CAA/NRC के प्रभाव की chronology को समझें- Why can’t secular India let go of religion?
- Team Opinionated
- Jan 11, 2020
- 7 min read
(Photo: India Today/Mandar Deodhar)
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and it’s affiliation with the National Registry of Citizens (NRC) has taken India by storm with protests flaring the streets and Tirangas flying high to reinforce the solidarity among culturally and religiously diverse Indians.
If you ask an Indian conservative, you may hear that this is leftist propaganda to influence the power BJP hold in the country and unnecessarily religiously polarize the country and if you ask the protestors on the streets, they will state that the bill stands against the values of secular India and is fundamentally discriminatory and, again, religiously polarizing. The irony here is that both ends of the spectrum agree on the last part stating that this bill is religiously divisive, the former believe it is propaganda and the latter believe it is well within the intent of the bill.
To understand the intricacies of the situation, taking an unbiased and completely logical argument makes most sense.
To start, what is the CAA ?
The CAA amends the citizenship act to not treat Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community, fleeing religious persecution from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, as an “illegal migrant,” essentially giving them an accelerated route to Indian citizenship if they have resided here since or after 31st December 2014. [1] The CAA had been introduced in the parliament once before in 2016, however, it did not pass at that time and was reintroduced in 2019, when it was not only passed by parliament but also received the President’s nod.
Under the Foreigner’s amendment order (2015), Persons belonging to minority communities in Bangladesh and Pakistan, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and entered into India on or before the 31st December, 2014 were already exempted from the class of foreigners- hence already exempting them from the same treatment as an illegal migrant, making their stay in the mainland easier.
If you look at the CAA in isolation, it makes sense that the most culturally diverse country in the Indian peninsula, provides asylum to persecuted minorities from surrounding states, which have witnessed scores of instances of communal violence such as genocide, conversion, rape and torture. [2][3][4]
Now, the question is that if the goal of the bill was to really safeguard minorities the following additions are also crucial as they form a part of the persecuted minorities in the Indian mainland:
1. The Ahamaddiyyas, a Muslim sect who have been "viciously hounded in Pakistan as heretics"
2. Hazaras, a Muslim sect who have been murdered by the Taliban in Afghanistan [5]
3. Rohingya muslims from Myanmar
4. Buddhists from Tibet
5. Tamilian Hindu refugees from Sri Lanka
And the list goes on. Supporters of the CAA claim that refugees from states who have declared their state religion as Islam are unlikely to face discrimination there. However, one can also argue that the bill not only fails to protect several minorities in the refugee demographic of India, but makes muslim migrants from these nations more susceptible to deportation since they will not have accelerated access to citizenship as others- the case in Assam, the only state where NRC has been implemented, gives some more insight into this problem.
Many argue that the bill goes against Articles 14,15 and 21 of the Indian constitution but former Solicitor General of India, Mr. Harish Salve has come out and said that due to this law being based on the principle of equity and not equality, and also not being applied to Indian citizens, it does not violate any of these said articles.[6] On the other hand, critics of the law say that the technicalities do not matter and that it is a law opposing the very structure of the Indian constitution.
Now, what is the NRC?
The NRC is the National Registry of citizens which will basically check the citizenship status. The NPR or the National Population register assesses the residents of the Indian mainland- irrespective of citizenship, and is in a way the first step to the NRC. The details of the NRC are yet to be released for the national level, the implementation has only occurred in Assam. The speculation regarding the criteria under which documents will be classified to prove Indian citizenship is a matter of worry since Home Minister, Amit Shah has said in interviews that Voter IDs, Aadhar cards and passports are not sufficient documentation. The specific documentation needed may cost those who do not possess
To be clear, the CAA does not impact existing Indian citizens in any way. However, the combination of the CAA and the NRC could alter the demographic that obtains citizenship as citizenship by naturalization will become easier for non-muslims.
