The Indian government recently bowed to a united opposition’s demand in the Lower House for sending the Citizen Amendment Bill, which seeks to help Hindu refugees from neighboring countries acquire citizenship, to a joint select committee for thorough consideration.
Member of Parliament Bhartruhari Mahtab of Biju Janta Dal said the bill was important and required detailed scrutiny. He said since India has been granting shelter to persecuted people across all faiths, the bill should be sent to a joint select committee that would be asked to submit its report on the issue in a timely manner.
Jyotiraditya Scindia of the Congress, Sudip Bandopadhyay of the Trinamool Congress and Mohammad Salim of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) supported Mahtab’s demand, saying the bill is sensitive in nature and the opposition is open to considering it once the measure has been scrutinized by a joint select committee.
Home Minister Rajnath Singh agreed to forward the bill to a joint select committee, considering the entire opposition’s stance.
Aiming to offer relief to refugees from neighboring countries, the government had introduced the bill last month to amend the existing Citizen Act, 1955 so that Hindus, Sikhs and other religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh can be granted citizenship after six years of residence in India even in the absence of necessary documents. The current law views a foreigner, who may have entered the country without required documents or overstayed his sanctioned visa period, as an illegal migrant. The amendment introduces a migrant’s religion as a factor to be considered while determining the validation of his request and the legal status of his citizenship.
The measure however is not in keeping with the secular principles that underlie the Indian Constitution or the laws and regulations that govern grant of citizenship in the country. For instance, Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh would not be privy to such a consideration and could seek only asylum in India. This amounts to religious discrimination in a secular India and thus cannot serve as the basis for state policies and laws.
The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has always viewed migration from neighboring countries to India as a religious issue. Hindus and Sikhs entering the country unlawfully are considered migrants or refugees suffering religious persecution as opposed to Muslims minorities, who are seen as infiltrators or illegal entrants and must be deported immediately. As a matter of fact, most migrants from neighboring countries seeking citizenship in India do so for economic and not religious reasons. That is why critics believe all refugees should be treated equally, as the constitution mandates all religions to be dealt with in a uniform manner. While the problem of illegal migration has caused trouble in states like Assam and secular, non-discriminatory measures would help reach a solution, amending the existing act on the basis of religion as proposed by the government would prove only unfair and unconstitutional.
Needless to say, thousands of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and even Christians have sought refuge in India without valid documents after facing religious discrimination in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.The debate surrounding the freshly introduced Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 actually has a long history, dating back to the founding moments of India. Even though a joint select committee is now considering the bill, if passed, it would be the sixth amendment to the Citizenship Act of India, 1955.
At the time of founding of the Indian Republic, citizenship was intricately woven into the narrative of chartering of national borders and declaration of state sovereignty over all territorial boundaries in the nation state. Both necessitated a simultaneous legal statement of whether or not a person can identify as a member of the nation state. The constitutional framework for citizenship applied to only those citizens who resided within the national border or crossed them in ways considered legitimate by the state.
Still, the legislation did not consider all circumstances under which migration across borders happens to take place. Certain forms of movement were of course brought within the purview of law by marking them as exceptions. One of the ways in which such cross-border movement was considered legitimate by the state was to log it as “displacement,” which can then be resolved via administrative measures.
The proposed 2016 amendment is unprecedented in the sense that never before has religion been exclusively identified in law as the premise for distinguishing citizens from noncitizens. By identifying members of all major faiths except Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and making special provisions for certain foreigners or illegal migrants on grounds of religious persecution, the current amendment has introduced religion as a new basis for acquiring citizenship in India. Indeed, by leaving out Islam as a residual category, the bill retells the narrative from the time of Partition, without however integrating the idea of inclusion that was present in both the Constitution of India and the Citizenship Act, 1955 as its inception. Even though religious persecution appears to be a sound principle for differentiation, critics believe it cannot be enunciated in a manner that taints the republican and secular foundation of Indian citizens.Photo Credits: Daily Times
