CAA

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a law in India aimed at providing citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from neighbouring countries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. It excludes certain religions and countries from its benefits, which has led to debates and concerns about its impact on bilateral relations. While supporters argue that it offers refuge to persecuted minorities, critics raise issues of exclusion and potential diplomatic tensions. The Act has sparked protests and discussions regarding its compatibility with India's constitutional principles of equality and secularism. Overall, the CAA remains a contentious issue, with differing perspectives on its implications for both domestic and international relations.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 is a law in India that deals with how people become citizens and how they can lose their citizenship. It was made by the Indian government on December 30, 1955. Over time, it has been changed several times through different laws called Citizenship (Amendment) Acts.

• Special Conditions for Assam: One big change was for the state of Assam, where people who came before March 24, 1971, were made citizens under a special agreement.
• National ID Card: There's a section in the Citizenship Act called Section 14A that says the government can make every Indian get a national ID card. This helps identify citizens better.
• The National Register of Indian Citizens (NRIC), keeps track of who is a citizen. This is set out in Rules made in 2003.
• Requirements for Citizenship: Before, just being born in India made you a citizen. But now, at least one of your parents needs to be Indian when you're born.
• Who are Illegal Migrants? The Citizenship Act was changed in 2003 to talk about "illegal migrants." These are people who aren't supposed to be in India, and the law says they can be sent away or put in jail.
• Citizenship for Foreign Persecuted Minorities: In 2016, some changes were made to the law that helped certain groups of people from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan become citizens if they came to India before December 31, 2014. These groups include Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians.
• Fast Track Citizenship for Illegal Migrants: In 2019, there were more changes proposed to the Citizenship Act and some other laws too. It said that illegal migrants from these three countries who are part of religious minority groups could become citizens.

Understanding Citizenship in India

Citizenship Basics:

• Citizenship signifies the bond between a nation and its people.
• It grants individuals certain rights such as state protection, voting rights, and eligibility for certain public positions.
• In return, citizens have obligations to the state.

Indian Citizenship Overview:

• The Constitution of India establishes a single citizenship for the entire country.
• Article 11 grants Parliament the authority to regulate citizenship through law, leading to the enactment of the Citizenship Act of 1955.
• Citizenship matters fall under Entry 17 of List 1 in the Seventh Schedule, giving exclusive legislative power to Parliament.

Evolution of Citizenship Laws:

1. Pre-1987: Birth in India was sufficient for Indian citizenship.
2. 1987 Amendment: Amid concerns of alleged illegal migration from Bangladesh, the law changed to require at least one parent to be Indian.
3. 2004 Amendment: Further modifications stipulated that one parent must be Indian, while the other should not be an illegal immigrant.

Identifying Illegal Migrants: An illegal migrant in India is defined as a foreigner who:- a. Enters the country without valid travel documents like a passport and visa. b. Enters with valid documents but overstays beyond the allowed duration.

• Consequences for Illegal Migrants: Illegal migrants may face imprisonment or deportation under the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.

• Background:
  • The Act was passed by the Parliament of India on December 11, 2019, and received presidential assent on December 12, 2019, becoming law.
  • It amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, to extend citizenship eligibility to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, aiming to aid persecuted individuals from neighbouring countries.
• Eligibility Criteria:
  • The legislation applies to those who sought refuge in India due to religious persecution.
  • It relaxes the naturalisation period from 11 to 5 years for applicants belonging to the specified religions.
  • The cut-off date for citizenship is December 31, 2014, requiring applicants to have entered India on or before this date.
• Citizenship Process:
  • Upon acquiring citizenship, individuals are considered citizens from their entry date into India, and all legal proceedings related to their illegal migration or citizenship status are terminated.
  • It includes provisions for revoking Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cards for violations of local laws.
• Exceptions:
  • The Act does not apply to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
  • It also excludes areas under the Inner Line Permit (ILP) in certain regions.
  • Muslims are not included in the provisions of the Act, focusing solely on specified religious minorities.

• Differential Treatment violating Article 14: The CAA provides differing treatment to illegal migrants based on factors such as their country of origin, religion, date of entry into India, and place of residence. Critics question whether such differentiation violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment to all individuals, regardless of citizenship status or nationality.
• Improper Religious Classification: The Act categorises migrants based on religious persecution faced by certain minorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. Critics argue that there are other religious minorities facing persecution in these countries, such as Ahmadiyya Muslims and atheists in Bangladesh, raising concerns about the exclusionary nature of the Act.
• Date of Entry Criteria: There is ambiguity surrounding the rationale for differential treatment based on the date of entry (December 31, 2014) into India.
• Impact on Northeast: The exclusion of certain areas in the Northeast from the provisions of the Act has sparked concerns about demographic changes and resource allocation. The Act conflicts with the Assam Accord of 1955, which emphasises punishment and deportation of illegal immigrants.
• Economic Implications: The surge in population due to the Act may strain resources and job opportunities, particularly affecting indigenous communities in the Northeast. Exclusion of certain minority religions within India, such as Jews and atheists, from the Act has raised objections within these communities.
• Violation of Secular Governance: Critics argue that the Act violates Article 14 by discriminating against individuals based on their religion, contradicting the principle of equality before the law. The Act's religious-based criteria for citizenship eligibility raises concerns about the government's adherence to secular principles.

