Round The World
New Delhi, 13 December 2019
Citizens
Amendment Bill
US BODY,
PAK CRITICAL
By Dr.
D.K. Giri
Prof.
International Politics, JMI
The controversial Citizens Amendment Bill
(CAB) was passed by both Houses of Parliament and became a law last week. Prime
Minister Modi dubbed it a historic day as religious minorities from three
neighbouring Islamic countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan sheltered
in India would get Indian citizenship. And tweeted, “A landmark day for India
and our nation’s ethos of compassion and brotherhood. The Bill will alleviate
the suffering of many who faced persecution for years”. While the Congress
President Sonia Gandhi rued it was the darkest day in Indian politics.
Amidst these strongly opposite views, we
evaluate the law. Obviously, since the NDA has majority in the Lok Sabha, the
Bill was passed. However, a nationwide debate is on over the legal, political
and moral aspects of CAB along-with reactions from the international community.
Predictably, Pakistan has responded negatively
with its Prime Minister Imran Khan asserting, “CAB violates all norms of
international rights and laws. It is also in contravention of bilateral
agreements between India and Pakistan”. He tweeted, “It (the legislation) is a
part of the RSS Hindu Rashtra design of expansionism propagated by the fascist
Modi Government.”
The Pakistan foreign office added, “It is in complete
violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international
covenants on elimination of all forms of discrimination based on religious
belief” and is a toxic mix of an extremist Hindutva ideology and hegemonic
ambition of India. Equally reprehensible are India’s pretentions of casting
itself as a homeland for minorities allegedly persecuted in the neighbouring
countries.
Given the traditional animosity of Pakistan
towards India and the current daggers-drawn relations, one could dismiss
statements flowing from Islamabad as mala-fide overreactions. The other
reaction came from the US International Commission on Religious Freedom
(USCIRF) --- a bipartisan, independent body.
It suggested to the US State Department to
consider sanctions against Home Minister Amit Shah and other top leaders. Stating,
“The CAB enshrines a pathway to citizenship for immigrants that specifically
exclude Muslims setting a legal criterion for citizenship based on religion. It
runs counter to India’s rich history of secular pluralism and the Indian Constitution
which guarantees equality before law regardless of faith”.
On its part, the External Affairs Ministry rebuffed
the US body averring, “The statement by USCIRF is neither accurate nor warranted.
The Bill (Law) provides expedited consideration for Indian citizenship to
persecuted religious minorities already in India from certain contiguous
countries.”
Indeed, many in India and the US pay tribute
to our country’s rich multicultural ethos and an accommodative Constitution
whereby, this new law ‘strikes at the heart of ‘idea of India’, undermines Constitutional
values and the rule of law’.
But supporters of the law led by Modi argue the
“Bill is in line with India’s centuries old ethos of assimilation and belief in
humanitarian values”.
This is the contention one would like to
challenge. Arguably, no country can invoke the principle of national
sovereignty in ‘law-making’ or governance in regard to human rights and
humanitarianism which are universal values. So how do we explain it to the
world? One would like to take a progressive nationalist stance in doing so.
What is CAB-Law about? Basically, this is an
Amendment to the Citizenship Law of 1955. The new law confers citizenship to
migrants from three neighbouring countries belonging to six religions namely,
Hindu, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists and Christians. The debateable point and
division in perspectives is the omission of the biggest minority category,
Muslims.
What are the political, legal and moral
(humanitarian) implications of the law? Politically, are we heading towards a
fascist State by excluding one community? Will it create sectarian strife?
One could argue that India cannot be a fascist
State even if it becomes a Hindu-majority State. This is a red-herring.
Hinduism, unlike any other religion is highly polytheist, horizontally and
vertically divided by caste.
The caste antagonisms and contradictions,
temporarily subsumed in anti-minority rhetoric will erupt from time to time,
which will make the society diverse and politics democratic. India, in the past,
has fought off authoritarianism camouflaged as ‘Internal Emergency’. It can
withstand any such direct assault on its democratic politics.
The second danger is probable sectarian
conflicts or political violence. If the law is implemented smoothly, and the
law and order machinery is efficient, this danger can also be mitigated. But,
given the messy implementation of Demonetisation, GST, massive intelligence
failure in Pulwama, one becomes tentative and speculative.
Legally, one is wary if the law would stand
judicial scrutiny. CAB critics aver it violates Article 14 of the Constitution,
if not Article 15 and others. Article 14 provides for equality of all persons
(not only citizens) and any inhabitant in Indian territory is entitled to equality
of treatment by law.
The protagonists would say there are
provisions inherent in our Constitution which may address the concerns in
Article 14. They are ‘equality between similarly situated people’ and
‘reasonable classification’. Only the legal experts can decide on these.
Also, the basis of offering citizenship,
namely, religious persecution is difficult to establish. Those who are
persecuted come as refugees, not illegal migrants. When they came into the
country, they should have registered their status. Applying or establishing the
principle of persecution retrospectively is an undoable and unethical
proposition.
In addition, this makes us cast aspersions
and accusations on our friendly neighbours like Bangladesh and Afghanistan that
they are bigoted States. The moral argument is straight and simple. What are we
to do with thousands of Muslims staying in the country for ages? Having allowed
them into the country in whatever way, shall we deport them or put them in
detention? Or keep them as non-citizens forever?
When European countries are welcoming
refugees from the Middle East shall we throw those out already living in our
country? Is this the way an aspiring world power should behave?
Finally, to explain it to the world, it will
matter little what we say. What will enhance or dilute our image is what we do
with people in our territory! How fair and impartial we are with them is what
the world will watch! So, let our deeds speak. Nothing anywhere in the world is
beyond international eyes, thanks to technology that takes us across the world
and beyond.
If India aspires to be a world power, it
should behave as one, not make Pakistan its reference point as the NDA Government
compulsively does. It may be better than Pakistan but less than any developed
democracy. It is time to re-fix our goal posts. Shall we? ---- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|