Having studied the evolution of the citizenship law since the Constitution came into force (https://www.devendranarain.com/citizenship-law-…right-about-turn/), several questions have been haunting me since the agitations against the Citizenship (Amedment) Act (CAA), National Population Register (NPR) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) broke out.
(1) Why was there no agitation when in 2003 a Parliamentary committee (headed by Pranab Mukherjee) had recommended the grant of citizenship to the Hindu refugees from Bangladesh and expressly advised grant of citizenship to the illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh (though the Vajpayee government did not act on these recommendations)?
(2) Why was there no protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2003 that incorporated provisions for NRC?
(3) Why was there no protest when in 2009 when the Congress government decided to prepare the NPR and considered it necessary to check illegal immigrants?
(4) Why was there no protest when in 2012 when the then Union Minister Of State for Home Affairs said in the Parliament that NRC would follow the NPR?
(5) Why was no protest (outside Assam) when the CAB was introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 15, 2016?
No other country in the world has witnessed agitations demanding grant of citizenship to illegal immigrants. No other country in the world has protested against measures needed in the interest of security of the country.
To my mind, there are three specific reasons violent protest against CAA 2019.
The first reason is that in 2003, friendly Congress party had supported the amendment of the Citizenship Act in 2003 and there was no apprehension that Prime Minister Vajpayee would take a bold decision like Abolition of Article 370 or abolition of triple talaq. His government included provisions for NRC in the 2003 Act but did not make it mandatory and did not accept the recommendations of a Parliamentary Committee headed by Pranab Mukherjee to grant citizenship to the Hindu refugees and to refuse citizenship to illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. He had washed his hands off Babri Masjid demolition. The Congress was again in power between 2004 and 2014. Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s proposal to prepare NPR was partially implemented but the Congress was a Muslim friendly party. (https://www.devendranarain.com/citizenship-law-…right-about-turn/)
The second reason is that for a long time the Muslim community of India lacked an aggressive Muslim leader like Jinnah. After all, it takes time to produce such leaders. Jinnah became leader of Indian Muslims in 1933 (though to start with he was only a titular head of the Muslim League) to fight vigorously for the separate identity of the Muslims, 75 years after Syed Ahmed Khan had called upon the Indian Muslims that in British India they must maintain their separate communal identity (https://www.devendranarain.com/consequences-of-…ay-be-disastrous/ ). After partition, for several years, there was no one like Syed Ahmed Khan or Jinnah to fight for a separate identity, though several communal clashes took place, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s. The scenario started changing only after the emergence of Asaduddin Owaisi on the national stage, formation and spread of network of fundamentalist and aggressive organisations like (SIMI), Popular Front of India (PFI) and (RFI)
The third reason is the emergence of Modi as a strong Prime Minister and the rise of Muslim leaders like Asaduddin Owaisi completely changed the equation. Having received three shocks in quick succession – abolition of Article 370, the abolition of triple talaq and Supreme Court judgement on Ram Temple – the Muslim leadership as well as the “United Front” of the anti-Modi political parties, saw a golden opportunity in CAA 2019. Moreover, organisations like PFI (successor to the SIMI that had been banned) and RFI were strengthening their network. (https://www.devendranarain.com/consequences-of-…ay-be-disastrous/ )
They know that the CAA is for granting citizenship to non-Muslims refugees who have been living miserably since they came to India seeking asylum. But they want doors of India to be kept open for all Muslims who want to settle here, even just to earn money here and send the money home. More Muslim population means change in demography, at least in certain states like Bengal and Assam. If 9 crore Muslims in united British India with a concentration in certain regions could force partition, why can’t more than 19 crore Muslims present today do the same?
They don’t want NPR or NRC as the presence of illegal immigrants would be known.
The fourth reason is the fear of the Uniform Civil Code. They are afraid that if they accept CAA, NPR and NRC, Modi would become bold enough to bring Uniform Civil Code that will be the biggest blow to the separate identity. In the present hostile environment, Modi will tread the path very cautiously. He has already announced dilution of NPR (the place of birth will not be asked).
The first protest against Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2019 (CAB) was announced on November 25, 2019. The Krishak Sramik Unnayan Parisad (KSUP) of Assam announced a series of protests starting with. hunger strike for 36 hours from November 29 to December 1. By December 4, reports of protests started coming from Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh and Tripura in the north-east and also from Delhi. After the bill was passed by the Lok Sabha and more after it became a law, protests spread to West Bengal, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Kerala, Tirana, Bihar, Maharashtra and several other states and union territories. Almost all the anti-BJP political parties jumped in the fray so did several students unions of several academic institutions (mostly affiliated to the Communist parties and the Congress) and other organisations.
Protests were registered by collecting a large number of people to hear inflammatory speeches, marches and dharnas (sit-in protests). In Shaheen Bagh area of south-east Delhi, protesters have been sitting on a 2.5 km long stretch of a road connecting that part of Delhi to Noida. Similar sit-in protests are reported from some other states also.
In December 2019, protests had turned violent, especially in Uttar Pradesh. Mercifully, now there is no report of violence though protests in other forms continue.
The reasons for the protests in the north-east are quite different from the reasons in the other parts of the country. Assam and other north-eastern states opposed the grant of Indian citizenship to any refugee or illegal immigrant, irrespective of religion, because for a long time they had been protesting that the influx of outsiders was changing the region’s demography. They are very particular to maintain their own ethnic identity, language and culture. As India Today has stated in a write-up (The truth about Assam’s detention centres) uploaded on Internet on February 9, 2020, the people of Assam have been agitating over the issue – influx of Muslims from other parts of India – for a long time; the Muslims Muslim population increased from mere 9 per cent in 1881 to 19 per cent in 1931 and 23 per cent in 1941.
With an increase in the population of outsiders, Hindus as well as Muslims, the protests in the state also increased. The settlement of refugees covered by the CAA would aggravate the problem.
Elsewhere, the protesters are Muslims, supported by anti-BJP political parties and organisations. As we all know, they gave the excuse that since the new law granted citizenship only to the non-Muslim communities to the exclusion of the Muslims who had come from the neighbouring countries and Myanmar, it was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution that granted equal protection of law to all the persons living in the country. To make the protests look more ‘constitutional’, they added Articles 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty), 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion) and 29 (protection of interests of minorities). Holding national flag and copies of the Indian Constitution, the protesters should march in the streets, raised slogans like ‘Save the Constitution’.
As we all know, ‘Save the Constitution’ is only a camouflage. The real intentions are to open India’s doors to the ‘persecuted’ Muslims of other countries such as China, Myanmar and Pakistan (where Ahmadis are not considered Muslims) and to protect the illegal Muslim immigrants. The latter is the main reason for the protest against NRC. That is the reason, there is so much noise and anger over the need to produce documents for NPR or NRC.
Has anyone ever thought how the protesters, even in small towns, most of whom would not have seen the Indian Constitution earlier, what to talk of knowledge of its the provisions, have suddenly acquired copies of the Constitution and are quoting Articles on fundamental rights? I am sure, it is the result of very good planning by those who are behind protests.
The real danger that is not being appreciated is that continuous agitations by over 20 crore people (and their number is increasing rapidly partly because of high birth rate and partly because of illegal immigrants) for preserving their identity may become a threat to the country’s unity. Already, the growth rate of the Muslim population in West Bengal is higher than the national average. If West Bengal becomes a Muslim majority state, the possibility of demand for partition cannot be ruled out.
(In the next article, how can Prime Minister Modi meet the biggest challenge ever faced by any of his predecessors.)
Part V – Lawmakers and bureaucrats messed up citizenship-related issues – questions the wisdom of the lawmakers of the ruling NDA who unnecessarily amended the Citizenship Act in 1949 and did not change the wordings of the Amendment At in 2019 to take the steam out of the protests. https://www.devendranarain.com/lawmakers-and-bu…p-related-issues/
Part VI is about how conspirators to intellectuals have made common cause against NPR
This is Part III of the series of articles. The the issues discussed are (a) whether the battle is legal or political and (b) how long it is likely to last
In Part I of the series of articles, I wrote about the changes made from to time in the citizenship law of India and the changing tones of some political parties.
