The union government has proposed certain changes to the Indian Union’s citizenship laws in the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016. The present legal framework has no provision for religion-based citizenship. The proposed amendment plans to change that.
At present, an illegal migrant who enters the territory is prohibited from becoming a citizen. The amendment proposes that illegal migrants belonging to six specific religious minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan will be not be prohibited from Indian Union citizenship even if they migrated to the territory illegally.
In a series of orders in September 2015 and July 2016, the government exempted from deportation illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian religion. These previous moves laid the framework for the present proposed amendment.
Illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh who enter the territory belong to all religions. However, the reasons of illegal migration are not similar across all religions. Having said that, the reasons for illegal migration are also not similar across all adherents of a particular religion.
The elephant in the room in that set of six religions is the religion of Islam. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are Muslim-majority sovereign territories. But that’s not all.
These are also territories where, in the last many decades, the population proportion of non-Muslims have continually fallen, in contrast to the Hindu majority Indian Union where the population proportion of Christians and Muslims have sharply risen over the last few decades.
‘Our constitution does not allow this’
By this basic factor, it can be surmised that the minority situation in the Indian Union is far from ideal, but the situation differs from its neighbours. Population proportion surely cannot be the only measure of welfare of a community but in so far as growing and thriving in numbers is concerned, the Indian Union’s situation is better compared to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
It is probably not accidental that the sub-continent’s only post-colonial fragment that has seen a decrease in population proportion of those belonging to the majority religious community is also the only one where the constitution does not mention any specific state religion.
Powerful political parties, all with Hindus constituting a majority of their voter base, have expressed their opposition to this proposed amendment precisely on that count.
Veteran Trinamool MP Saugata Roy said: “We have decided that we will oppose the amendment on the floor of the Indian parliament. This amendment is an attack on the secular fabric of our country. How can there be discrimination on the basis of religion? Our constitution does not allow this. The West Bengal government will also oppose it.”
The citizenship debate is primarily a demographic dominance and anxiety debate. The fear of being swamped in their own homeland in a demographic and economic sense is behind many of these debates
Saugata Roy is correct. The proposed amendment does include and exclude on the basis of religion. It is not as if this is unprecedented. Various other legislations or proposed legislations have done that in all but name.
In practical political terms, the Trinamool probably has calculated that it cannot appear to support a legislation that clearly excludes members of a religious community who form nearly 30% of the population in West Bengal and is represented even more disproportionately higher in its supporter base.
The recent large-scale anti-Hindu attacks by Muslim radicals in Brahmanbaria in collusion with a section of the local branch of the ruling party inspire little hope.
The non-acknowledgment of the special status of non-Muslim might be used to consolidate already existing communal divisions in West Bengal which have gotten much worse after the rise of the BJP in the state.
For all practical purposes, the Indian Union denies citizenship to those who crossed over from East Bengal after March 25. The 2003 Citizenship (Amendment) Act took away the possibility of birthright citizenship from the children of many of those who fled persecution in East Bengal. Due to the amendment, many Dalit Bengalis were identified as “infiltrators” and deportation proceedings were started.
Ultimately, the persecuted Hindus of East Bengal are mere pawns. When Delhi-based Subramaniam Swamy outrageously claims a third of the territory of the Bangladesh to settle illegal Bangladeshis, he does not care about the ramifications of such statements on the situation of Hindu Bengalis presently living in Dhaka and Chittagong, where they are often branded Indian fifth-columnists by dint of faith.
The prime beneficiaries of Partition crafted the Nehru-Liaquat pact of 1950. Many did not move due to the false sense of assurance that came with this largely ceremonial gesture. By this, the Indian Union effectively washed off its hands from the “minority problem” in Pakistan. “Shutting the door” has been the Indian Union policy post-1971, something it cannot implement.
For decades, the Indian Union has systematically discriminated against Eastern frontier refugees (mostly Bengalis) compared to the Western frontier. The Indian Union owes reparation to these people, for the Indian Union’s creation and its geographical contours are intimately tied to their migration and impoverishment.
The Assam Accord
In Assam, the fault-lines are different. All strands of Assamese nationalism, oppose the proposed amendment. However, here the fault-line is more along ethnic lines. As per the terms of the Assam Accord of 1985, all illegal migrants who have entered Assam after March 25, 1971 are to be identified and deported.
Even with its Muslim exclusion, this proposed amendment will pave the path to citizenship for many Hindu Bengalis who are illegal migrants in Assam. The BJP hopes that its anti-Muslim plank (couched not so subtly under the anti-Bangladeshi slogan) will help “unite” non-Muslims across ethnic lines.
While it is true that Delhi-centric political forces never wanted the Assam accord to be implemented, no one has declared the accord to be null and void. As of now, the proposed amendment contains no Assam exception clause which it ideally should.
The problem with accords is that they are done in good faith between entities who expect each other to keep their word. If there is no Assam exception in the final bill, it will mean that the Assam Accord was a fraud executed by the government of India on the people of Assam.
With regards to the illegal migrant issue, one has to distinguish between victims of human rights violations, that is, refugees, and those who migrate due to other reasons. A blanket inclusion for non-Muslims and a blanket exclusion of Muslims is clearly discriminatory.
The citizenship debate is primarily a demographic dominance and anxiety debate. The fear of being swamped in their own homeland in a demographic and economic sense is behind many of these debates.
The reality is that it is not within the feasible limits of ability of the Indian Union administration to deport all existing illegal migrants who are simply economic migrants.
A possible solution in such a scenario can be in the form of amnesty for all Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan origin illegal migrants with the possibility of dual or tiered citizenship and expanded work permits schemes. At the same time, other demographic anxieties that exist between different parts of the Indian Union can also be addressed.
A model for this already exists in various states of the Indian Union in the form of residency-based property ownership laws and entry control mechanisms through permits. Such initiatives need to be expanded as part of a thorough reform of the citizenship question.
Garga Chatterjee is a political and cultural commentator. He can be followed on twitter @gargac.
