India’s new ‘anti-Muslim’ law explained

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BBC)

 

Citizenship Amendment Bill: India’s new ‘anti-Muslim’ law explained

  • 11 December 2019
Activists of Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti shout slogans during a protest against the government's Citizenship Amendment Bill in Guwahati on November 22, 2019Image copyright AFP
Image caption One analyst has called the bill the most consequential action of the Modi government

India’s parliament has passed a bill which offers amnesty to non-Muslim illegal immigrants from three neighbouring countries.

The bill provides citizenship to religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

The government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), says this will give sanctuary to people fleeing religious persecution.

Critics say the bill is part of a BJP agenda to marginalise Muslims.

The Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) passed the upper house of parliament, where the BJP lacks a majority, by 125 votes to 105 on 11 December. It had cleared the lower house two days earlier.

The bill has already prompted widespread protests in the north-east of the country which borders Bangladesh, as many people there say they will be “overrun” by immigrants from across the border.

What does the bill say?

The CAB amends the 64-year-old Indian Citizenship law, which currently prohibits illegal migrants from becoming Indian citizens.

It defines illegal immigrants as foreigners who enter India without a valid passport or travel documents, or stay beyond the permitted time. Illegal immigrants can be deported or jailed.

The new bill also amends a provision which says a person must have lived in India or worked for the federal government for at least 11 years before they can apply for citizenship.

Hindu refugees from Pakistan in a refugee camp in JammuImage copyright GETTY IMAGES
Image caption Hindu refugees from Pakistan in a refugee camp in Jammu

Now there will be an exception for members of six religious minority communities – Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian – if they can prove that they are from Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh. They will only have to live or work in India for six years to be eligible for citizenship by naturalization, the process by which a non-citizen acquires the citizenship or nationality of that country.

It also says people holding Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) cards – an immigration status permitting a foreign citizen of Indian origin to live and work in India indefinitely – can lose their status if they violate local laws for major and minor offences and violations.

Why is the bill controversial?

Opponents of the bill say it is exclusionary and violates the secular principles enshrined in the constitution. They say faith cannot be made a condition of citizenship.

The constitution prohibits religious discrimination against its citizens, and guarantees all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Delhi-based lawyer Gautam Bhatia says that by dividing alleged migrants into Muslims and non-Muslims, the bill “explicitly and blatantly seeks to enshrine religious discrimination into law, contrary to our long-standing, secular constitutional ethos”.

Historian Mukul Kesavan says the bill is “couched in the language of refuge and seemingly directed at foreigners, but its main purpose is the delegitimisation of Muslims’ citizenship”.

Critics say that if it is genuinely aimed at protecting minorities, the bill should have have included Muslim religious minorities who have faced persecution in their own countries – Ahmadis in Pakistan and Rohingyas in Myanmar, for example. (The government has gone to the Supreme Court seeking to deport Rohingya refugees from India.)

Rohingya Muslim refugees protecting in IndiaImage copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Defending the bill, senior BJP leader Ram Madhav said, “no country in the world accepts illegal migration”.

“For all others about whom the bleeding hearts are complaining, Indian citizenship laws are there. Naturalized citizenship is an option for others who legally claim Indian citizenship. All other illegal [immigrants] will be infiltrators,” he added.

Also defending the bill earlier this year, R Jagannathan, editorial director of Swarajya magazine, wrote that “the exclusion of Muslims from the ambit of the bill’s coverage flows from the obvious reality that the three countries are Islamist ones, either as stated in their own constitutions, or because of the actions of militant Islamists, who target the minorities for conversion or harassment”.

What is the history of the bill?

The Citizen Amendment Bill was first put before parliament in July 2016.

The legislation cleared parliament’s lower house where the BJP has a large majority, but it did not pass in the upper house, after violent anti-migrant protests in north-eastern India.

The protests were particularly vocal in Assam state, which in August saw two million residents left off a citizens’ register. Illegal migration from Bangladesh has long been a concern in the state.

The CAB is seen as being linked to the register, although it is not the same thing.

The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a list of people who can prove they came to the state by 24 March 1971, a day before neighboring Bangladesh became an independent country.

The government says the National Register of Citizens is needed to identify illegal migrantsImage copyright AFP
Image caption The government says the National Register of Citizens is needed to identify illegal migrants

In the run-up to its publication, the BJP had supported the NRC, but changed tack days before the final list was published, saying it was error-ridden.

The reason for that was a lot of Bengali Hindus – a strong voter base for the BJP – were also left out of the list, and would possibly become illegal immigrants.

How is the citizens’ register linked to the bill?

The two are closely linked, because the Citizenship Amendment Bill will help protect non-Muslims who are excluded from the register and face the threat of deportation or internment.

This means tens of thousands of Bengali Hindu migrants who were not included in the NRC can still get citizenship to stay on in Assam state.

Later, Home Minister Amit Shah proposed a nationwide register of citizens to ensure that “each and every infiltrator is identified and expelled from India” by 2024.

Indian activists from the right-wing organization Hindu Sena hold placards as they shout slogans against Rohingya Muslim refugees being granted asylum in India, in Delhi on September 11, 2017Image copyright AFP
Image caption Right-wing groups have protested against Rohingya refugees living in India

“If the government goes ahead with its plan of implementing the nationwide NRC, then those who find themselves excluded from it will be divided into two categories: (predominantly) Muslims, who will now be deemed illegal migrants, and all others, who would have been deemed illegal migrants, but are now immunized by the Citizenship Amendment Bill if they can show that their country of origin is Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan,” Mr Bhatia said.