Let us first consider the legal battle over the CAA
Supreme Court of India where legal battle is being fought
Out of 150 petitions filed in the Supreme Court over the CAA, 2019, 131 petitions have challenged the constitutional and legal validity of the Act. Their main argument is the Act violates Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees “Right to Equality” because it arbitrarily favours members of only six communities from three countries while Ahmadis in Pakistan and Muslims in general in several countries are being persecuted because of their faith. The opponents of CAA are also angry that the Act has ignored Muslims (mainly from Bangladesh and Myanmar) illegally living in India because of their religion while it has facilitated grant of citizenship to about 19 lakh Hindus excluded from the NRC in Assam.
In my opinion, the opponents of CAA have a very weak case. No doubt, Article 14 of the Constitution (one of the Fundamental Rights in Part III of the Constitution) guarantees Equality before the law (“The state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”). Article 13 guarantees that “The State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part and any law made in contravention with the provisions of this clause shall, to the extent of contravention, be void.”
The fundamental right to quality or equal protection of law is not absolute. In umpteen judgements, the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts have held that Article 14 does not forbid classification for the purpose of implementing the rights of equality guaranteed by it. The only condition is that ‘there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the objects of the Act under consideration.’ [Supreme Court order in Motor General Traders v State of Andhra Pradesh; citation (1984) 1 SCC 222, 229 and 230.]
Fundamental right guaranteed by Article 14 to all persons living in India cannot be interpreted as a Fundamental Right of every person living in India to claim Indian citizenship. The Constitution made provisions about citizenship keeping in view the partition of the country and empowered the Parliament to make citizenship laws in future. As discussed in Part I, the first Citizenship Act made in 1955 was amended from time to time keeping in view the changing circumstances. It is the prerogative of the Parliament to decide who should be and who should not be or cannot be an Indian citizen. Of course, the law cannot be made in contravention of the Constitution and the Indian judiciary has the power to decide whether a law is ultra vires or not.
The Citizenship Act, 1955, provides mentions four types of citizenships:
Citizenship by birth —It is granted to every person born in India (a) on or after the 26th day of January 1950, but before the 1st day of July 1987; ( b) on or after the 1st day of July 1987, but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) act of 2003 provided either of his parents was a citizen of India at the time of his birth; (c) on or after the commencement of the citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2003 where (i) both of his parents were citizens of India; or (ii) one of his parents was a citizen of India and the other was not an illegal migrantat the time of his birth.
Citizenship by descent – It is granted to a person born outside India (a) on or after January 26, 1950, but before December 10, 1992, if his father was a citizen of India at the time of his birth; (b) on or after the summer 10, 1992 if either of his parents was a citizen of India at the time of his birth (subject to certain conditions).
Citizenship by registration – Certain categories of persons, not being illegal migrants, and not a citizen under the Constitution or any provision of the Citizenship Act, can apply for citizenship on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions.
Citizenship by naturalisation – Any other person, not being an illegal migrant, can apply for “the grant of a certificate of naturalisation”. If the government is satisfied that the applicant is qualified, it can grant a certificate to him.
From the summary of the provisions of the Citizenship Act, it is quite clear that illegal migrants or their children cannot claim citizenship by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation. Children of illegal migrants were granted citizenship (citizenship by birth) by the Citizenship ((Amendment) Act, 1986 provided they were born between January 26, 1950, and July 31, 1987. This amendment gave a one-time big relief to the children of Bangladeshis who had illegally entered India before July 31, 1987.
Those arguing or claiming that the CAA of 2019 violates the fundamental right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 have ignored and want the Supreme Court to ignore certain basic facts and legal provisions.
None of those who have filed petitions in the Supreme Court are affected. If the NRC is an issue, the government has not yet decided when and when it will be prepared and the documents to be submitted. As of date, the fear, if any, is hypothetical.
There is nothing in theCAA of 2019 that the court may declare a violation of Article 14. The classification is not arbitrary. The ancestors of the religious minorities of Pakistan and Bangladesh covered by the Act had every right to come to India after the partition of the subcontinent.
When the persecuted minorities entered India, they did not hide their identity. They came as refugees seeking asylum because they were being persecuted (in the countries of their birth) on religious grounds and on arrival were exempted from the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 so that they could stay.
The refugees who came from Afghanistan are those who or whose ancestors had migrated to that country. For them, it is coming back to their home.
The Muslims of Bangladesh and Myanmar (Rohingya Muslims) came and stayed illegally, hiding their identity from the authorities. They did not seek asylum. They were not exempted from the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 so that they could stay. Under the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended from time to time, they are not eligible to claim Indian citizenship.
No court can direct the government to grant citizenship to illegal immigrants. Illegal entry in the country is a punishable offence.
No court can order the government to make a law to grant citizenship to whosoever enters India, legally or illegally.
On the citizenship issue, the court comes into picture only when an affected person or group of persons approaches the judiciary that despite fulfilling all the conditions, citizenship was denied to him or them.
No court can or should order the government to make a law promising citizenship in advance to those who want to come to India because of religious persecution. Even the CAA of 2019 does not make any such promise. It grants citizenship only to those religious minorities who came to India by December 31, 2014. It does not promise citizenship to those who are still in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan. Nor does it grant citizenship to those who came after that cut-off date.
It is wrong to argue that the CAA of 2019 will grant citizenship to all the 12 lakh Hindus left out of the NRC (total 19 lakhs left out) in Assam. The Act lays down conditions that must be fulfilled to get citizenship. The court cannot and should not direct the government to relax the conditions.
There are clear provisions for obtaining Indian citizenship on fulfilment of certain conditions. There is nothing in those conditions which could be considered a violation of the Constitution.
For all the reasons mentioned above, I hope, all the 131 petitions challenging the legal validity of the CAA of 2019 would be dismissed.
Political battle
The violent phase of protests against CAA, NPR and NRC is over. Now, in different parts of the country, the protesters are organising rallies, taking out processions and sitting on dharnas (ways of showing disagreement with something by refusing to vacate a place).
Protesting women and children are having picnic funded by PFI and RFI
The gathering of Muslim women and children in Shaheen Bagh, Delhi is an example of the latest form of protests. Muslim leaders are using women and children because they know that notwithstanding court order to the police to remove them, police will never use force against them. Today (January 28, 2020) is the 45th day of dharana. To show that they are patriotic, some of them show national flags to the media. However, they are unable to conceal their real character. “Pakistan Zindabad” (Long live Pakistan) like slogans can be heard. Young children are getting lessons in anti-national activities. Politicians who have been inciting Muslims to protest against CAA go there to address them and encourage them. These politicians are competing with each other to support and incite Muslims, thinking that it will increase their vote bank. There may be immediate gain but sooner or later, these Muslim voters will turn bhashmasur (a mythological character who got a blessing from Lord Shiva that whomsoever he touched would be reduced to ashes; to test whether he had achieved that power, he tried to test it on Lord Shiva himself; with great difficulty, Lord Vishnu saved Lord Shiva). By that time it would be too late.
Sarjeel and his brother arrested from Jahanabad in Bihar, India
People had been wondering, who could be behind the Shaheen Bagh protests? Who is meeting the costs of food and other necessities? Now, it appears the mastermind behind the dharna is a JNU student and a very dangerous anti-national person, Sarjeel Imam. The news of efforts to organise Shaheen Bagh type protests is coming from other parts of the country also.
In a video, Sarjeel Imam is seen instigating Indian Muslims to cut off the “neck” (a narrow strip of land) that connects India to Assam and the north-east. In the video, he is saying “If 5 lakhs Muslims are organised then we can cut the North-east from rest of India. If we cannot do permanently, at least we can cut North-east from India for months”. Further, he is saying “Our responsibility is to cut the Assam from India then Govt will hear our voice. If we have to help the Assam then we will have to cut the Assam from rest of India”.
