Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 – Explained

The Honourable President of India gave his assent to the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, on December 12, 2019, a day after it was passed by the Rajya Sabha. However, the home ministry is yet to notify the rules to implement the law.

We are witnessing countrywide protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019. Yet the reason for protest varies with the region, state, political inclination, religion. Some are protesting because the act allegedly violates the secular identity of the country while others fear that it might endanger their linguistic and cultural identity. On the other hand, some believe that it is just another tactic by the Center to divert attention from the stagnant economy and skyrocketing onion prices. Also, few see this as a BJP-RSS propaganda to spread Hindutva and building a Hindu Rashtra. There are several petitions against the Act listed in the Supreme Court of India for hearing on January 22, 2020.

Most of the citizens who are taking a stance against or in support of CAA are not fully aware of the intricacies of the Act. They are going with the misinformation spread across social media or blindly supporting a political/religious ideology. Through this blog, we are trying to address some of the prevalent questions and concerns without taking any sides. We have also tried to quote credible sources wherever possible. If you have any concerns/ suggestions/ feedback, then please do share in the comments.

What is the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019?

The CAA aims to provide citizenship to minorities facing religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. The official copy published in The Gazette of India on 12 December 2019, states below-

In the Citizenship Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely: —

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 illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act;

Simply put, the CAA is about providing citizenship and not taking away the citizenship of any person. The Prime Minister of India has made it clear that there is no question mark over or threat to citizenship of any Indian citizen, irrespective of religion.

For further reading please go through the official notice published in The Gazette of India.

What were the rules of Citizenship in the Constitution of India before the CAA 2019?

The Articles (5-11) on citizenship under Part II of the Constitution of India were formulated specifically for the immediate aftermath of the Partition, leaving it to the Parliament to enact a law on citizenship which later took the form The Citizenship Act, 1955. According to Article 5, all the people residing and born in India at the time of commencement of the Constitution were citizens of India.

The Constituent Assembly held the principle of jus soli- (citizenship based on birth on the soil of a country) to be the more “enlightened modern civilized” principle, as compared to the “racial principle” of jus sanguinis(citizenship based on the descent). However, citizenship based on descent, registration, and naturalization also found recognition under The Citizenship Act, 1955. Further, this Act has been amended in 1986, 1992, 2003, 2005, 2015 and 2019. The 1986 amendment restricted citizenship by birth to require that at least one parent had to be an Indian citizen. The 2003 amendment further restricted by requiring that a parent could not be an illegal immigrant and mandated the Government of India to construct a National Register of Citizens. The 2019 amendment provided an easier path to citizenship for persecuted selected minorities from the neighboring Muslim-majority countries of Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

For further reading here are extracts from The Citizenship Act, 1955 and The Citizenship Act, 1955.

Who are the beneficiaries?

The Amendment benefits Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Christian and Parsi refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh who sought refuge in India before 31st December 2014 but leaves out Muslims and other communities from these countries, and refugees from other countries, who will remain illegal foreigners. The Act will provide citizenship to minorities facing religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. The minorities in these countries have dwindled due to persecution and injustice simply because of their faiths. For us to abandon them would be to abandon our own culture and responsibility. The act does not grant citizenship to the non-Muslim people of these nations simply because they are non-Muslims. Nor does it exclude those Muslims who may be persecuted for their views, political beliefs, etc. We have an example of a popular Muslim singer, whose father, a pilot in the Pakistani Air Force bombed Pathankot with devastating effect in 1965, who was given citizenship in India. This tradition continues.

How did the previous Citizenship Act treat illegal migrants?

Under the earlier citizenship regime, an “illegal migrant” was denied access to citizenship even through the process of naturalization under Section 6 read with the Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act 1954. An illegal migrant was defined under Section 2(b) as one who was without the necessary passport or travel documents as specified therein. Hence, whether or not a person was an illegal migrant was simply an outcome of the existence of requisite travel documents or the lack thereof.

Can Muslims and other communities from other countries get Indian citizenship through any means?

The Indian Citizenship Act 1955 already has a provision for giving Indian citizenship to Muslims from other countries. Any foreign national, including a Muslim, can apply for and gain Indian citizenship under Section 5 of this Act. In fact, in the past 5 years, the Government has provided citizenship to more than 500 Muslims from other countries.

How is it related to or different from NRC?

NRC is not about religion at all. Further, NRC does not exclude transgender, atheist, Adivasis, Dalits, women, and those without land with and/or without documents. The rules for a countrywide NRC have not yet being made. But, mostly, a person will only need to show the date and place of birth as per any official document. And there are many ways to do this, including passport, Aadhar card, driving license, insurance papers, birth certificate, land or house papers, etc. Further, if a person is illiterate and does not have documents, they can bring witnesses or any proof that can help. This would then be considered under due process. Also, one does not have to prove one’s ancestry to or dated before 1971. This was only for Assam NRC mandated by Assam Accord. The NRC procedure for the rest of the country is entirely different and can be read under The Citizen Rules 2003.

What is the Central Government’s argument in enacting the law?