• Violation of Assam Accord: The CAA contradicts the Assam Accord, which set March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for identifying illegal immigrants in Assam, irrespective of religion. By moving the cut-off date to December 31, 2014, the Act fails to address the concerns of Assamese-speaking people who advocate for equal treatment of all illegal immigrants.
• Historical Context: The Northeastern region has a history of migration, particularly from Bangladesh during the partition and after the Bangladesh liberation war in 1971. The continuous influx of migrants has raised concerns among the original inhabitants about the encroachment on their rights and resources, leading to the Assam Movement in the late 20th century. The Assam Movement, led by organisations like the All Assam Students' Union (AASU), aimed to remove illegal migrants from Bangladesh who had settled in the state. The movement highlighted the importance of protecting the rights and interests of the indigenous population against illegal immigration.
• Demographic Concerns: The prospect of granting citizenship to large numbers of illegal Bangladeshi migrants raises fears of demographic change and the loss of indigenous culture in the Northeastern states. This influx of migrants could lead to increased competition for land and job opportunities, potentially disadvantageous to indigenous communities.
• Protection of Indigenous Rights: The protests against the CAA in the Northeast are not based on religious or political biases but stem from a desire to protect the distinct culture and tradition of the region. The opposition to the Act reflects the democratic right of Northeastern people to safeguard their identity and preserve their way of life.

• Inclusivity Towards Muslims: The CAA does not discriminate against Muslims, as individuals belonging to persecuted Muslim communities like Ahmediyas and Rohingyas can still seek Indian citizenship through naturalisation if they enter with valid travel documents.
• Protections for Other Minorities: India's adherence to the principle of non-refoulement (Non-refoulement is a principle in international law that prohibits the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they may face persecution, torture, or other forms of harm) ensures that individuals facing persecution will not be pushed back to their countries of origin, regardless of their religious affiliation.
• Consideration of Individual Cases: Shia Muslims facing persecution can seek refuge in India based on the merits of their individual cases. Balochi refugees are not included in the CAA to avoid interference in Pakistan's internal affairs, considering Balochistan's struggle for independence.
• Equal Conditions for Citizenship: Even minorities covered under the CAA must fulfil conditions specified in the Citizenship Act of 1955, including demonstrating good character and physical residence in India.
• Legal Expert Opinions: Renowned legal expert Harish Salve asserts that the CAA is not anti-Muslim and does not interfere with the governance of neighboring countries. Salve emphasises that addressing one specific issue, such as the plight of persecuted minorities, does not necessitate addressing all problems in every country.
• Constitutional Sovereignty: Citizenship and immigration laws are considered sovereign matters, where judicial intervention is limited, as observed in various court cases in both India and abroad.
• Assam Accord and NRC: The CAA does not compromise the Assam Accord's provisions regarding the detection and deportation of illegal immigrants. It applies uniformly across the country and is not specific to Assam, aligning with the objectives of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) to protect indigenous communities from illegal immigration.
• Historical Context and Civilizational Ties: The inclusion of Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians from specific countries is based on historical and civilizational ties with India, acknowledging the challenges faced by these communities post-partition. Other countries may be addressed separately if needed, as exemplified by India's assistance to persecuted Sri Lankan Tamils.

• Exclusion of Certain Religions: The CAA excludes several religions from its benefits, potentially straining India's relations with countries whose citizens belong to these excluded religious groups. This exclusion may create tensions with nations that have significant populations of these religions and could impact bilateral ties.
• Exclusion of Certain Countries: The Act excludes certain countries from its provisions, which may affect India's bilateral relations with these nations. Excluding countries with which India maintains strong diplomatic and economic ties could lead to diplomatic friction and strained relations.
• India's Justification: India justifies the Act by highlighting the religious nature of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, where minorities face persecution. The Act aims to protect these persecuted minorities and provide them with support to live a dignified life in India.
• Support for Persecuted Individuals: The CAA provides assistance to individuals who have been religiously persecuted and forced to leave their homeland against their will. By offering refuge to these individuals, India demonstrates its commitment to humanitarian values and protecting the rights of persecuted minorities.

On March 11, 2024, the Government put forth the Rules for the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), marking a significant step towards its implementation, years after it was passed in Parliament in 2019. Applicants under CAA 2019 can now apply for Indian citizenship through an online portal provided for the purpose. They are required to disclose the year of their entry into India without proper travel documents.

Following the Union Government's notification the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) filed an application seeking a stay on the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024. Over 200 petitions challenging the CAA are pending in the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Kerala have vocally opposed the CAA's implementation, with Kerala being the first state to legally challenge the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024, emphasising its inconsistency with the constitutional framework.

India, being a constitutional democracy, holds the responsibility to safeguard the interests of its religious minorities, especially those facing persecution in neighbouring countries due to their faith. This move reflects India's commitment to its civilization duties, ensuring a secure haven for those in need.

Addressing the rights and security of minorities has been a long-standing concern since the Partition of India. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019 has faced criticism for potentially violating the right to equality and discriminating based on religion.

While the intent behind the Act may be commendable, its implementation raises questions, particularly regarding its impact on indigenous populations in states like Assam and its compatibility with constitutional provisions such as the sixth schedule and the Assam Accord. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) adds further complexity, as its combination with the CAA could potentially render a significant portion of India's Muslim population stateless, sparking more unrest.

Looking ahead, it is crucial for the government to devise strategies to address these concerns while upholding the rule of law and respecting human rights. Long-term solutions may involve revisiting the provisions of the CAA, ensuring comprehensive protection for all minorities, and fostering inclusive policies that safeguard the diverse fabric of India's society. Moreover, the Government should consider engaging in dialogue with all stakeholders to find sustainable solutions and prevent further turmoil, especially in the post-pandemic era.