As a surge of ethnic nationalism washes across the globe India's latest permutation takes the form of legislation aimed at discriminating against Muslims. The Wikipedia link to The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, of the Parliament of India will change over time so that link will be a more timely way to track what happens next. Meantime, I'm noting this Facebook exchange for future reference in response to my query about the meaning and implications of this latest example of bigotry enshrined in law.
RP -- To all my Indian American friends who support Modi and his domestic policies, just imagine if the US government decides to take away your American citizenship on the grounds that you are not American enough and there is already a homeland for Hindus where you can go back to. See if you will find that legally and morally acceptable. That's exactly what is happening to Indian Muslims gradually. And please also note that most Indian Muslims have lived in India for generations and for a much longer time than any of us has been in the US.
JB -- The intent is clearly malevolent. But the spin that is being sent out is that the new law (or regulation or whatever it is) applies to *immigrants* with *asylum* status, not "citizens" already -- something like DACA but with Muslims not included.
Does that mean there are or may be second or third generation Indians from other countries who remain in asylum status, and are therefore still not citizens? (No birthright citizenship, apparently...)
Modi and a surge of Hindu nationalism is obviously surging, but how much of the spin is factual?
RP to JB -- the asylum facade is a ruse for a more malevolent plan for disenfranchising Muslims in India - a Hindu fascist grand plan, in my opinion. Life long Indian Muslim citizens have also fallen in the citizenship trap. I will let others who know more elaborate. PS, NA please weigh in.
PS to JB -- there are indeed second and third generation Tibetan refugees who are not citizens. But the law does not apply to them. It applies specifically to refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and from these countries those refugees who are Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist. It offers fast track citizenship to these. As you say, the intent is malevolent. As to the spin, it cannot afford to be too persuasive. Because they do want to convey to their supporters that this is pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim. And yet have plausible deniability about its anti-Muslim content.
So Ahmediyas from Pakistan, Rohingyas from Myanmar, Hindus from Sri Lanka, or Muslims from Nepal or Sri Lanka are not going to be beneficiaries. These are countries which share borders or at wirstva short stretch of international waters with us. Afghanistan does not share a border with us.
I don’t want to go into the background for the law (north east India and Bangladesh figure in that), because that was not the question. You did concede it was malevolent in intent.
SR to JB [get a pinch of salt] -- *CAB Bill - simple FAQ*
1. Does the CAB Bill affect any of the Indian citizens.??
Ans. _No. It has nothing to do with Indians in any way_
2. Who does it apply to?
Ans. _Only to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists & Christians from *3 countries who are facing religious persecution* in those countries AND who are already in India before 1st Dec 2014.
3. Which 3 countries?
Ans. _Pakistan, Bangladesh & Afghanistan_
4. In what way does it benefit Hindus, Sikhs, Jains & Christians from these 3 countries?
Ans. _Their residency requirement has been reduced from 11 to 5 years. And they can claim citizenship as a right under this law_
5. Does this mean that Muslims from these 3 countries can *never* get Indian citizenship?
Ans. _No. But they will go thro’ the usual process of acquiring citizenship thro’ naturalization rules….11 years of residence etc._
6. Will illegal muslims immigrants from these 3 countries be automatically deported under this bill?
Ans. _No. The usual process applies. Their application for naturalization may or may not be granted depending on their eligibility_
7. Can Hindus facing persecution in other countries apply under this law?
Ans. _No_
8. Does this bill apply to other forms of persecution – Political, racial, sexual etc?
Ans. _No. The bill is very specific in its intend – Hindus…religious persecution…3 countries_
9. Why only these 3 countries ? And why only religious persecution of Hindus?
Ans. _These 3 countries have a track record of pervasive, systematic & institutionalized persecution of Hindus_
10. What about Sri Lankan tamils?
Ans. _
(1) The war has been over for the a decade now.
(2) There never was any persecution on religious lines. It was on racial lines.
(3) And over the decades of civil war the Sri Lankans have put an end to institutionalized discrimination of tamils.
11. Doesn’t India have an obligation under the UN to take care of refugees?
Ans. _Yes it does. And it is not shying away from it. But it has no obligation to offer citizenship. Each country has its own rules for naturalization. India is not going to turn away other refugees under this law. It will play host to them under UN rules, in the implicit expectation that some day they will return to their homelands when the conditions improve. But in the case of Hindus from these 3 countries, this law acknowledges the reality that the environment of persecution in these 3 countries is never going to improve_
12. Why shouldn’t Baluchis, Ahmediyas in Pakistan, Rohingayas in Myanmar not be considered for this kindness?
Ans. _ They will be considered under the existing laws. Not under this special category.
Just clarifying your doubts
PS to JB -- let me give just a little more background. In Northeast India, especially Assam, there is enormous resentment against so called Bangladeshi infiltrators. There are indeed many Bangladeshis (Hindus and muslims) who have crossed into Assam and other northeastern states, but there are many Bengalis who have been there for a very very long time too. There was horrific violence in the 1970s, resulting in an agreement (the Assam accord) in 1985 to have a register of citizens, with an amnesty for those who came in before 1971 built in. The register was never quite made - it is an impossible exercise - until now. Took 10 years. Left out huge number of people.
