On December 11, 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 to amend the Citizenship Act of 1955. This amendment allowed for Indian citizenship to be granted to religious minorities, including Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians, who fled from neighbouring Muslim-majority countries of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan due to religious persecution or fear thereof before December 2014.
When the Indian Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019, it led to months-long protests, bringing parts of New Delhi to a standstill, as the capital was hit by sectarian violence. More than 100 people were killed in the violence across India, mostly Muslims. However, an Act can only be implemented after the associated Rules are notified. Fifty-one months later, on March 11, 2024, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs notified the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 (CAR).
Not unjustifiably, notifying CAR when general elections are about to be announced is being viewed by many as politically motivated. It is widely believed that this was done by the central government to divert public attention away from its failures over the past decade and in particular, its latest setback from the Supreme Court over the controversy of electoral bonds. The BJP government’s electoral bonds scheme allowed corporate groups to donate millions of dollars to political parties without any transparency over who was giving whom how much. In February, India’s Supreme Court struck down the scheme, calling it unconstitutional, and ordered the State Bank of India to reveal details of donors, which the government had attempted to shield from public scrutiny.
Aside from playing at domestic political intrigues, the CAR could potentially have significant regional implications. Recently, the Indian Home Minister Amit Shah, while speaking on the issue, explained that the Christians and Buddhists in countries like Afghanistan had once belonged to parts of Akhand Bharat. Hence, such people have some sort of a right of refuge in what remains of that Bharat. But if Christians are assumed to be converted natives of Akhand Bharat, then on what ground would some Muslims be refused such native origins?
As far as the concept of Akhand Bharat is concerned, critics see it as an attempt to build a theocratic state based on Hindutva ideology, which lacks nuance and could be harmful to South Asia’s regional stability. They believe that any calls for Akhand Bharat which may give rise to India’s ambition for expansion could endanger the peace and security of the area. It may fuel tensions on geopolitical, ethnic, and religious fronts, particularly in South Asia, where countries could see such demand as ignoring their sovereignty.
While the CAA may seem like a well-intentioned legislation aimed at giving expedited citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries, a closer examination reveals a sectarian law that ignores international obligations and goes against India’s constitutional philosophy. The Citizenship Act of 1955 outlines five methods to acquire Indian citizenship, such as birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and the incorporation of a region into India. However, the CAA contradicts these methods and instead, bases citizenship on one’s religion, which goes against Article 14 of India’s Constitution. By introducing the concept of citizenship based solely on religious identity, the CAA discriminates against those who do not belong to the specified religious minorities. This not only violates the fundamental tenet of secularism, which is integral to India’s Constitution, but also undermines a host of other fundamental rights, such as the right to equal treatment under the law (Article 14), neutrality of the State with respect to religion (Articles 15 and 16), freedom of religion (Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28), and enhanced protection to minorities (Articles 29 and 30).
According to Dr Narender Nagarwal, assistant professor of law at the University of Delhi, “The emphasis on religious identity as a criterion for acquiring citizenship under the Act raises concerns about the state’s role in determining citizenship. Citizenship has traditionally been based on factors such as birth, descent, or naturalisation, rather than religious affiliation. The Act’s introduction of religion as a defining factor sets a precedent that could potentially politicise and communalise the citizenship process,” thus altering the secular fabric of India.
Additionally, by focusing solely on migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, the Act implicitly targets Muslims, who are the majority population in these countries. This geopolitical dimension reinforces the perception of religious bias inherent in the Act’s provisions—which excludes Muslims from enjoying its privileges.
This seeming anti-Muslim bias among at least some elements of the BJP government, however, seems to be nothing new. According to human rights groups, mistreatment of Muslims has increased in India since Narendra Modi became prime minister. Since 2014, the country has seen a rising number of attacks against Muslims, including the demolition of Muslim homes and assets. Reports of hate speech against Muslims have also increased in the country, averaging nearly two anti-Muslim hate speech events per day in 2023. And three out of four hate speech incidents occurred in states ruled by the BJP.
Amidst such conditions, Amnesty International heavily criticised the CAA as “a bigoted law that legitimises discrimination on the basis of religion,” which “should never have been enacted in the first place,” adding that, “while the amendment purportedly aims to provide refuge to those facing repression, it fails to recognise and extend these protections to the Rohingyas who are often referred to as the world’s most persecuted minorities and have a UN Refugee status.”
Though the purpose of the CAA may be for India’s ruling party to divert negative attention away from its policies, its implication for a region where the British perfected its divide and rule strategy using communalism may be quite consequential. As a result of those old British policies, South Asia, historically, has seen some of the most horrific communal tragedies, the scars of which still linger across the region today. The CAA may only add more fuel to that fire. And it remains to be seen what ripple effects that may have within India, as well as outside of it. In light of that, the Act, clearly, is a step in the wrong direction, both for Indian secularism and for regional harmony and long-term stability.
Daily star
