India: The misunderstood CAA and NRC
This is a small attempt to bring forth facts on the much debated, protested and misunderstood CAA and NRC, clarifications on which have been rendered by the Government but the news outlets conveniently chose to ignore because it didn’t suit their narrative.
PART I - POLICY ASPECT
WHAT IS CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) ACT 2019? (Click to read the full transcript)
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) enables migrants/foreigners of six minority communities from three specified countries who have come to India because of persecution on grounds of their religion to apply for Indian citizenship. It does not amend any existing legal provision which enables any foreigner of any class, creed, religion, category, etc to apply for Indian citizenship through registration or naturalization modes. Such a foreigner has to become eligible to apply for citizenship after fulfilling the minimum legal requirements.
The Act despite being lucid raised several questions which have been addressed by the Ministry of Home Affairs in a FAQ format for easy comprehension.
- On queries related to the impact of CAA on Indian Muslims. (Click here to read the full transcript)
The CAA will gradually exclude Indian Muslims from the citizenship of India?
The CAA does not apply to any Indian citizen at all. All Indian citizens enjoy the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. CAA is not meant to deprive any Indian citizen of his citizenship. Rather it is a special law to enable certain foreigners facing a particular situation in three neighboring countries to get Indian citizenship.
CAA will be followed by NRC and all migrants except Muslims will be given citizenship and Muslims will be sent to detention camps?
The CAA has nothing to do with NRC. The legal provisions regarding NRC have been part of The Citizenship Act, 1955 since December 2004. Also, there are specific statutory rules of 2003 to operationalize these legal provisions. They govern the process of registration of Indian citizens and the issuance of national identity cards to them. These legal provisions have been on
the statute books since the last 15–16 years. The CAA has not altered them in any way whatsoever.
2. On queries related to exclusion of other groups/countries and India’s obligations under the UN. (Click here to read the full transcript)
Why only these three countries? And why only religious persecution of above-notified denominations?
The CAA deals with persecution on religious lines in three neighboring countries where the Constitution provides for a specific State religion. Followers of other religions have been persecuted in these three countries. The Bill is very focused and provides a remedy for a particular situation in which some foreigners of these six minority communities find themselves.
NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (Click here to read the full transcript)
Do I have to prove ancestry dating back before 1971?
No. for pre-1971 genealogy, you do not have to submit any type of identity card or any documents like the birth certificate of parents/ancestors. It was valid only for the Assam NRC, based on the ‘Assam Accord’ and the directive of the Honourable Supreme Court. For the rest of the country, the NRC process is completely different and under The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.
To learn more about the impact of CAA on NRC watch Supreme Court Advocate, J. Sai Deepak explain (click here)
PART II - LEGAL ASPECT
There’s been endless noise about how ‘unconstitutional’ the Bill is while ‘damaging the secular fabric’ of our country and how it wouldn’t stand the legal test in Supreme Court. Hear the former Solicitor General of India, Harish Salve (click here) and J. Sai Deepak, advocate- Supreme Court of India (click here) discuss the constitutional provisions and the legalities of CAA.
PART III - SOCIAL ASPECT
In a democracy engagement is of prime importance. But this engagement is both a right and responsibility of the citizens in establishing and sustaining democracy. Democracy allows you to voice your opinion but to voice it carelessly can be detrimental to the society. It’s unfortunate to see how words like ‘dictatorship’ and ‘fascism’ are being loosely used by protestors to describe the situation in India.
Gautam Chikermane in his piece “Protesting is a right, violence carries consequences” (click here) defines the terms -
Dictatorship is the rule — not governance but rule — of a single person, a single ideology or a single government. Fascism is a single-party dictatorship. Both stand opposed to democracy. Both eschew the rule of law. Both these definitions fit countries like China a glove. Anarchy is a state when there is no authority. Hong Kong is teetering on the edge of anarchy and China maybe seeking a forceful response, while parts of Haiti are descending into it. Neither dictatorship nor anarchy nor fascism is happening in India. These are simply words that have been weaponised.
Also, these protests are an opportunity for hypocrites and closet jihadis to peddle lies, indulge in fear mongering and create unrest in educational institutions. They are made the face of the ‘student movement’ and hailed as hero/shero. Reality, far from it (Click here). Students, the ill-informed citizens, the uneducated are all being used as pawns in the hands of vested interests for whom secularism and democracy are a matter of convenience.
Amidst all the chaos and confusion is one muslim voice, Syed Rizwan Ahmed (click here) asking some very pertinent questions to Indian Muslims. If only this man had as many followers/listeners as Zakir Naik.
