Q. Describe the main provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. What were its major consequences on the domestic and foreign policy front. Do you subscribe to the view that it will be detrimental for the secular nature of India? [Expected Question-66th BPSC]

Q. Describe the main provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019. What were its major consequences on the domestic and foreign policy front. Do you subscribe to the view that it will be detrimental for the secular nature of India? [Expected Question-66th BPSC]

Ans:

Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019 seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955. The main provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019:

• The amendment provides that illegal migrants who fulfil four conditions will not be treated as illegal migrants under the Act. The conditions are:
  • they are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians
  • they are from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan
  • they entered India on or before December 31, 2014they are not in certain tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, or Tripura included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution, or areas under the “Inner Line” permit, i.e., Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland.
    • These tribal areas include Karbi Anglong (in Assam), Garo Hills (in Meghalaya), Chakma District (in Mizoram), and Tripura Tribal Areas District.
• All legal proceedings against above category of migrants in respect of their illegal migration or citizenship will be closed.
• The period of naturalisation has been reduced from 11 years to 5 years for above category of migrants.
• Grounds for cancelling OCI registration: The amendment provides that the central government may cancel registration of OCIs, if the OCI has violated Citizenship Act or any other law so notified by the central government. Also, the cardholder has to be given an opportunity to be heard.
  • The Act provides that the central government may cancel registration of OCIs on five grounds including registration through fraud, showing disaffection to the Constitution, etc.

Major consequences:

• On the domestic front:
  • It may affect the credibility of central government to keep promises: The act is considered against the letter and spirit of Assam Accord. The Assam accord put the date of detection and deportation of foreigners as March 25 1971, whereas, for other states, it was 1951.
    • CAA extends the cut-off date for NRC from 25th March 1971 to 31st Dec 2014. CAA extends the cut-off date for NRC from 25th March 1971 to 31st Dec 2014.
  • Widespread protests that began in the Northeast and other parts of the country.
    • The mobilizations in the Northeast are about anxieties of ethnicity, culture and language as much as religion while the protests in Delhi, Aligarh and Lucknow are chiefly about religious identity and discriminatory exclusion of Muslims from the CAA.
    • However, this act would differentiate between illegal immigrants and persecuted communities seeking refuge. In Assam, the protestors demanded the identification and deportation of all illegal foreigners – predominantly Bangladeshi immigrants.
  • Creating criteria on the basis of religion may deepen the mistrust and division within the country.
  • Link with NRC: There are fears that such an exercise could end up targeting minorities in the country. Also, to implement CAA, citizens and illegal migrants have to be identified. So, a NRC is seen as necessary first step for CAA.
    • Allegations of human rights violations– as at a US Congress hearing on human rights in South Asia, not just Kashmir issue was raised but Assam’s NRC also came up.
    • Issue of Statelessness: There are apprehensions that India will end up creating the newest cohort of stateless people, on the lines of Rohingyas of Myanmar.
  • Cancellation of OCI registration: giving the central government the power to prescribe the list of laws whose violation result in cancellation of OCI registration, may amount to an excessive delegation of powers by the legislature.
• On foreign policy font:
  • Soon after the protests broke out, two Bangladesh ministers cancelled their visit to India, the Japanese Prime Minister postponed his visit to the country and the annual India-Japan summit was cancelled.
  • Some experts had questioned whether the Central government factored in the ramifications of the CAA on India’s Act East Policy and its potential side effects on the country’s relationship with foreign stakeholders heavily invested in the Northeast.
  • The amendment implies that religious persecution of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh as one of the reasons for the amendment and also implies that Muslim migrants from Bangladesh will be “thrown out”. This invites trouble from Bangladesh with bearing on bilateral issues.
  • India’s strong commitment to civic nationalism and religious pluralism, have been important pillars on which India’s strategic partnerships with the US and the West have been built, which may be imperiled.

Will it be detrimental for the secular nature of India:

• Classification of minority communities: The amendment simply mentions the 6 ‘minority communities’ and there is no mention of ‘persecuted minorities’ or ‘religious persecution.’ So, ideally it should not differentiate between religious persecution and political persecution. Moreover, exclusion of Muslims, Jews and Atheists from CAA is said to be violation of Article 14 of the constitution. For example:
  • Persecution of co-religionists like Shias, Hazaras or Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan (who are considered non-Muslims in that country).
  • The murder of atheists in Bangladesh has also been noticed.
• In granting citizenship on the basis of religion, it discriminates against Muslims and rejects the basic concept of secularism.
• By setting new criteria for citizenship, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act goes against the premise of common citizenship regardless of differences of caste, creed, gender, ethnicity and culture.
• Further, Article 14 of the Constitution lays down that the “State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”
• Some experts view the Citizenship (Amendment) Act is divisive, deeply discriminatory and violative of human rights. It may deepen communal division and social polarization in the country. It can negatively affect the sense of belonging and inclusiveness for all.
• Some sections fear that the agenda of Hindutva and its ultimate goal of establishing a “Hindu Nation” underlie the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

However, government has refuted these allegations underlining that CAA is a step to give citizenship to people who are religiously persecuted and not to take citizenship of any individual or group. Further, government has claimed that while extending citizenship to these people, India is only realizing the promises made by the Mahatma Gandhi during partition. It is also said that it not in violation of Art 14 as provisions under this article is applicable to citizens only and positive discrimination is allowed by supreme court previously.

To conclude,  Indian democracy is based on the concept of welfare and secular state. So, it becomes a moral obligation of the state to allay the fears of minority communities, if any. Hence, the classification done in CAA on the basis of country of origin and religious minorities can be made more inclusive. India has a civilization duty to protect those who are prosecuted in its neighbourhood. But, the methods must be in accordance with the spirit of the Constitution. The onus is now on the Supreme Court to interpret the provisions of the Act and test its Constitutionality that whether the “classification” done in the Act is “reasonable” or not if tested against Article 14.