Ambiguity surrounding the CAA Act

Despite severe criticism and opposition from people and political parties of India and international agencies, The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 has come into force in India, as an amendment to The Citizenship Act of 1955 in order to give eligibility for Indian citizenship to the illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and entered India on or before 31 December 2014. 

The above mentioned six minority groups from the three neighbouring countries are thus  given the chance to become the citizen of India, by reducing the otherwise minimum stay of 11 years required as per the earlier Citizenship act. There will be approximately 30,000 people who will be the immediate beneficiaries of the bill.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (CAB) came into force on 12 December 2019. The union cabinet cleared the Bill on 4 December 2019. It was passed by the Lok Sabha on 10 December 2019 and, subsequently, in the Rajya Sabha on 11 December 2019. The bill finally got presidential assent and became an act.

The critique surrounding the law –

  • It is much argued and opposed as why the law excludes the muslims specifically while including six other religions. Thus, the law seems to be causing religious discrimination and promoting racism for denying the naturalisation rights to muslims. The opposition party has alleged that the law thus violates the right to equality enshrined in the constitution.
  • Centre says these minority groups have come escaping persecution in muslim majority nations but the said logic is being criticised for not including all religious minorities and neighbours. It is being debated that the Ahmedia Muslim sect and even Shias face discrimination in Pakistan . Also, Rohingya muslims as well as Hindus face persecution in neighbouring Burma. Similarly, The Hindu and Christian Tamils in Sri Lanka should have been included on the similar grounds. But, the response of government is that Muslims can seek refuge in Islamic nations and the other questions are still unanswered.
  • India’s previous citizenship law, Citizenship Act, 1955  did  not consider religious affiliation to be the criterion for eligibility to grant citizenship of India.

Also, The CAA Act suggests that the ministry will designate a competent authority that will handle the applications of those who are going to apply for Indian citizenship, and the entire process will be digital.
“No one will get Indian citizenship automatically. One has to prove eligibility,” the official said.
However, The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights OHCHR had showed its concern about the reports of two people dying in anti-CAB protests and called on all sides to not resort to violence.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, is “fundamentally discriminatory”, and undermines India’s commitment to international law and the Indian constitution.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concern that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, is “fundamentally discriminatory”, and undermines India’s commitment to international law and the Indian constitution.The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) also expressed concern about the reports of two people dying in anti-CAB protests and called on all sides to not resort to violence.
The spokesperson for UN Human Rights chief, Michele Bachelet in the strongest criticism from Geneva so far has said, “We are concerned that India’s new Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 is fundamentally discriminatory in nature”.
 The head of UN’s human rights body expressed hope that the apex court “will consider carefully the compatibility of the law with India’s international human rights obligations”.
It was noted that  while the legislation seeks to expedite citizenship of six religious minorities fleeing persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, “it does not extend the same protection to Muslims, including minority sects”.

The US Congress’ House (of Representatives) Foreign Affairs Committee in a post on Twitter said, “Religious pluralism is central to the foundations of both India and the United States and is one of our core shared values. Any religious test for citizenship undermines this most basic democratic tenet.
Earlier, the USCIRF had said the CAB carved out a path for awarding citizenship to immigrants, specifically excluding Muslims, setting a legal criterion for citizenship based on religion.  Although the recommendations of USCIRF are not enforceable as such but are taken into consideration by the US government, in particular the state department,  which is tasked with powers to take sanctionable actions against foreign entities and individuals for violation of religious freedom and human rights, a PTI report from Washington said. 
The matter is being considered as an Internal matter of India and the government has ensured that they were well prepared to tackle with the expected consequences even before the act was passed.
The Anti CAA protest has also lead to diplomatic setback. Two Bangladeshi ministers cancelled their India visit after CAA was passed in Parliament. Also, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe postponed his India trip for an annual bilateral summit with PM Narendra Modi.

Several towns and cities in India got affected with protests and were placed under indefinite curfew, including Guwahati, the epicentre of protests, besides Dibrugarh, Tezpur and Dhekiajuli. Night curfew was imposed in Jorhat, Golaghat, Tinsukia and Charaideo districts.
Such was the gravity of tense situation in Assam that the Army carried out a flag march in several parts of Guwahati to restore law and order in the city.
Delhi, the capital of India faced huge protests in parts of southeast and northeast districts,  the police in all other districts conducted foot patrolling and flag march.
In several cities and towns, Section 144 had to be imposed and internet had to be shutdown.
The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation had to close gates of seven metro stations, including Jamia Millia, Jama Masjid and Munirka. “Entry & exit gates of Patel Chowk, Lok Kalyan Marg, Udyog Bhawan, ITO, Pragati Maidan and Khan Market were also closed.All in all, the whole country got affected with the protests against CAA – Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019
In order to take immediate steps to calm down the protests, government through their official issued statement on December20, 2019 that 
“We are open to receive suggestions, if any, from anyone on the CAA. We are also trying to remove doubts of people about the CAA in various ways,” the official said.
Also, it was mentioned that government had the apprehensions of protest before the implementation of the Act and the central government was prepared to face protests against the CAA after its enactment by Parliament. “We had anticipated protests, at least in the Northeast,” the official said.
As many as  59 petitions are filed in the Supreme Court challenging the CAA and are mentioned to be behind the protests by the official.
The official also added that various rumours and wrong informations have been circulated in Delhi and such rumours have become the reasons of provocation among people.

According to media reports of December 20,2019, the Prime Minister of Malaysia remarked on the matter which is being considered entirely internal to India. The Government responded that The Citizenship Amendment Act provides for citizenship through naturalization to be fast-tracked for non-citizens who are persecuted minorities from three countries. The Act does not impact in any manner on the status of any citizen of India, or deprive any Indian of any faith of her or his citizenship. Therefore, the Prime Minister of Malaysia’s comment was considered factually inaccurate.

On 11 January 2020, Congress president Sonia Gandhi in her speech described the Citizenship (Amendment) Act as a “discriminatory and divisive” law whose “sinister” purpose was to divide people on religious lines, and asserted that the NPR in form and content was “disguised NRC”. 

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan describes a world of unrelenting insecurity without a government to provide the safety of law and order, protecting citizens from each other and from foreign foes. 

Government is a protector and it is the foremost function of the government to protect its citizens from violence. 

Thus, the government should not at this time fail in understanding the public sentiments and take immediate desirable actions towards public welfare.