He has also threatened that besides regular protest rallies, more than 20-25 Shaheen Bagh type dharnas will also be organised in different parts of the country
Sarjeel Imam is as dangerous as the Owaisi brothers. After police of several estates filed cases against him for alleged sedition, he had gone into hiding. Today, January 28, he was arrested from a place in Bihar. Owaisi brothers are still free to work on their anti-national agenda.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has made a sensational disclosure about funds collected for organising protests and the beneficiaries. (https://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20200127/3496212.html)
The ED claims that for the last two months, it had been keeping a tab on the 27 bank accounts of Popular Front of India (PFI), nine bank accounts of Rehab Foundation of India (RFI), 37 individuals and entities in 17 different banks.” During the probe, the ED found that in the PFI’s syndicate bank account maintained in New Delhi and several towns of Uttar Pradesh, “deposit of Rs 41.5 crore was made. About Rs. 27 crore was deposited through cash payments in 27 bank accounts.” Further, while keeping a tab on the PFI, the ED “identified 73 bank accounts. And following the money trail of the funding we came to know about RFI, which has funded over Rs 120 crore for the anti-CAA and anti-NRC protests.” Deposits were made in cash or through NEFT or RTGS or IMPS mode and withdrawn within two or three days, leaving only minimal balance. It is learnt that the funds came from some Muslim countries as well as from several individuals/organisations of Uttar Pradesh.
The ED has alleged that the beneficiaries included Congress leader Kapil Sibal (Rs 77 lakh) senior advocate s Indira Jaising (Rs 4 lakh ) and Dushyant Dav (Rs 11 lakh) and a person named Abdul Samad (Rs 3.10 lakh).
To counter the rallies against CAA, supporters of the BJP are also organising rallies. However, the counter has not been as effective as the protests.
How long the battle is likely to last
Going by the past experience, an early verdict of the supreme court is unlikely.
More serious is the possibility that the court order will not enter the battle. If those challenging the CAA of 2019 lose the legal battle, they will continue their political battle, most likely more fiercely. If they win, aggressive elements among the Hindus may launch their own political protests.
Those against the CAA have a vested interest in continuing the battle. The political parties anxious to overthrow BJP in 2024 general election will like the protests to continue till then. Those fighting for the grant of citizenship to the Muslims already living illegally in India and also to those who want to come, are unlikely to accept defeat.
One may argue, at least for the sake of argument, that no political movement can last for a very long time. They may cite examples of protests against Gujarat riots in 2002, demolition of Babri Masjid, the abolition of Article 370 and abolition of triple talaq. But one should also note that from time to time, these issues are raised to incite Muslims. The stakes now are much higher. As stated in Part II, their ultimate goal is to increase the Muslim population and change the demography of certain parts of India so that they can demand another “Homeland” for Muslims.
Those against the CAA seem to have made preparations for a long-term political battle. They have mobilised enough “arms and ammunition” in the form of money power, muscle power and firepower. In today’s Indian political battle, money is the most powerful weapon. Despite the fact that Arvind Kejriwal is openly supporting anti-national forces, large number of Delhi voters are favourably inclined to him for a few hundred rupees they save every month on consumption of electricity and water; women free bus-ride and elderly citizens get free visits to pilgrims.
The agitators are able to mobilise huge amounts of money needed to keep their protests going on. Our investigating agencies come to know after they have collected and disbursed crores of rupees. We have just seen that by the time the ED could lay hand on the members of the PFI and RFI, they had collected and disbursed crores of rupees. Such organisations may emerge with new names and addresses and collect money before they are caught.
Every political agitation, whether peaceful or violent, throws new leaders, rather families of leaders. Most of these leaders claim to be torchbearers of revolution for a new India but become most selfish politicians, anxious to establish their political fiefdom. The movement led by Ramanath Lohia against the oppression of backward classes produced Mulayam Singh Yadav who established his family rule in Uttar Pradesh. Kanshi Ram started the movement against the oppression of Dalits that produced Mayawati. The JP movement against Indira Gandhi produced Lalu Prasad dynasty. The Anna Hazare movement against corruption produced Arvind Kejriwal.
The agitation against CAA of 2019 has produced firebrand anti-national Sarjeel Imam who wants to be the sole leader of Muslims. His brother has also appeared on the stage. (Owaisi brothers must be feeling upset to see their competitors.)
Though Imams brothers have been arrested on allegation of sedition, I would not be surprised if new leaders like them come forward to fill the vacuum.
The “Axis Powers” (defined in Part II https://www.devendranarain.com/citizenship-law-…right-about-turn/) have become bold because they know that that the Modi government will not use ‘atom bomb’ (will not take drastic action) against the use of all their ‘arms and ammunition’ (money power, muscle power and fire power).
In such an atmosphere, the agitations are unlikely to end in foreseeable future.
To conclude, the Supreme Court is unlikely to satisfy the agitators. With vast manpower, enormous fund and emerging leaders, they may continue their anti-national activities. We are passing through a period of continuous agitations on some pretext or the other – demolition of Babri Masjid, abolition of triple talaq, abolition of Article 370 and now the CAA – to de-stabilise India.
Part V – Lawmakers and bureaucrats messed up citizenship-related issues – questions the wisdom of the lawmakers of the ruling NDA who unnecessarily amended the Citizenship Act in 1949 and did not change the wordings of the Amendment At in 2019 to take the steam out of the protests. https://www.devendranarain.com/lawmakers-and-bu…p-related-issues/
Part VI is about how conspirators to intellectuals have made common cause against NPR
Consequences of agitations against CAA, NPR & NRC may be disastrous
This is Part II of the write-ups on citizenship laws of India against which several political parties and Muslim outfits are agitating.
In Part I of the series of articles, I wrote about the changes made from to time in the citizenship law of India and the changing tones of some political parties.
Yes, the campaign against CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act), NPR (National Population Register) and NRC (National Register of Citizens) (acronym CNN used in subsequent paragraphs) is more dangerous than vote bank politics. The long-term consequences of a sustained campaign can be very disastrous for the country.
Vote bank politics is not a new thing in independent India. More than the British rulers, our politicians have been practising “divide and rule”. The Congress party that was at the forefront of attacking the British policy is also at the forefront of following the same policy. This is evident from the history of the Congress, from blaming the RSS for the assassination of Gandhi on January 30, 1948, to Sonia Gandhi openly inciting Muslims against the CAA which does not affect them in any way. In my opinion, even the state-sponsored genocide in 1984 – the massacre of thousands of innocent Sikhs – was an attempt to divide Hindus and Sikhs.
Before examining the reaoson, why so much protest now, not earlier, we should consider the changing demography of India since 1947.
Changing demography of India
The present demography of India is result of (a) partition in 1947 followed by unprecedented migration, (b) partition of Pakistan in 1971 preceded and followed by largest scale influx of Bangladeshis, Hindus as well as Muslims and (c) rapid growth of population.
India was partitioned on religious grounds. The Muslim League was not ready for anything short of a separate country comprising the Muslim majority parts of British India i.e. Eastern part of Bengal and western part of the subcontinent beyond East Punjab.
There was neither referendum in the country nor panned exchange of population. Those affected were left free to take their call, though after partition, Gandhi promised the Hindus who had remained in Pakistan had every right to come to India and become Indian citizens. The results of election to the Provincial Assemblies in 1946 (support to Muslims league) were treated as people’s preference though subsequent head counting showed that large number of those who had supported ML preferred to stay in India (and the regions became hotbed of anti-India activities)
In 1945-46, there were 90 million Muslims in the subcontinent (Maulana Azad: India Wins Freedom; page 143), constituting 23.81% of population. After East Bengal, Punjab and beyond, maximum, the number was in UP (15.30% of Province’s population) and Bihar (12.98% of Province’s population).
The elections to the Provincial Assemblies in British India were held in January 1946. Both the main political parties, Indian National Congress (claiming to represent all Indians, Muslims as well as Hindus) and All India Muslim League (claiming to be Muslims’ sole representative) were headed by Muslims, Maulana Azad and Md. Ali Jinnah, respectively. Of the 1585 seats, 492 were reserved for Muslim candidates only. The League won 425 of 492 (87%) seats – 100% in Bombay, Madras and Orissa, between 82 to 95% in other provinces except Northwest Frontier (47%). Congress won 923 out of 1585. The loss of most of the reserved seats dashed claim of the Congress to be representative of all Indians, Hindus as well as Muslims.