The rationale for the CAA has its roots in two sources- partition and the religious persecution of non-Muslims in the neighboring Islamic countries. Such non-Muslims have no other place that they may claim as home as a matter of right and India would be remiss in not remedying this injustice. It is designed to give shelter to people who have been neglected and oppressed for long. Through CAA, Government has reaffirmed the tradition of embracing people of different races and religions, customs and climes. It is a fact that India is doing today what the countries of origin of these people ought to have done, which is to protect these minorities and preserve their way of life. Those eligible will now become citizens of India with rights and can live a better quality of life. Further, the Central Government assures that no Indian citizen, irrespective of religion, needs to worry.

Is it unconstitutional and against our secular values?

There are several petitions against the Act listed in the Supreme Court of India for hearing on January 22, 2020, who will ultimately decide on the constitutionality of the law. However, it appears that CAA fulfills both the constitutional morality and civilizational ethos historically endowed to us. It is an extension of and commitment to the idea of secularism. It is, in fact, a fulfillment of India’s moral and constitutional obligation to minorities in its neighborhood. The Act corrects the historical mistake committed in the Nehru-Liaquat Pact, whereby it was promised that the life and religion of the religious minorities living in Pakistan would be protected. But the pact was a great retreat from that promise. The CAA is a fulfillment of the historical responsibility to those people whom Partition made stateless. India’s secular democracy has historically been invested with moral force and this has been exhibited by the CAA. The Act has formalized the process to end the uncertainties and odds faced by these stateless and persecuted people. 

Is it helping the BJP-RSS agenda for a Hindu Rashtra?

Protestors are seeing the CAA as just the latest move in the RSS’s broader agenda of creating a “Hindu nation,” with the government’s recent revocation of the special status of the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir and plan to build a Hindu temple at the site of a mosque demolished by a Hindu nationalist mob in 1992. Many protesters and advocacy groups fear the Citizenship Amendment Act is a way for Government's Hindu nationalist agenda to guarantee expedited Indian citizenship for Hindus while denying that citizenship to Muslims who cannot prove they are Indian.

The Citizenship Act still allows anyone from any country to apply for Indian Citizenship, and in the last 6 years, more than 500 Muslims have got Indian Citizenship along with people from other faiths. The Prime Minister of India has assured people of the country that CAA or NRC is not going to impact Indian Muslims or their generations. Further, the CAA does not have any provision for the deportation of the illegal migrants which is under the purview of The Foreigners Act 1946 which states that the Indian Government has the power to detain a person until deportation back to their country of origin.

Which areas don’t come under the law? What purpose does it serve?

Areas under the sixth schedule of the Constitution – which deal with autonomous tribal-dominated regions in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram will not come under CAA. It will also not apply to states that have the inner-line permit regime (Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Mizoram). This will protect the people in parts of NorthEast through the inviolable Inner Line, reserving the land for them exclusively. The core of the Assamese culture has been carefully conserved.

Why Muslims are protesting?

Muslims are protesting because they perceive the Act as one that is discriminatory, a threat to democracy and secularism enshrined in India’s Constitution. They have a fear that even Indian Muslims may be evicted from Indian soil or this move is part of the Government's RSS agenda but this is not true. The Act has nothing to do with Indian citizens, irrespective of religion. It just differentiates between religious persecution and economic migration.

Why is Assam protesting?

People in Assam and other northeastern states are protesting because they do not want Indian citizenship to be granted to any refugee or immigrant, regardless of their religion, as they fear it would alter the region's demographic balance, resulting in a loss of their political rights, culture, and land. They are concerned that it will motivate further migration from Bangladesh as well as violate Clause 5 and 6 of the Assam Accord, which was a prior agreement reached with the central government on migrants and refugees. The protesters were angry that the new law would allow thousands of Bengali speaking non-muslim immigrants from Bangladesh to become legal citizens of India thereby influencing the political and cultural environment of Assam. 

Why countrywide protests?

In other parts of India, protesters see the new law as being discriminatory against Muslims and are unconstitutional. They are concerned Muslim citizens of India will be targeted, and many will be rendered stateless by the CAA in combination with the proposed nationwide NRC. 

Why only 6 religious minorities are included leaving aside Muslims?

The three countries- Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh have Islam as the country's established religion and the increasing radicalization of society in these countries led to brute religious majoritarianism against minorities- Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. Muslims are not a religious minority in any of these three countries and hence any chance of religion-based persecution can be eliminated. The unchecked atrocities on minorities in these states by fundamentalists and the failure of these states to defeat such elements gave rise to such an amendment. There were over two lakh Hindus and Sikhs in Afghanistan before the 1990s. Their number has dwindled to a few hundred in the last three decades. Further, out of 64 temples and gurudwaras in the country, only three are functional. Sources confirm that no less than 11.1 million Hindus have gone missing in Bangladesh between 1964 and 2013. The Jinnah Institute in Pakistan presents a gloomy picture of the religious minorities in the state- attacks on the dignity of women, forcible conversions, grabbing of land and property have been apart of daily life. It is thus urgent to address the existential threat to religious minorities in these three countries.

Importantly, Muslims in these countries do not face any crisis in pursuing their right to worship. India cannot meddle in the internal disputes among various sects of Islam, whether Ahmadiya, Shia, Sunni who have been competing with each other for hegemony and over interpretations of the historical evolution of Islam. Religious persecution and aspiration for hegemony are two different things.