Citizenship Is The Right To Have Rights

"Every good citizen makes his country's honour his own and cherishes it not only as precious but as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defence and its conscious that he gains protection while he gives it." - Andrew Jackson. But what happens when a law changes the entire meaning of citizenship? What happens when a law changes the way we feel about our country?

While some don't support the Citizenship Amendment Act; Image Source: Scroll

India has welcomed people from all communities with open arms and hearts. Be it refugees or illegal immigrants, be it those people willingly wanting to stay in India or be it those who had to come to India forcefully. India has accommodating people under the wings of its motherly care and love. But at some point in time, we too realised that the limited amount of resources couldn't support the people who were entering the borders in large numbers.

With time, the population grew to such an extent that it was impossible to manage such a population with a limited amount of resources. It was then when the Government of India decided to introduce a bill that would not only help us control the influx of illegal migrants but also manage the population. But the journey of introducing the Citizenship Amendment Act was not a cakewalk as it had its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

It was for the very first time in 1955 that the Indian Nationality Law came into being. While it details the conditions that make a person eligible for Indian citizenship, the two essential pieces that govern these requirements are the Constitution of India and the Citizenship Act of 1955. The Citizenship Act of 1955 states that all those born in India between 26 January 1950 and 1 July 1987 can automatically receive citizenship by birth regardless of the nationalities of their parents or relatives.

However, certain political developments in the 1980s triggered by the violent Assam movement against the migrants from Bangladesh led to some amendments in the Citizenship Act of 1955. After the Assam Accord was signed, then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi agreed to identify the foreigners and expel them from the country.

Yet again, in 2004, there was an amendment in the Citizenship Act which stated that citizenship by birth would be granted if at least one of the parents was a citizen of India. Since 2004, people started receiving Indian citizenship only on two conditions, either the parents should be Indians at least, one of them should be Indian. Talking about the foreigners, they could become Indian citizens through the process of naturalisation, meaning they should reside in the country for at least twelve years and renounce any previous nationalities. People from neighbouring countries like Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar, too, can become citizens of India by living in India for six years or more.

Though there have been several amendments in 1992, 2003, 2005, and 2015 in the Citizenship Act, the 2019 amendment triggered a lot of protests among people. The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, stated-

"Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as an illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act."

The most significant drawback of this act was that it did not give any such rights to Muslims, even when the countries mentioned are Muslim-majority countries. This law was criticised globally as this was the first time that a secular country like India used religion as a criterion for providing citizenship. The BJP had promised that it would offer Indian citizenship to the members of persecuted religious minorities and according to the 2019 amendment, migrants who had entered India by 31 December 2014 and were persecuted in their own countries, were given Indian citizenship. The CAA has also relaxed the period of naturalisation from twelve to six years.

At the same time, some international organisations have also criticised this amendment, saying that this act is discriminating against people based on their religion and excluding Muslims. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has also called this law "fundamentally discriminatory". While India's "goal of protecting persecuted groups is welcome", this should have been accomplished through a non-discriminatory "robust national asylum system".

Critics have also commented that this bill, along with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), can render many Muslim citizens stateless. Some others have also asked when religious minorities are not persecuted in countries like Tibet, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, which have been excluded from the act. In explanation, the Indian government has said that Muslims wouldn't be facing persecution in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh since Islam is the state religion. But then again, some critics said that certain Muslim groups like Hazaras and Ahmadis had faced historical persecution in these countries.

Numerous protests have been organised throughout the country to prevent the passage of legislation for this act. Northeastern states like Assam have witnessed many violent protests against the bill, saying that giving citizenship to refugees and immigrants would destroy their "political rights, culture, and land rights" and motivate wide-scale migration from Bangladesh. Some other protestors were of the view that Muslims should also get citizenship rights, and this act should be extended to the Muslim refugees and immigrants as well.

Major protests against these acts were also held in universities like Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Milia Islamia University. These protests were brutally suppressed by the police officers. And this also led to the death of many student activists, injuries to police and protestors, destruction of public and private properties, detention of hundreds of people, and suspension of the internet. Some states were also reluctant in implementing this law, but the Centre said that the state could not decide whether or not to implement a law.

Some supported Citizenship Amendment Act; Image Source: DNA India