Can the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill be taken for granted ?

John S Shilshi *

The seriousness shown by the Bhartiya Janata Party to ensure that the contentious Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) 2019 becomes a law goes back to the first term of NarendraModi as Prime Minister.

The Bill was passed in the lower House of the Parliament in January 2019, but because of the strong opposition by the people of North east across the spectrum, it was not introduced in the upper House. Having returned to power with thumping majority after the recent Parliamentary elections, the party now is on the verge of formalizing the Bill into a law.

In short, the Bill seeks to amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 – a law that lays down the rules for foreigners to acquire Indian citizenship. On December 10, 2019, theBill was passed by the Lok Sabha or the lower house of the Indian Parliament, supported by as large as 311 Members of the Parliament, bulldozing a meek opposition from 80 MPs even as almost the entire North east was once again up in arms against it.

Strong public sentiment however, hardly mattered to the BJP, the main Architect of the Bill, because most MPs from the region too took side and supported the legislation, perhaps without closely assessing future implications to the region.

Critically assessing the proposed amendment, it must be said that CAB certainly is a very serious move with far-reaching consequences, having the potential to alter the basic character of the Indian Constitution. It seeks to provide shelter and protection to persecuted minorities in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

If the proposed measure is passed by both the houses of parliament and is signed by the President to becoming an Act, “Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians” from these countries shall no longer be treated as illegal immigrants even if they have entered the country illegally. In other word, it will fundamentally change the country’s laid down procedures of granting citizenshipthrough naturalization.

Besides the above relaxation, the CAB also shortens the waiting period for naturalization for these chosen communities who would now require a six-year residence instead of the previous condition of having to stay in India for at least 11 years before applying for citizenship.

It means that under the category of naturalization, there would be two kinds of citizens which is violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution.No doubt the stated objective of the CAB may sound logical, but its text negates the fundamental character of the Constitution, besides tearing apart the plural fabric of Indian society.

The protective umbrella the CAB envisaged to provide to people of religious groups persecuted in their country of origin is defeated by the careful exclusion of Muslims, some of whom are also persecuted in countries like Pakistan and Myanmar- example being the Ahmadiyya community or Shias and the Rohingyas respectively.

It needs to be also pointed out that if the sole objective of CAB was humanitarian as claimed by the BJP, it is questionable why the Tamils and Muslims in Sri Lanka are excluded though they also face persecution from the majority Buddhist Sinhalese. It is therefore, more than obvious that the CAB has been carefully crafted to promote and execute the RSS idea of a “Hindu Rashtra” or of a Hindu nation where Muslims are to be second grade citizens.

It is a legislation that fits well in the BJP’s political agenda which thrives on anti-Muslim plank. The humanitarian claim therefore is squarely beaten hollow.

In the light of the above, the concern of people in North east India, particularly the smaller states is not entirely out of place. In its quest to build a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, the BJP had achieved considerable success in mainland India during the last few years that NarendraModi was the Prime Minister, thanks mainly to dedicated leaders and workers, who at times systematically combined marginalization and threats to minority communities as tactics.

The recent Supreme Court ruling on Babri Masjid reinforces that consolidation process. The North east region, with different socio-religious setting, therefore is perhaps viewed as the area where foothold of BJP/RSS could not be firmed up through dedicated cadres.

Moreover, apart from the state of Assam, other states of North east also provide different kind of challenge to the BJP and the RSS since Christians are in majority. Politically, states like Nagaland, Mizoram and Meghalaya may align with the party in power, but just temporarily.

Therefore, building a reliable cadre which will sustain the support for the Saffron party could only emerge through a consolidation process, which CAB envisaged to provide. Therefore, all the verbal assurances for protecting the interests of smaller states in the region must be taken with pinch of salt unless a safeguard to this effect is provided for in the Act itself.

Serious political dialogue between all political parties therefore is urgently warranted to objectively assess the likely implications of CAB to the region. And if in the collective wisdom of the leaders’ insertion of a safety clause (s) in the Act is considered necessary; it should be demanded.

Political bickering to settle personal score and also to unsettle the government at this point in time may prove to be extremely costly.

Last but not the least; it would be gross misreading of future situation to presume that Hindus from Bangladesh taken in as Indian Citizens would not venture into these states. For it must not be forgotten that the saffron family strongly believes in unity through similarity rather than unity through diversity.