During the period around partition 10-12 people crossed boarders. There is no definite number of those killed in communal riots. Estimates vary between several thousand two millions. The most important point to be noted is that most of the Muslims of Bihar, UP and other states who had supported the League did not migrate. In 1951, Muslims constituted 15.40% of population in UP (almost the same as in 1946) and 14.56% (as against 12.98% in 1946) in Bihar.
Post-partition, the Indian Muslims looked at the Congress as their favourite and, in turn, the Congress pursued a policy of appeasement lest other parties did not become rival. But gradually regional parties emerged as rivals.
Post-partition, the Muslim population grew at a fast rate in India on account of higher birth rate and influx of Muslims from other countries, mainly Bangladesh during 1971 war and thereafter.
The changing scenario is summarised in the table set out below.
According to an estimate, in 2050 the Muslim population will reach 311 million and the share of Hindus in total population will come down to 77%.
There is no reliable data of illegal Bangladeshis in the country. Even 2001 or 2011 census data appear unreliable when compared with the estimates furnished by the Union Government from time to time.
Why NPR and NRC needed
Basis
Illegal Bangladeshis
Total in India
2001 census
3.01m
MOS for Home Affairs in Parliament on 14/7/2004 (UPA govt)*
20 m (5.7 m in West Bengal alone)
2011 census
5.5 m reported their last residence outside India (2.3m from Bangladesh and 0.7m from Pakistan)
MOS for Home Affairs during first Modi Govt.
24 m
*“There is no accurate central data regarding exact number of such illegal immigrants.”
In WB they got support of first of CPM and WB builders and then of Trinamul Congress. In the North East their presence is causing socio-economic tension.
Growing ambition of Muslim leaders
For historical reasons, India has the largest number of Muslims, more than even in Pakistan and second only to Indonesia. Had all these Indian Muslims been in a separate country, that country would have been sixth or seventh largest country in the world.
The number of any religious minority per se is not a problem if religion is a purely personal matter and does not interfere in the legal and political system of the country. Unfortunately, it is not so in India. It was never so. During the Britis rule, academic Dr. Syed Ahmad Khan, communalist Jinnah and nationalist Maulana Azad told the Muslims to fight for their separate identity and special status. If different leaders who otherwise don’t agree say the same thing again and again, it is bound to influence mindset of people. Long Congress rules pursuing the policy of appeasement strengthened it.
With rapid increase in population and rise of scores of religious and political leaders, the assertive power and political ambitions of Muslims increased. The influx of Muslims from Bangladesh and other countries increased their numerical strength, albeit illegally. It became the leaders’ first priority to hide the number of illegal immigrants and keep the number growing. That explains why they are so much against CAA (that does not give citizenship to the Muslims illegally living in India) and NPR & NRC that will identify the illegal Muslim residents.
Being highly religious, they want to live according to their own religious laws and maintain their separate identity even when they do not live in a Muslim majority country though they are not successful in dictatorial China and have to put up with threats of expulsion from countries like Australia.
For nearly 800 years were ruled a small or large areas of the subcontinent. Since 1858, when formally India became a British colony, political and religious leaders have been advising Muslims to to maintain their separate identity by sticking to their language, culture and religious way of life that includes personal Law. In 1858 itself Syed Ahmed Khan had called upon the Indian Muslims that in British India they must maintain their separate communal identity. During the freedom movement, while Mohammed Ali Jinnah wanted a separate country for his community, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad though against partition, told Indian Muslims that numerically their very strong enough to force government to accept their demand.
In independent India, for a long time the Indian Muslims did not feel any threat to their separate identity. The successive Congress governments followed the policy of appeasement to keep them on their side for electoral victories.
leader to do so was Jinnah became leader of Indian Muslims in 1933 (though to start with he was only a titular head of the Muslim League) to fight vigorously for the separate identity of the Muslims, 75 years after
India is perhaps the only country in the country where the “minority” of the population has become so powerful and aggressive that it is frightening and threatening the majority. It wants to dominate the majority and live on its own terms and conditions which are against national interest.. The ongoing protests against CAA, NPR and NRC are actually demonstration of their strength by the India Muslims who ate more in number than in Pakistan but in minority because the Hindus are more than five times in number. They want to assert to maintain their separate identity and increase their number, legally or illegally. Before the present of the present wave of protests, it was easy to assume that majority of the Muslims do not share the views of their communal leaders but it is now even the die-hard believers in this theory are forced to change their view. In the recent Delhi Assembly elections about 95 per cent of Muslims voted against India,
Muslims of India do not want against India’ security and integrity. The very existence of India as one country is under threat. The governance of the country is going to be a very tough task.
Who are opposing CAA and NRC and why?
From July 2016 when the Constitution (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha to early December 2019, there was no agitation outside Assam. Why did it erupt suddenly and that too on a large scale in December, soon after the Lok Sabha passed the Bill? Were those protesting now making preparations for something very sinister, something part of a hidden agenda?
Those who are opposing the CNN can be divided into two broad categories: those politicians and others who are against Prime Minister Modi and BJP and (perhaps) majority of Muslims. Each group has its own reason.
Opposition by anti-Modi and anti-BJP forces
There is an informal “United Front” against the BJP in general and Prime Minister Modi in particular. A better term for the gang is “Axis Powers”. The Axis Powers of the Second World War wanted to divide the world among themselves and rule. The “Axis Powers” of Indian politics, though in minority, want to divide India among themselves. The prominent members of the “Axis” are:
AAP
AIMIM ((led by Asaduddin Owaisi with his younger brother Akbaruddin Owaisi as second-in-command)
AIMPLB
AMU
BSP
Communists (CPI as well as CPM) and their student wings (e.g. those active in JNU)
Congress
DMK
Film actors and others associated with film world (I don’t count them as “intellectuals”. Most of them have below-average intelligence and understanding of CAA, NPR and NRC.)
Intellectuals (in fact, wrongly counted as “intellectuals”)
IUML
Jamia Millia
JD(S)
JD (U)
Journalists (not all of them)
NC
NCP
PDP
RJD
Retired Civil Servants (the frustrated ones who were and are still loyal to the Congress and have not got anything from the Modi government)
SP
Shiv Sena (after forming a government with the help of Congress and NCP)
“Tukde-tukde gang”
TRS and
Urban Naxalites.
The actual number of groups may be much larger. Out of 150 petitions filed in the Supreme Court on CAA, as many as 131 are against the Act.
The “Axis” is getting, direct as well as indirect support from Pakistan, ISI, Pakistani Jihadis, Zakir Naik and several other external sources. Whatever the “Axis Powers” say against CNN in India or abroad, becomes very useful to Pakistan in its anti-India propaganda.
While the ad hoc alliances of non-BJP political parties are formed to fight elections against the BJP or form non-BJP governments, the members of the “Axis Powers” are active all the time. Their sole purpose is to discredit the BJP and the Modi government in general and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in particular. Modi is their common enemy because they know that as long as he is Prime Minister of India, they will not get any share in power at the Centre. For everything they consider wrong in the country, they have been using all the possible means to find fault with Modi even if he has no role.
After four sticks (opposition to Rafael aircraft, triple talaq, abolition of article 370 and Ram temple in Ayodhya) failed to harm Modi and BJP, they were mighty pleased when the CAB was introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2019 though it has been under consideration for more than three years. It gave the “Axis Powers” a more explosive stick. They believed it could be more effective because being a legal subject, it could be easily misinterpreted to misguide and frighten Muslims. They started shouting inside and outside the Parliament that it was aimed against Muslims because it did not cover illegal Muslim immigrants. To make their protests look constitutional, they described it as a violation of article 14 of the Constitution, an attempt to divide Hindu and Muslims and an attack on the secular character of the country. All the non-BJP Chief Ministers have declared that they would not implement CAA. To frighten the Indian Muslims more, the NPR and NRC were clubbed with the CAA. When the protests gathered momentum, other grievances such as the abolition of Article 370 and demonetisation were also added to gain more supporters.
