CAA: One year down the road. It’s need, flaws and the way forward

Last year the Indian Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act on 11 Dec 2019. The Act had been widely debated since. There were massive arsons and violence in the name of it. Let’s have a quick glance on the Act, the arguments in its favour, it’s criticism and way forward.

The Citizenship Amendment Act enables the state to expeditiously grant citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh (all officially Islamic countries) who arrived in India, before 31st December 2014, to escape persecutions on religious grounds.

Well, why was this needed in the first place? Bigotry prevails in these states since long (Bangladesh has now a better situation thanks to PM Sheikh Hasina taking reigns lately). The horrors of religious persecution inflicted upon the minorities by the state and society, in these states and especially Pakistan, are very real and dreadful. The beneficiaries of the act narrate first-hand vivid accounts of the same. CAA is a boon to such families who can now live without fear and with dignity and heads held high. Thus, enacting CAA is a welcome step.

However, some critics have condemned the act citing its non-secular nature on the face of it. They say that India being a secular state, which does not believe in the Two-Nation Theory, should not discriminate people, even non-citizens, on religious grounds. Muslims should also be brought under its ambit and be provided citizenship. However, this criticism is flawed and falters for two primary reasons-

1. India believes in non-violence but still has armed forces because we know that our neighbours don’t believe in the same. Similarly, we may not believe in the two-nation theory but at the same time, we can not simply discard its outcomes — The partition of British India- formation of India and Pakistan (and later Bangladesh). This two-nation mindset still prevails in our neighbouring countries and drives discrimination and harassment particularly targeted against non-Islamic communities. Since medicines are given only to a patient, economic remedies only to the poor, a surgery only on the malignancy, likewise the vulnerable people need to be identified and ad-hoc remedies delivered only to them.
2. The act only expedites the granting of citizenship to non-Islamic communities fleeing religious persecutions. It does not prohibit granting citizenship to Muslims. The existing channels to apply for citizenship remain open for Muslims. Popular playback singer Adnan Sami is a celebrity example of the case.

Also, critics have pointed out to the different communities practising various sects of Islam, especially in Pakistan, who are in a constant fight with each other and the state. They appeal to provide shelter to them too. But we should also note that what they aspire for is not mere refuge in another state but a political autonomy and democracy in their own homeland. It is no secret that democracy in Pakistan is little more than nominal, with the deep state (ISI + Pakistani Army) being at the helm of the country’s affairs while the local Maulanas holding sway on the field, spewing venom and professing bigotry. Citizens are tired of state oppression and inter-ethnic tensions. Women are subject to great restrictions. Simply providing Indian citizenship does not seem to be the appropriate or desired solution here. Moreover, if on the other hand granting Indian citizenship were the desired comprehensive fix, generously opening doors of citizenship to all would create a risk of high refugee influx. Given already limited resources, a huge refugee population seeking asylum is bound to overwhelm them. And this creates the typical pre-conditions for war. Similar refugee crisis in 1971 preceded the Bangladesh Liberation war.

Balkanization of Pakistan into sovereign states largely created on ethnic lines, including a Pashtun Balochistan and a pluralist Sindh, might plausibly establish peace and harmony in the region. But is war the first thing we need now, not to forget the nuclear warfare capabilities of both countries? There are more pressing concerns about reviving the economy, generating meaningful employment, dealing with climate change, addressing health-care deficits, creating a more egalitarian society, etc. It sounds more rational to defer the question of actively granting citizenship to all seekers for a later date.

The idea of CAA has found resonance on almost all sides of political ideologies since Independence. From Mahatma Gandhi to Dr. Manmohan Singh, leaders from the INC, the main opposition party, have advocated for CAA, while BJP, its arch-rival and the ruling party, gets credits for the Act’s enactment. Then is the opposition to CAA completely unfounded? Is dissent to CAA just a hoax? To know further let us look at a different aspect of it and its effect on a particular geography — the North East.

The northeastern states have traditionally been home to tribes occupying the hilly tracts of the region. The region is rich in ethnic diversity. However, it is also a very ethnically sensitive region, strife with ethnic tensions. The tribes indigenous to the northeast are small communities, their population being only in thousands or tens of thousands. The political and military turmoil in Bangladesh (erstwhile East Pakistan) in the early 1970s witnessed vast refugee populations swamp the northeastern states especially Assam. Since demography significantly influences the election and functioning of government in a democracy, the indigenous people felt insecure and vulnerable. There were strong demands and even violent protests in Assam, led by the powerful All Assam Students’ Union, to ensure that the government protects their culture, language, political and land rights, and deport the illegal foreigners (those who arrived after 1951). This culminated in the “Assam Accord” — a memorandum of settlement signed between the Rajiv Gandhi Government and the Assam Movement leaders on 15 August 1985.

The accord settled the cutoff date as March 24, 1971, and not 1951; anyone who arrived in Assam before that cut-off would be considered a citizen of India. To assure protection of the indigenous population, clause 6 Assam Accord stated that “Constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards shall be provided to protect, preserve and promote cultural, social and linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people.”

However, CAA defines a new cutoff date of December 31, 2014. This has upset the Assamese people. By legalizing the illegal immigrants, they again fear losing their identity and rights to demography changes. Now, these are some very genuine concerns and the protests on this very issue are very legitimate.

The Government Of India in its defence has said that it has already the Inner Line Permit system in place in the northeast. Meaning that an Indian Citizen, who wishes to visit the areas under ILP and is not a native of that place, has to first obtain a permit and can travel/stay for a limited time duration. Also, the areas under ILP are exempt from the provisions of CAA. GoI has also extended the ILP to Manipur recently. However, Assam, Tripura and Meghalaya don’t enjoy the ILP shield (Although some parts of these states come under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution and are hence exempt from CAA provisions).

So what is the way forward, if there is any? A plausible solution can be to divide the CAA beneficiaries of the northeast into small groups and rehabilitate them across the country in such a manner that it does not skew the local demographics considerably. A period of compulsory residence can be fixed, for say 3 years, post which restrictions on movement and residence will be lifted in accordance with Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution, especially clauses (d) and (e) which guarantee the right to move freely throughout the territory and to settle in any part of the territory of India. The term of compulsory residence can act as a strong disincentive and demotivation to move back to the northeast. In that duration, people would find economic activities, familiarise with the surroundings and become a part of the society. There is basic inertia in human behaviour. Once having established a home, people are unlikely to move back again to a completely another place and start afresh. The constitutionality of such a term may be drawn from Article 19(5) of the Indian Constitution which places reasonable restrictions on 19(1)-(d)&(e). Also, a minimal economic aid may be provided for their settlement during or after the completion of the term for a limited time duration.

NRC is another face of the same coin and is much more complex than the discussed issue, but let’s save the discussion over it for some another day.