Taken together, the NRC and CAB have the “potential of transforming India into a majoritarian polity with gradations of citizenship rights,” said sociologist Niraja Gopal Jaya.

Related Topics

Meet In The Middle: Have The Trump Wall (We Pay For It); And Have Direct Path To Citizenship

Yesterday the Republican Convention opened in Cleveland Ohio to a chorus of hate and infighting among the Republicans as many tried to ‘dump Trump’ from ‘their’ ticket. What they were trying to do was to annul all of the voters voices in all of the states primaries. You see, they so not care what ‘the people’ want or what the people have had to say. Before you jump on the Republicans remember that next week the Democrats have their Convention in Philadelphia Pa  and there are going to be a lot of very upset Bernie Sanders followers there who will never vote for Ms. Hillary even though Bernie sold them out by endorsing her. Remember it was mostly Bernie backers who started most of the violence outside at the Trump rallies.

If Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders become the next President of the United States, how much can/will actually change in D.C. politics? If either one of these two out-lairs becomes our next President both sides of the Congressional Isle, Republican and Democratic will fight against the will of the people by fighting against our elected President. Both of these grand old parties leaderships are off base in not knowing that it is they themselves who do not represent the actual base of their own party. Personally I still think that this November first there should be at least five names on the Presidential ballot for ‘we the people’ to get to vote on. I think Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump as Independents, Mr. Cruz as the Tea Party Representative, Ms. Hillary as the Democratic Party’s Representative and Mr. Kasich as the Republican Party’s Representative. I just think that this would give the American people a more ‘honest’ vote. What I mean by this is simply that I believe the American people and these Party’s leaderships would know much more clearly where ‘we the people’ stand on the issues. In my thoughts we then take the top two candidates (provided that no one got above 50% in the first election) square them in another election two weeks later. I’m just saying, it could work, what do you think?

 

What I am asking is for all party’s to meet more toward the center, that way a lot will get accomplished where only gridlock rules right now. The ‘far-right’ wants the Trump Wall and much tighter security at our borders, let America have this wall but have it built along the American side so that we control it. Have it built with American money by legal American workers. Make several legal entry points in each border state. Make it as easy for people on our southern borders to legally enter as we do for our Canadian friends. Then make the penalties for being caught here illegally much more severe.

 

Now the back-end of this argument, the reality of the financial cost and the human cost of deporting a minimum of eleven million people? How about the reality of the children whom were born here? Are we a Christian Nation? Are we, really? We have to make a direct pathway to citizenship for all people living here regardless of nationality. My exception to this rule would have to be is if a person is a convicted felon or has a felony warrant out for their arrest. Those folks wishing to live here should be given a fair and open hearing on their request for citizenship. I hope that you can see that what I am trying to do is to be fair to both ‘extreme’ factions of the two main party’s.  Good diplomacy means that neither side is happy but both sides get good movement in their direction on the issue that they say concerns them the most. Gridlock is destroying our country from the inside and it is not what the majority of the people want. What this election cycle is showing is the fact that the RNC and the DNC don’t give a damn what ‘we the people’ think.

 

 

Meet In The Middle: Have The Trump Wall (We Pay For It); And Have Direct Path To Citizenship

 

If Mr. Trump or Mr. Sanders become the next President of the United States, how much can/will actually change in D.C. politics? If either one of these two out-lairs becomes our next President both sides of the Congressional Isle, Republican and Democratic will fight against the will of the people by fighting against our elected President. Both of these grand old parties leaderships are off base in not knowing that it is they themselves who do not represent the actual base of their own party. Personally I still think that this November first there should be at least five names on the Presidential ballot for ‘we the people’ to get to vote on. I think Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump as Independents, Mr. Cruz as the Tea Party Representative, Ms. Hillary as the Democratic Party’s Representative and Mr. Kasich as the Republican Party’s Representative. I just think that this would give the American people a more ‘honest’ vote. What I mean by this is simply that I believe the American people and these Party’s leaderships would know much more clearly where ‘we the people’ stand on the issues. In my thoughts we then take the top two candidates (provided that no one got above 50% in the first election) square them in another election two weeks later. I’m just saying, it could work, what do you think?

 

What I am asking is for all party’s to meet more toward the center, that way a lot will get accomplished where only gridlock rules right now. The ‘far-right’ wants the Trump Wall and much tighter security at our borders, let America have this wall but have it built along the American side so that we control it. Have it built with American money by legal American workers. Make several legal entry points in each border state. Make it as easy for people on our southern borders to legally enter as we do for our Canadian friends. Then make the penalties for being caught here illegally much more severe.

 

Now the back-end of this argument, the reality of the financial cost and the human cost of deporting a minimum of eleven million people? How about the reality of the children whom were born here? Are we a Christian Nation? Are we, really? We have to make a direct pathway to citizenship for all people living here regardless of nationality. My exception to this rule would have to be is if a person is a convicted felon or has a felony warrant out for their arrest. Those folks wishing to live here should be given a fair and open hearing on their request for citizenship. I hope that you can see that what I am trying to do is to be fair to both ‘extreme’ factions of the two main party’s.  Good diplomacy means that neither side is happy but both sides get good movement in their direction on the issue that they say concerns them the most. Gridlock is destroying our country from the inside and it is not what the majority of the people want. What this election cycle is showing is the fact that the RNC and the DNC don’t give a damn what ‘we the people’ think.