There have been people left out who produced proof their family has been in Assam forever, been cleared, only to have another notice sent a month later stripping them of citizenship. One person went through this exercise three times. Ultimately decided to move to mainland India. It is astonishingly arbitrary. A person could be okayed, but his or her sibling denied, when they give exactly the same proof.
Since Hindus Bengalis were also caught up in this weird mess, the pro Hindu federal government (the preferred Indian term is central government rather than federal government), decided to bring in this bill. Especially since they also want to extend the register to all of India - not just the NE. So there will soon be another bill, and for a period nobody will be a citizen, because they will have to produce all sorts of paper work. Which most Indians don’t have. However, the central government hopes that this bill will cover the Hindus. At least that is the dog whistle.
But if a Hindu without all the documents wants to keep his or her Indian citizenship, he/she will have to say that all the previous claims were lies, that s/he is a Hindu refugee from Bangladesh or Pakistan (even if the said person is a Tamilian from Tamil Nadu who couldn’t speak Bangla or Urdu to save her life), get the refugee status and wait six more years to get citizenship. Alternately the central government may privately tell the bureaucrats to go easy on Hindus and wink at lack of documents (most don’t have these documents), but turn the screws on Muslims. They have official plans for lots of detention centres.
 |
Via Seema who adds: "In two easy steps:
How to destroy a nation."
|
RP to SR -- sounds very sanitary. However, the exception is for Muslims only. That clarifies my doubts. In Assam, Indian born Muslims including army officers who faught in Indian wars are having to prove their bona fides.
NA -- The FAQ by Sarvadaman Ray above is intellectually dishonest Sanghi whitewashing bullshit (I LOLed at how it ends: "Just clarifying your doubts". Yeah right!). The new CAB bill not only flagrantly discriminates based on religion, it lays the foundation for much uglier communal injustices downstream in combination with the NRC. It's a nasty bill that needs strong resistance. This video explains (in Hindi; esp. argument #3).
Why CAB+NRC is so much more toxic, and how it fits into a larger plan, going by Amit Shah's public speeches:
JB -- Many thanks for these clarifications. I knew citizenship is a matter of wide variation all over the world -- one of the first things I learned in international relations. And that every country has sovereign right to set (and change) their own rules. I had no idea, however, it might literally take over a decade, an even *then* be denied.
The new law (or reg?) is clearly a sinister move targeting Muslims and all the outcries are surely justified.
I will bookmark this post and comments for future reference since they are so rich in detail. I doubt I will need to cite them for anyone else but I can keep them at the ready as notes for myself.
Again, thanks to all for these informative lessons!
MM Addendum: the amendment in the Citizenship Act 1955 is a sinister plan to take away the citizenship rights of Muslim citizens of India. The Act of 1955 was enacted in the background of independence and partition. A person can be a citizen of India by (i) birth (ii) descent and (iii) registration. The problem for people of India will be to produce documents to prove citizenship when the authorities come knocking on the door. That is where the harassment and misery will begin and a large number of citizens will be declared as non Indian.
Tony Karon is a South African-born journalist and former anti-Apartheid activist. He is currently Al Jazeera America's senior online executive producer. He was formerly the Senior Editor at Time.com. He is originally from Cape Town, South Africa, and has been living in New York City since 1993.
He raises a good question.
Does the international community have a responsibility to protect India’s Muslims from their own government? https://t.co/po7nQdMd1P— Tony Karon (@TonyKaron) December 17, 2019
NA -- Much better FAQs here:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the CAB/CAA 2019
Untangling the complexities of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019
Citizenship has been defined as the right to have rights. Over the past six years, there have been clear political moves to fundamentally assault and redefine this Constitutional basis of both Indian nationhood and citizenship. Especially now, with the newly drafted proposed Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 and a not thoroughly debated all India-level NPR-National Register of Citizens (NRC) process. CJP is urging people to understand, organise and fight back democratically. Let’s stand up for the Constitution of India. We must unequivocally reject CAB 2019 and at the same time in the same breath, NPR/NRC. For this we need your support.
How is the Act violative of the Constitution?
The Act violates the basic structure of the Constitution which was established by the Supreme Court in Keshavananda Bharti case. This case established the supremacy of the Constitution, India’s foundations as a republic, and emphasised the importance of the Preamble that stressed on Equality (of status and opportunity) and Justice (social, economic and political). Inherent values of secularism, equality and non-discrimination are India’s constitutional ideals and aspirations which inspired the country in its struggle for independence. Equality (Article 14), right to life (Article 21) and non-discrimination (Article 15) are key Constitutional principles that this Act violates. Although the word secular was added by 42nd amendment in 1976, the case which was decided in 1973 had made it clear that while interpreting the Constitution, it should be done while taking the Preamble into consideration.
The Citizenship Amendment Act, hence, is violative of the ‘secular’ fabric of our constitution, as it is making a law while giving preference to certain religions thereby giving an impression that the state is unfavourable towards one religion which a secular state is not supposed to do.
The Act also stands to violate Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 15 (prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).
Ideally, as per Article 13(2) since the Citizenship Amendment Act takes away/abridges rights conferred under Fundamental rights as mentioned above, it is to be considered as void.
[Much more at the link.]
No comments:
Post a Comment