Three State assemblies in the non-BJP ruled states have adopted resolution and West Bengal is to do so shortly though they very well know that they have no such power under the Constitution. Non-implementation of a central law amounts to not working “in accordance with the Constitution” and, legally speaking, might provide ground for imposition of the President’s rule under Article 356. While openly violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution, they are shouting that they are doing everything to save the Constitution.
In the midst of these unconstitutional decisions of the non-BJP CMs, it is a pleasant surprise that Congress lawyer Kapil Sibal and former Haryana Chief Minister and Congress leader Bhupinder Singh Hooda have cautioned the non-BJP states that they cannot refuse to implement CAA though Sibal himself is against the CAA
All the members of the “Axis” are convincing the Muslims that while the CAA merely denied citizenship to the Muslims coming from the three countries, the NRC will deny citizenship even to the Muslims who are citizens because they will not be able to produce documents to prove their citizenship and that those declared non-citizens would be sent to detention camps.
The stand of the “Axis Powers” is not surprising. While some are facing a crisis of survival, others need opportunities to establish their leadership. Congress has the problem of survival. The narrow-minded blind followers of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty handed over India’s oldest political party to Sonia Gandhi who is now mismanaging it with the help of her two children though none of them have any leadership quality. One does not become a leader merely by marriage or birth. Sonia and her children have converted the Congress party into a family business. By their foolishness and misdeeds, they have reduced the party to a minor regional player in most of the states.
Several regional leaders want to expand their “kingdoms” or “fiefdoms”. While non-Muslim parties have a large following among Hindus, they want to increase their hold over Muslims to win elections. Muslim leader like Owaisi looks at it as an opportunity to establish himself as the sole leader of Muslims. The Communists who have already become irrelevant in the country, as in other countries, are getting an opportunity to appear on TV channels to make their presence felt.
Among the “Axis Powers” also there is tough competition among the front members for the leadership of Muslims. That is why Mamata Banerjee, Mayawati and Arvind Kejriwal distanced themselves from a meeting called by Sonia Gandhi for a joint strategy to take on Modi and BJP.
Protests by Indian Muslims and their demands.
The “Axis Powers” succeeded in the mission of inciting the vast majority of Muslims. A large number of Muslims and their Hindu supporters organised protests in different parts of the country. The politicians supporting them gave them slogans to register their protests. Soon the protests became violent. Public and private properties were burnt, truckloads of stones were brought for attacking the police and commoners; even firearms were used. The UP police has found evidence of involvement of the fundamentalist Islamic organisation Popular Front of India (PFI). The Delhi police arrested some Bangladeshis who participated in protests against CAA. In UP alone protesters killed 18 persons and injured more than 250 policemen. The mob psychology is such that rationality is pushed aside. Rumours were spread that once the NRC is compiled, the Muslims who failed to prove their citizenship would be detained in concentration camps.
The violent phase of protests seems to be over but protests in other forms have become a daily routine. The battle is being fought in the Supreme Court of India as well as in the streets of the country.
The real motive behind these protests is much beyond what is apparent (protests against CAA, NPR and NRC). In a write-up dated January 3, 2020, in the Quint, a digital Journal, the motive is clearly spelt out: to open the doors of India to all the Muslims who are unhappy in other countries. The write-up points out that
The random choice of only three countries in six communities violates the Constitution; the CAA leaves out the Muslims and the Jewish communities.
‘Religious persecution’, occurs in other countries as well. Persecuted communities exist in China (Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims), Bhutan (Christians), Sri Lanka (Tamil Hindus) and Myanmar (Rohingya Muslims) also. The Ahmadis, in particular, have historically been persecuted in Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. The Hazaras and the Shias (which are all Muslim communities) have also been persecuted on religious grounds in Pakistan. The Constitution of Pakistan explicitly declares Ahmadis as ‘non-Muslims’ and not a sect within Islam. Even sectarian persecution is religious persecution since the community is persecuted on account of its faith and beliefs.
There is no justification to give fast track citizenship in five years to only six communities from these three countries when there are others who have been in India on proven grounds of religious persecution but they will have to wait for 11 years to become citizens.
The CAA, on the face of it, does not apply to the existing citizens. But that doesn’t mean it won’t affect citizens. Many of us either do not have documentation to prove that we were born in India or that our parents were Indian, or that our parents moved to India in a manner that would prove that we are citizens. Some others may have lost their documentation in floods, riots or other calamities. This is where the CAA could affect citizens as well. If and when the All-India NRC comes into force, the government will ask at least some of us to ‘prove’ that we are citizens. Many Hindus and Muslims alike will not be able to provide documents to prove that they are citizens.
If you are a Muslim, you either prove during the NRC process that you are a citizen, or you are termed an illegal migrant. We don’t know what will happen to those who are declared illegal migrants.
Not Just illiterate women and small kids who do not even know the full form of CAA, even the educated among them do not want to accept that the CAA does not affect them. The opinions of such women and children participating in protests in Shaheen Bagh, New Delhi, as reported in certain sections of the media, are an eye-opener. One small child was heard saying that if the CAA was implemented, Modi would send him to a concentration camp where he would get only one bread every day. One illiterate woman was heard saying the CAA was for the preparation of a national register of Muslims who would be thrown out of India.
It appears that some powerful forces are backing Shaheen Bagh (in New Delhi) protests where men, women and children have, for more than a month, blocked a large area, much to the convenience of lakhs of people of the locality who have to go to their offices or schools. Such protests are being organised in other parts of the country also. While all the “Axis Powers” are supporting Shaheen Bagh protests by supplying food and blankets, according to intelligence reports, notorious anti-Indian Zakir Naik is also sending funds from abroad. It does not require much intelligence to understand that such a movement cannot be sustained without financial support.
The problem is that the Indian Muslims have not produced a single acceptable leader who is ready to say that in a country like India, Hindus and Muslims have to develop a composite culture and live together. The Muslims may be in minority in India but no country other than Indonesia, not even Pakistan, has such a large number of Muslims. In such a country, to talk of keeping Muslims away from the majority community is disastrous.
After the 1857 revolt, when the Muslims leaders realised that the days of Muslim rule were over, they started talking of preserving the identity of Muslims as separate from Hindus. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, rated as a great Muslim scholar, told the Muslims that in the post-1857 India, they had to be closer to the British rulers and, to maintain their separate identity, distinguished from the majority community. In his early days, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, member of the Congress as well as the Muslim League (for years it was permissible), did not support communalism. He left Congress over his serious differences with M. K. Gandhi because of the latter’s support to the Khilafat movement in favour of the collapsing Caliphate (caliph is temporal as well as the spiritual head of an Islamic state) of the disintegrating Ottoman Empire. However, at that time Jinnah was not a big leader. After attacking Gandhi for his short-sightedness, Jinnah went back to England to resume his law practice. After years, he returned as a communal leader to lead the Muslim League and fight for a separate homeland for the Muslims.
Even the highly rated Muslim Congress leader Maulana Abul Kalam Azad did not advise the Indian Muslims to share a composite culture and live in peace with the Hindus. In a statement dated April 15, 1946 (reproduced in “India Wins Freedom”, 1959 edition, page 143), Maulana Azad told Indian Muslims:
“Over 90 millions in number, they (Indian Muslims) are in quantity and quality a sufficiently important element in Indian life to influence decisively all questions of administration and policy. Nature has further helped them by concentrating them in certain areas.”
“The 9 crores of Muslims constitute a factor which nobody can ignore and whatever the circumstances, they are strong enough to safeguard their own destiny.”
Today, the Owaisi brothers are also telling the Indian Muslims to fight for their identity and to force the government to accept all their demands.
Another problem that makes the task of handling the protests difficult for the central government is that while the majority of the Muslims get united to protect the interests of the community, most of the Hindus fail to see long-term consequences of the sinister designs behind protests against CNN. I have seen a large number of Hindus criticising Modi for bringing up issues like CAA that are creating tension in the country. The tragedy is that they have not seen the humiliations the minorities faced and are still facing in Pakistan. Nor do they bother to visit the refugee camps where the poor fellows are leading a miserable life.
