Author: Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch
Publication: Hindu Vivek Kendra
Date: January 27, 2020
URL:    http://www.hvk.org/2020/0120/65.html

I attended a Round Table organised by CALL FOR JUSTICE, A Delhi-based human rights organisation, which held a discussion on “Amendment to Citizenship Act and its Impact on Civil Society at 5.30 pm today (23 Dec). The discussion was led by Justice Permod Kohli (retired Chief Justice, High Court of Sikkim and former Chairperson, Central Administrative Tribunal), Justice S.N. Srivastava (retired Judge of Allahabad HC and former Pramukh Lokayukta of Chhattisgarh) and Justice Mool Chand Garg (retired Judge of Delhi & MP HC).

From the discussion, in which all attendees gave their views (Retd officers from the Armed Forces, bureaucrats, diplomats, officers from the IPS, legal experts, professors and experts on foreign affairs and history), the following points emerged.

No law can be divorced from the society in which it is to apply. The current agitation on the CAA has been widely covered by the media. But every event shown by the media may not be a true reflection of Indian society. It only represents those who have come out on the street. Apprehensions appear to have been propagated by political parties to give an impression that all is not well. People have also been instigated to protest, which may not be in the best interests of society.

For a law to be in the interest of society, we need to look at both legal aspects and political interests. The legal aspects pertain to whether the law has been enacted in accordance with the procedures described. The present CAA has no infirmity on that count. What has to be seen in political interests is whether the CAA takes away the political rights of people or groups. To this, again the answer is an emphatic no, as the CAA does not impact on any citizen of India. No rights have been taken away from any citizen of India.

With respect to the social impact, it was reiterated that as members of society, we have many rights and privileges. Those who have questioned the CAA speak of Article 14. The said Article states, “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”. Here, ‘person’ includes any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not. As the CAA does not apply to Indian citizens, there is no violation of Article 14. With respect to those who are not citizens, Citizenship is not a right which they can claim. Grant of citizenship is a sovereign function, else it would be open to anyone to claim citizenship, which would have very serious consequences for the citizens of the country.

There is also a claim that Article 15 has been violated. This Article states: The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Here again, as the CAA does not apply to Indian citizens, there is no violation of Article 15.

The third Article which is invoked is Article 21. This Article states “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.” The CAA does not impact on Indian citizens and hence claims that a citizens rights and liberties are being infringed does not stand scrutiny.

What the CAA has done is one, define who can be considered a migrant. Two, reduce the time period of legitimate stay for consideration for citizenship from 11 years to 5 years and three, to bring a clause that such people cannot be prosecuted. 

With respect to defining who is a migrant, reference is made to people who have been discriminated against on the basis of religion, from the three neighbouring Islamic countries, viz, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Afghanistan has been included as till the time of Aurangzeb, Afghanistan was a province of India. These three countries have Islamic rule imposed by their respective Constitutions and non-muslims are deliberately persecuted and their human rights are infringed upon. The application of Sharia in Islamic societies has four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, three of which advocate death to those who do not believe in Islam. The fourth school, Hanafi, states that those who do not believe in Islam have the right to live, but they would have to pay the jizya tax. Besides the right to life, all other rights stood diminished and they were second class citizens. In Bangladesh, non-muslims were persecuted and their properties were seized prior to 1971. For a brief period post 1971 war, Bangladesh became a secular state, but post  assassination of Mujibur Rehman, they reverted to becoming an Islamic republic and the atrocities on the Hindus and other minority groups continued. It is for these people seeking refuge that the CAA has been enacted. It is the least that India can do for them, because they were once part of this country and are now facing persecution for their religious belief.

The Rohingya from Burma cannot count as they have infiltrated via Bangladesh and it was the responsibility of that country to take them in. India is thus not the first country of refuge. The Tamils also do not fall into this category. They were fighting for a separate homeland and not escaping from religious persecution. The Baloch too cannot be considered as they too are fighting for a separate homeland. With respect to the Ahmediya, they were the ones who took up arms to establish the state of Pakistan. They made a choice to live in an Islamic state. In any case, they are well off in Pakistan and their population has shown a perceptible increase, unlike that of the Hindus and other minorities who have practically been decimated. 

What is required is for a better information campaign to educate the people about the real issue involved so that they are not led astray by vested interests both in the country and abroad. The youth especially need to be vigilant. It is their future which these protesters are destroying.