To understand what started this wave of protest against the CAA, understanding the situation in Assam is important. To quote from The Economic Times, the people of Assam noticed an unusual rise in voters for the Mangaldoi Lok Sabha poll in 1979. People suspected it was due to an influx of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. These immigrants were appearing to make Assamese people a minority in their own state and threatening their culture, language, and tradition. Ultimately, this led to a massive and violent agitation, the Bodo conflict, in which 885 people were killed over six years. The stir ended after the Centre signed the Assam Accord in 1985. The accord put the date of detection and deportation of foreigners as March 25 1971. For other states, it was 1951. CAB now has a new cut-off date of 2014. Protesters say it, hence, violates the accord.[7] The Assamese believe that this bill will encourage illegal immigration by non-muslims with the prospect of citizenship becoming a reality. Although believe that the CAB will in fact undo the Assam accord and have no faith in the center, the government claims that Clause 6 of the Assam Accord exempts Assam from the influence of CAB of the Assam accord designed to maintain the cultural integrity of the Assamese people.
Soon after the rage in Assam, these protests spread to the rest of the nation and became a national phenomenon recently when there was a clash between protestors and police on the campus of Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia University. The media and citizens have gravely criticized the methods Delhi police used on the campus in the form of tear gas thrown into the university library, forceful detention and use of lathis against protestors. This led to a national uproar and a new discussion about police brutality in India. In their official statement, Delhi police highlighted that the Jamia protests were not peaceful and that there was stone-pelting, throwing glass, and burning buses and other government property by a group of protestors in which all in all 30 policemen were injured. [8] The students of the university then dissociated themselves from the violence by making an official statement about how they condemn any violence- and their protest is a peaceful one.
The next big event that affected the protests was the incident at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, which has been known to be politically-charged campus. Videos of masked men creating havoc inside a JNU hostel with sticks and hammers in their hands used to attack the student union, professors, and students. The President, Aishe Ghosh was severely injured in this attack. Soon, she became an icon for student dissent and protest across India. The students of JNU accused the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), a right-wing all India student organisation affiliated to the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) of committing the former attack. In response to this, a Hindu Rashtra Dal has since claimed responsibility of this act- which may or may not be factual. The public is understandably disappointed that despite people coming out and admitting to have committed acts of violence, Delhi Police has since made no arrests. Actors like Swara Bhaskar and activists like Yogendra Yadav have since stood in solidarity with the students. Deepika Padukone stood in solidarity with the victims of the JNU violence and stood at a protest that led to the right-wing stating that she must be boycotted due to siding with the “tukde-tukde” gang, and left- wing applauded her courage to stand up to this injustice when big, influential actors are quiet on the entire issue.
ABVP representatives speculate that it was an on-campus left vs right turmoil and claim that JNUSU had also displayed goonery by vandalizing the campus when protesting the fee hike at JNU, and then claimed that the organization had previously forced students to come out on the streets instead of registering for the new semester- beating up those who disagreed. Members of the JNUSU have since dismissed this as a distraction from the fact that BJP may have been associated with the goons attempting to terrorize protestors. Although this is a deviation from the CAA/NRC protests, it sparked a conversation about the right to dissent and protection of students in our country.
This also shed light on the fact that freedom of speech and expression are being suppressed through continuous internet shutdowns, making India the “internet shutdown capital” of the world, and also through suppression of the right to gather through imposing article 144 in regions where protests are to occur, such as the national capital- Delhi. Supporters say that this is to maintain peace and prevent the spread of misinformation but protestors disagree and state that a government must be equipped to deal with the criticism of its citizens and control the narrative on a law they believe should be put into action.
Despite the massive divide in points of view, both sides of the argument agree that the situation in the present day has gotten out of hand. The real question to ask is that if we are a secular nation why can we not leave the question of religion behind in 2020? The answer may be that our politics, education system, government jobs, taxation and everything are dependent on either religious minority based systems, which makes vote-bank politics favorable for all our political parties. The ruling party must be heavily criticized for being unprepared for, introducing and passing a flawed bill in parliament, along with the fact that more than making the people of India be heard and listened to they are focused on making speeches filled with big claims and taking away are means of expression. A government must be answerable to its citizens not waiting at their doorstep to take their right to express dismay away. The opposition must be equally criticized since they are looking at this situation as a means to capitalize on the religious divide to push political propaganda against the ruling party- not actually resist the law and join protests in the streets. Overall, our goal right now is to rid the misinformation both sides are circulating on the matter and realize three fundamental things: the Indian government is answerable to the people of India, they shouldn’t hide behind power, violence is not the answer- regardless of what your political-leaning is, and to be secular is to treat all religions and communities with the same appreciation and critique, where religion is a mere detail not the primary focus of someone’s identity. We are all Indian first.
References:
Comments