After Gujarat riots following the burning of a train in Godhra in 2002, when pseudo-intellectuals, pseudo-secularists and anti-Modi media were adamant to blame Hindus backed by the then Chief Minister Narendra Modi, they had widely circulated the photo of a young Muslim pleading for mercy with folded hands. (Later it was proved that the burning of the train followed by riots was a pre-planned conspiracy.) Today, no one bothers to circulate the photo of an old refugee woman from Pakistan pleading for mercy with folded hands.
M. K. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel are primarily responsible for the sufferings of the religious minorities left in Pakistan after partition.
Mountbatten advanced the date of partition and independence given by Prime Minister Attlee (March 1948) to 15 August 1947 because he (Mountbatten) was in a hurry to finish the work and return to England and his friend (rather Lady Mountbatten’s friend) Nehru was in a hurry to become Prime Minister. M. K. Gandhi who had said “partition of my dead body” only a few weeks before Mountbatten advanced the deadline, did not utter a word after the Congress accepted partition. At that stage, none of them thought of exchange of population. None of them thought of the poor wage earners (mostly Dalits), poor farmers and land-tillers who were not in a position to migrate to India. Most of them were even forced by the powerful landlords of Pakistan to stay there. Possibly, many of them believed Jinnah’s assurance of protection but Jinnah died in September 1948 and his successors did not bother to honour his assurance.
Those who are opposing the CAA, even those Hindus who are considering CAA an unnecessary law brought by Modi to disturb the peace of the country, must know certain basic facts.
The religious minorities of Pakistan who fled that country and came to India and those who are still coming as refugees have every right to come here. For a variety of reasons, they could not exercise their right in 1947-49. Though the big Congress leaders of those days did not bother about an exchange of population, time and again they assured those religious minorities that they could come to India whenever they wished and become Indian citizens. (See Part I of the series of articles) These refugees are exercising their rights which they could not in 1947-49.
80% of those who have come as refugees are Dalits. The rogues of our Islamic neighbours will not allow the religious minorities to live in peace and the rogues of our country do not want them to live here. Where should they go? There are several Islamic countries for Muslims but no country will accept the religious minorities of our neighbouring countries as refugees and grant them citizenship.
Under the CA 1955, these refugees can be granted citizenship even without the CAA, 2019 but that would be a long drawn process because the number of such refugees is very large. Special legal provisions are needed to make the task simpler and less time-consuming. Such special provisions have been made in the past also. The CAA of 1986 granted citizenship to the children of the refugees as well as illegal migrants born before July 31, 1987.
There is a basic difference between the religious minorities coming from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan and the illegal Muslim immigrants living in and still coming to India. While the former came because of religious persecution, the Bangladeshi Muslims have not entered India because of religious persecution. They have come to earn money. They started coming in the 1970s and were patronised mainly by the construction companies in West Bengal who got cheaper labour. Everyone knew that they were illegal immigrants. They got political patronage from communists (when they were ruling) as well as Mamata Banerjee when she started widening her political base. According to a report in Business Standard of January 8, 2016, “World Bank data (Bilateral Remittance Matrix, 2014) show, of the $7.6 billion of outward remittances from India, 54 per cent or $4.16 billion was to Bangladesh alone in that year. Almost every year, 50-55 per cent of India’s total outward remittances are to Bangladesh” The report quoted chief executive officer at UAE Exchange, Promoth Manghat’s eye-opener disclosure: “Actual outward remittances from India are much more than any official figure. Globally, Bangladesh is a major market for remittances for us. We are actively looking at starting remittance services from India to Bangladesh but regulations do not allow us to do so. We are in dialogue with the regulators.” ((“Actual outward remittances from India are much more than any official figure” means more money is going through havala, a flourishing racket throughout the world.) The report also says that “In 2014, the remittances constituted 8.21 % of the GDP of Bangladesh. In January-March 2015 quarter Bangladesh earned $ 3771.16 million of remittance, which is 8.49 percent higher than the previous year. These remittances have helped Bangladesh’s economy maintain its 5.5- 6 percent GDP growth.”
The argument that there are victims of religious persecution in many other countries also is not without any basis. It is happening in most of the countries of the world. However, accepting the argument that India should treat the Ahmadis also like other religious minorities of Pakistan because they are not treated as Muslims in Pakistan and are prosecuted will prove very dangerous. Though the exact number is not known, there are 10-20 million Ahmadis, followers of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam, in the Islamic countries where they are persecuted. The list includes Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Egypt, Gambia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Palestine and Saudi Arabia. Even in Singapore and the UK (where they have their headquarters), there are reports of their persecution. Can it be anyone’s argument that India should bring all those Ahmadis to protect their religion?
True, after an ordinance of 1984, Pakistan does not recognise but those requiring as Muslims but in India, they are very much treated as Muslims. In a landmark judgement on December 8, 1970 (Shihabuddin Imbichi Koya Thangal vs K.P. Ahammed Koya, citation A.I.R. 1971 Ker 206), the Kerala High Court held that ‘Ahmadis are Muslims and that they cannot be declared apostates by other Muslim sects because they hold true to the two fundamental beliefs of Islam: that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is a messenger of God.’
The Sunni Muslims of India who are shedding crocodile tears for the Ahmadis, do not treat them as part of the community and do not allow them to sit on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board.
Why only the Ahmadis and other persecuted minorities listed by the Quint (mentioned earlier)? According to the National Association of Evangelicals, ‘The persecution of religious believers has become an increasingly tragic fact in today’s world. In many countries, Evangelical Protestants and Catholics have become special targets of reigns of terror initiated by authorities who feel threatened by Christian faith and worship. Such authorities, often motivated by anti-Western, anti-democratic ideologies, also persecute Christians as a means of threatening the freedom of all persons subject to their authority. … Many Islamic countries, China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam, Christians are persecuted.’
India cannot become a haven for all the persecuted religious minorities of the world. Those who subscribe to such views do not appreciate the fact that geographically and economically India is not in a position to accommodate all the persecuted minorities in the world. In fact, no country will do that. We have already enough problems on our hand. However, those pleading for the adoption of every liberal policy by the government of India are least bothered.
Politicians are known to take about-turn to achieve their political goal. Even then, is it not surprising that all those who till yesterday were accusing the Modi government of being anti-Muslim and intolerant, are today asking the same Modi government to include Muslims also in the CAA? Obviously, they were making false allegations against the Modi government.
If the demands of the opposition politicians, especially the Muslim leaders, is accepted and India opens its doors to all the Muslims who are allegedly being persecuted in different countries, the Muslim population will grow at a very fast rate. I cannot say whether India will ever become a Muslim majority country, the increase in the Muslim population will definitely change the demography of West Bengal where the Muslim population is increasing at a fast rate. Of the estimated 20 million Bangladeshi Muslims living illegally in India, 10 million are in West Bengal alone. According to the 2011 Census of India, the state has over 24.6 million Muslimse. 27.01% of the state’s population. Muslims form the majority of the population in three districts: Murshidabad, Malda and Uttar Dinajpur.
The pro-illegal immigrant policy of Mamata Banerjee may make West Bengal a Muslim majority state. If that happens, there will be demand for one more partition of India. situation?
To conclude, it is impossible to accept the demands of the “axis powers’. The acceptance of the demand will prove dangerous for India.
Wait for Part III of the series in which I will examine whether the battle is political or legal or both and how long it is likely to continue.
Part V – Lawmakers and bureaucrats messed up citizenship-related issues – questions the wisdom of the lawmakers of the ruling NDA who unnecessarily amended the Citizenship Act in 1949 and did not change the wordings of the Amendment At in 2019 to take the steam out of the protests. https://www.devendranarain.com/lawmakers-and-bu…p-related-issues/
Part VI is about how conspirators to intellectuals have made common cause against NPR
Citizenship law and March of political parties: Forward March, Left, Right, About-Turn
This is Part I of the write-ups i on Citizenship law of India.
