement against the so-called illegal immigrants from its neighbouring Bangladesh has been going on for a long time.
The CAB now only requires Presidential assent to become law. The government has said the new law will be followed by a citizenship register that means Muslims must prove they were original residents of India and not refugees from these three countries, potentially rendering some of them stateless.
In last August, a new national Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam left nearly 2 million people off the list, with their fate uncertain.
Aman Wadud, a human rights lawyer for illegal immigrants in Assam, told Euronews that the Assam model of register was to be extended to the rest of the country. "Now in the proposed nationwide NRC, this Assam model will be replicated all over India and millions of people will be made stateless, that is the basic intention of the citizenship amendment bill."
"This bill is not to protect non-Muslim illegal migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan or Afghanistan but rather to target Indian Muslim, Indian genuine Muslims, " Wadud said.
Every day new clashes between police and protesters are breaking out in India against this controversial new citizenship law put forward by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
In the predominantly Muslim district of Seelampur in the east of the capital, fumes from tear gas launched by the police filled the streets. Demonstrators threw stones at the police to strike back.
Police crackdowns have been particularly brutal since the protests began when thousands of protesters gathered near Jamia Millia Islamia University. More than 200 were injured in clashes.
According to authorities, protesters had torched buses, cars and motorbikes. A witness told AFP police responded with baton charges and tear gas to disperse protesters near the Muslim university.
Critics fear a weakening in India’s secular foundations because of the new Citizenship Amendment Bill. Political analyst Tehseen Poonawalla has filed a petition in the Supreme Court to strike down the act.
He believes that this act is “illegal and unconstitutional”. "It violates article 21, the right to life, and article 14, the right to equality. That’s why, it must be struck down by the Supreme Court” Poonawalla told Euronews.
He has further said, “The people are protesting peacefully, please remember we are the land of Mahatmah Gandhi, we will not indulge in violence. We fight it legally in court, we fight it in the streets and we fight it on social media.”
Asked about the petition, Tehseen Poonawalla feels "confident" and believes in the power of this mobilisation: "So many people coming out in the streets, it's amazing".
The protestors are demanding “the police brutally beat up and sexually harassed Jamia students must be investigated and those responsible prosecuted.”
Other protests were held in the states of Kerala and Tamil Nadu in southern India. "I want to make it clear, nobody is scared. Like people in Hong Kong are protesting, in other countries they are protesting, and they are not scared. We are not scared too." declared Bhumika Saraswati, a student protester, in New Delhi.
To protest is a fundamental right which also includes the right to be heard. With protest against the CAA going unheard at the government’s end, protesters were getting increasingly frustrated.
The other side was equally frustrated with the anti-CAA protest for causing whatever inconvenience to their daily lives, over controversial and objectionable suggestions made by some of the participants and believing the government that the new law was not against Indian citizens.
Simply put, the riot-ready mobs were ready on both sides. When both kinds of rioters hit the roads, police appeared a loser and politics the winner.
Critics have repeatedly stated that the amendment Act is unconstitutional. The major opposition political parties state that it violates Constitution's Article 14, one that guarantees equality to all. They allege that the new law seeks to make Muslims second-class citizens of India, while preferentially treating non-Muslims in India.
Critics of the Act have also stated that due to the National Register of Citizens (NRC), Muslims could be made stateless, while the Citizenship Amendment Act would be able to shield people with Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian identity as a means of providing them with Indian citizenship even if they failed to prove that they were citizens of India under the stringent requirements of the NRC. Some critics allege that it is a deliberate attempt at disenfranchising and segregating Muslims in line with the ethno-nationalist Hindutva ideology of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
The Act was criticised by various NGOs, student’s bodies and liberal, progressive, and socialist organisations across the country, with the Indian National Congress and other major political parties announcing their staunch opposition. Protests led by these groups are concerned that the new law discriminates against Muslims, and believe that Indian citizenship should also be granted to Muslim refugees and immigrants.
The states of Rajasthan, West Bengal, Kerala, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh – all ruled by political parties that oppose the BJP – have announced that they will not implement either the National Register of Citizens (NRC) or the Citizenship Amendment Act. The states of Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha have, however, refused to only implement the NRC, while the state of Punjab and the union territories of Delhi and Puducherry have refused to implement the Act while only expressing disapproval of the NRC.
The states of West Bengal and Kerala have also put a hold on all activities relating to the preparation and update of the National Population Register which is necessary for the Census as well as the implementation of the National Register of Citizens. Although some of the states have opposed the Act, the Union Home Ministry clarified that states lack the legal power to stop the implementation of CAA. The Ministry stated that "The new legislation has been enacted under the Union List of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. The states have no power to reject it."
The Indian Union Muslim League and various other bodies have also petitioned the Supreme Court of India to strike down the Act as illegal and unconstitutional.
Tavleen Singh, a member of Sikh community, has denounced the Act as India's first Nuremberg Law.
-The End –
The writer is an independent political observer based in Dhaka, Bangladesh who writes on politics, political and human-centred figures, current and international affairs.
Post a Comment