Since January 26, 1950, the citizenship has seen political parties marching forward, left, right and then taking about-turn. Till 2015, the Congress was marching forward, remaining on the right side of the Constitution and the law. Then in 2019, it took about-turn, confronting the NDA government. The small regional parties like RJD followed the Congress line. Once described as the BJP’s historical ally, Shiv Sena, wavered after joining the anti-BJP camp. It was on the right side (with BJP) in the Lok Sabha but turned left (walked out) in the Raja Sabha. Thereafter, it has taken complete about-turn. Most of the smaller political hardly played any role before 2019.
To understand the “Forward March, Left, Right, About-Turn”, let us first see how the citizenship law evolved in independent India.
Originally, the basis of citizenship was laid down in the Constitution that also empowered the Parliament to make citizenship laws in future. The first Citizenship Act was made in 1955. Subsequently, it was amended in 1986, 1992, 2003, 2005, 2015 and 2019.
Citizenship under the Constitution
Keeping in view the unprecedented situation created by the partition of the British India, the Constitution granted citizenship to
Those domiciled in India (at the time of the commencement of the Constitution) and born in the Indian territory (after partition), or either of whose parents were born in the Indian territory or a person who has been ordinarily resident in the Indian territory for at least five years immediately preceding the commencement of the Constitution. (Article 5)
Those persons who migrated from Pakistan to India prior to July 19, 1948, if either of parents or any of grandparents were born in undivided India. (Article 6)
Those who migrated to India from Pakistan after the cut-off date of July 19, 1948, by registration after staying for six months (Article 6)
· Those who had migrated to the territory that became Pakistan after March 1, 1947, but returned to India under a permit for permanent resettlement. (Article 7)
Article 5 is very important as it accepted the principle of Jus Soli (literally, “right of soil”, that was part of English common law) i.e. grant of citizenship on the basis of birth in the country. However, starting with the first amendment in1986, it was gradually diluted due to the large scale entry of illegal immigrants.
Citizenship Act, 1955 (Congress was in power)
The original (or, principal) Citizenship Act (CA1955) granted automatic citizenship to every person born in India. A person born outside India, on or after January 26, 1950, was granted citizenship by descent provided either of his parents was an Indian citizen at the time of his birth. The Act also made provisions for citizenship by naturalisation under certain conditions which could be waived in case of “a person who has rendered distinguished service to the cause of science, philosophy, art, literature, world peace or human progress generally”.
Citizenship (Amendment Act), 1986 (Congress was in power)
According to the “STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS” of the Act, taking a serious view of the clandestine entry of persons of Indian origin from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and some African countries, the government decided to amend the, CA 1955 and deny the automatic grant of citizenship to those born in India after January 26, 1950. A person born after the commencement of the 1986 Act (July 31, 1987), would become a citizen by birth only if at the time of his birth, either of his parents was an Indian citizen. Other persons residing in India for five years could apply for registration as citizens.
The CA 1955, as amended from time to time, provides that every person born in India on or after the 26th day of January, 1950, but before the 1st day of July, 1987, would become Indian citizen by virtue of birth; those born on or after the 1st day of July, 1987, but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 would be Indian citizen if either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth; and those born on or after the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2003, would get Indian citizenship when (i) both of his parents are citizens of India; or (ii) one of whose parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of his birth.
This act that replaced the principle of principle of Jus Soli by the principle of jus sanguinis (“right of blood”, a Roman legal principle) in which citizenship is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, came very late. The Bangladeshis had been entering India illegally since 1971-72. By the time the act of 1986 came into force, millions of children of illegal immigrants had acquired citizenship by virtue of birth. As a special measure, the previous PM, Indira Gandhi, had made arrangements to settle the Hindu refugees from Bangladesh.
Those misleading Muslims living in India and inciting them to indulge in violent protests against CAA, NPR and NRC will not tell them that under the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended from time to time, all those born in India between January 26, 1950 and July 31, 1987 automatically became Indian citizens, irrespective of the citizenship of either of their parents. Naturally, children of all those natural Indian citizens are also Indian citizens.
Citizenship (Amendment Act), 1992 (Congress was in power)
The Act had a limited objective, to substitute the word “father” by “either of his parents” in the CA, 1955 so as to eliminate any discrimination against women. (The CA1955 required that a child born outside India after the 26th day of January 1950, could be a citizen only if his father was a citizen of India at the time of his birth. The UN Gen assembly had adopted the Convention that the signatory states (India was one of the signatories) “shall grant women equal rights with men with respect to the nationality of the children.”)
Citizenship(Amendment) Act, 2003 and National Register of Citizenship (when NDA led by A. B. Vajpayee was in power)
The Act brought by the second NDA government led by A. B. Vajpayee could be considered a landmark. It had two objectives:
To update the timeframe within the principle of “Jus Soli” would be applied and when the opposite principle of jus sanguinis would come in force (though these two terms are not mentioned in the Constitution or Citizenship Act of India).
To authorise the Central government to prepare NRC and issue a national identity card to every citizen. The need for an NRC in India was felt after the Kargil war (May-July 1999). A Kargil Review Committee formed by the government recommended that a register of citizens and non-citizens was essential for national security. The government accepted the recommendation and amended the 1955 Act.
Home Minister L. K. Advani introduced the bill in the Lok Sabha on 7 May 2003. The Rajya Sabha decided to send it to Parliamentary Committee on Home Affairs headed by Pranab Mukherjee (a Congress MP of Rajya Sabha) and members included Kapil Sibal and Motilal Vora of Congress. It submitted its report (107th Report ) to the Rajya Sabha on December 12, 2003. Its notable recommendations were as follows:
“Indian citizenship should be granted to Bangladeshi and Pakistani minority refugees.”
“Citizenship should be granted only to Bangladesh minority refugees and not to refugees belonging to majority community.”
“Every citizen should be given a national identity card.”,
On December 18, 2003, the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill unanimously. The Lok Sabha passed it on December 22, Besides the Congress, RJD, AIADMK and some other parties also supported it. It received presidential assent in January 2004. is labelled “Act 6 of 2004”.[3]
To achieve the first objective, the Act declared that
every person born in India on or after January 26, 1950, but before July 1, 1987, would be Indian citizen by virtue of birth in the country;
but anyone born between July 1, 1987, and the date of commencement of the 2003 Act, could become a citizen only if either of his parents was an Indian citizen at the time of his birth; and
a child born in India after the commencement of the 2003 Act could become a citizen only if one of his parents was a citizen of India and the other was not an illegal migrant at the time of his birth. (In other words, a child whose father or mother was an illegal migrant could not be an Indian citizen.)
To achieve the second objective, the Act added Section 14A to the CA1955 that provides that “the Central Government may “compulsorily register every citizen of India”, “maintain a National Register of Indian Citizens” and “issue a national identity card to him.” The Act requires the government to carry out “throughout the country a house-to-house enumeration for collection of specified particulars relating to each family and individual, residing in a local area including the Citizenship status.”
Several countries in the world maintain registers to know each and every person – citizen or non-citizen living with permission or without permission – within the boundaries of the country The US Social Security number was started to track individuals. The US Social Security Administration has introduced several features to protect the country from the terrorists. The Canadian government maintains records of all individuals, citizens as well as non-citizens, about their educational qualification, job, properties owned by them, whether they live in their own houses or in rented houses, etc. A few years back Indonesia also prepared a register of its citizens and gave a multipurpose identification number to every citizen. It replaced 18 different identification numbers. China maintains a complete register of all its citizens. The government of Australia maintains complete record of all the permanent residents: their date of birth, educational qualification, jobs, record of crime, etc. The past record of anyone who commits crime can be gathered in less than 20 minutes.
The way the Bill was drafted and finally made an Act raises some uncomfortable questions:
Despite the fact that provision for NRC was made a law in the name of national security, the provision was not made mandatory. The insertion of the word “may” before “compulsorily” is very significant as it does not make the preparation of NRC mandatory. It means that as and when the government decides (by executive order) to prepare NRC registration will be compulsory; no citizen will have the right to refuse.
It is a matter of research why and at whose order the Vajpayee government did not make NRC mandatory. Of course, the Vajpayee Government had no time to start working on it. It went out of power within a few months, due to defeat in the general election. The stand of the UPA government headed by a Congressman is discussed later in the article.
It is also a matter of research why the Vajpayee government did not incorporate in the law the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee regarding grant of citizenship to the Hindu refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh. During discussions on the bill in the Rajya Sabha, Dr Manmohan Singh, the then Congress Party leader in the Rajya Sabha strongly pleaded for grant of citizenship to the Hindu refugees from Bangladesh. Had the Vajpayee government done so, there would not have been so much agitation today.
Surprisingly, the Citizenship Rules, 2003, were framed and notified on this number 10, i.e. even before the Parliament has passed the Bill.
According to the Citizenship Rules, 2003, NRC shall be divided into several parts i.e. State Registers, District Registers, Sub-District Registers and Local Registers. Every register shall be a record of (i) Name; (ii) Father’s name; (iii) Mother’s name; (iv) Sex; (u) Date of birth; (vi) Place of birth; (vii) Residential address (present and permanent); (viii) Marital status — If every married, name of the spouse; (ix) Visible identification mark; (x) Date of registration of Citizen; (xi) Serial number of registration; and (xii) National Identity Number.
First, a population register, from the local to the state level, shall be prepared and the register of citizens shall contain details of persons after due verification made by the local registrar from the population register.
During the verification process, particulars of such individuals, whose Citizenship is doubtful, shall be entered by the Local Registrar with an appropriate remark in the Population Register for further enquiry and in case of doubtful Citizenship, the individual or the family shall be informed in a specified proforma immediately after the verification process is over.
Every person or family shall be given an opportunity of being heard by the sub-district or Taluk Registrar of Citizen Registration before a final decision is taken to include or to exclude their particulars in the National Register of Indian Citizens.
The Act read with the Rules authorise the central government to carry throughout the country a house-to-house enumeration for collection of specified particulars to each family and individual, residing in a local area including the Citizenship status. The rules make it compulsory for the Central Government, State Governments and local bodies to assist the Registrar General of Citizen Registration or any person authorized by him in this behalf, in preparation of the database relating to each family and every person, and in implementing the provisions of these rules. (This provision is a tribute to the Indian federal system but highly objectionable to the non-BJP governments.)
Even after the presidential assent of the bill and framing of the rules, it was for the government to decide a date by which the population register shall be prepared.
Citizenship (Amendment) Acts, 2005 and 2015
The Indian Constitution does not allow dual citizenship. Through these Amendment Acts certain facilities have been given to persons of Indian origin who are citizens of other countries (except Pakistan and Bangladesh) to stay indefinitely and work in India.
Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
What the second NDA government (led by Vajpayee) failed to do regarding grant of citizenship to the minority refugees, the fourth NDA government (since May 2019) led by Narendra Modi has done and that too more liberally. The CAA, 2019, provides citizenship to the religious minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians) of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who were persecuted because of their religion and came to India as refugees seeking asylum. All those who have been living in India since December 31, 2014, or earlier and have been exempted from the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 by the central government will get citizenship. The bill was originally introduced in the Lok Sabha on July 15, 2016. On July 31 it was referred to the joint select committee of the Parliament. After consulting several stakeholders over a period of more than two years, the committee submitted its report to the Lok Sabha on January 7, 2019.
The Bill was passed after a lot of firework in both Houses of the Parliament. Congress, SP, DMK, TMC, RJD, BSP, Muslim parties, communists, Shiv Sena (in Rsjys Ssbha), etc strongly opposed the Bill. Muslim leader Owaisi tore a copy of the Bill in the Lok Sabha. Protests started outside the Parliament and turned violent (More in Part II).
The Act fulfills the assurances given from time to time to the religious minorities that they would be welcomed in India. Recently, in an interview to a TV channel, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan recalled assurances given since 1947:
(a) M. K. Gandhi had said that Hindus and Sikhs who did not want to live in Pakistan had right to come to India and the Government of India was duty-bound to provide them citizenship, employment and facilities to live a comfortable life.
(b) In a resolution adopted on November 25, 1947, the All India Congress Committee clearly declared that “The Congress is duty-bound to provide complete security to the non-Muslims of Pakistan, who have crossed the boundary or will cross to protect their lives and honour. We will accept these people who flee from Pakistan.”
(c) Nehru, who on April 8 signed the famous Nehru-Liaqat Pact to safeguard religious minorities in India and Pakistan, had said, ‘I want to make it clear that they belong to us, and shall belong to us. Their welfare is uppermost on our minds. I want to assure the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistan that they are free to come here. Whenever they choose to come to India, we shall accept them.’
(d) We have noted earlier that in 2003, as members of a Parliamentary Committee, several Congress leaders had openly pleaded for grant of citizenship to the Hindu refugees and specifically opposed the grant of citizenship to Muslims of Bangladesh.
India always honoured its commitment to protect minorities. The Muslim population in India has been steadily increasing whereas the population of Hindus in Pakistan has declined from 15% to less than 2%. Most of the Hindus and Sikhs who stayed in Pakistan after partition and were persecuted on account of their religion were poor and Dalits.
In his previous avatar as Rajasthan Chief Minister, Ashok Gehlot had also requested the UPA Government to grant citizenship to the refugees from Pakistan camping in the state.
During the UPA rule, twice the Hindu (only Hindu) refugees were granted citizenship by executive orders to the local authorities. Thereafter also not only Hindus but Sikhs and other religious minorities came as refugees in a large number. The CAA 2019 grants citizenship to all those who came before December 31, 2014. It still does not grant citizenship to those who came after that cut-off date. Nor does it open a permanent door to all the religious minorities in those countries to enter India and acquire citizenship.
Keeping in view the sentiments of the tribal people, it is not applicable in the tribal area of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura In other words, the refugees settled in those tribal areas will not be granted citizenship as long as they are there.
NRC in Assam
The NRC being prepared in Assam on the order of the Supreme Court is a delayed follow up action proposed in “Assam Accord” signed on August 15, 1985, by the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and the leader of the All Assam Students’ Union. The details are not relevant here.
National Population Register and the National Register of citizenship
Whatever the Congress may say today against the NPR, the credit for preparation of the NPR goes entirely to the UPA government headed by a congressman Dr Manmohan Singh. The first order for the purpose was issued on November 9, 2009, and again on March 15, 2010, when P Chidambaram was Home Minister. In an interview to a journalist on Jan 12, 2009, Chidambaram had said that India “should have a good NPR by 2011-12.” About the need for NPR, he said, “this is one important instrument to check porous borders, illegal immigration causing unexpected demographic changes in the border districts and causing a lot of angst amongst native populations – as in Assam, West Bengal.” The 2010 order also stated that the NPR would be compiled “between the 1st April 2010 and 30th September.” After it was prepared, it was updated in 2015. (Was it completed?)
In reply to a question in the Lok Sabha on August 28, 2012, then minister of state for home Jitendra Singh had stated, “The National Population Register is the first step towards the creation of a National Register of Indian Citizens. A resident can be part of this Citizens Register only after thorough verification of her/ his citizenship status”.
Note that the list of information to be collected for the purpose of the census is much longer (the details could be found on (http://www.censusindia.gov.in/AboutUs/contactus/Contactus.html) than the list prescribed in the 2003 rules for the NPR (NRC is a subset of NPR). The major differences are that for the NRC/NPR, though not for the purpose of the census, visible identification mark, date of registration of citizen, a serial number of registration and National Identity Number are also required.
On December 23, 2019, the Union Cabinet decided to update the NPR originally prepared by the UPA government. Even before that, in a Gazette notification dated July 31, 2019, it was stated that the fieldwork for house to house enumeration throughout the country except for Assam for collection of information relating to all persons who are usually residing within the jurisdiction of Local Registrar shall be undertaken between the 1st day of April 2020 to 30th September 2020.”
As the UPA Minister of State for Home Affairs has told the Parliament in 2012 that NRC would follow the NPR, during the debates in the Parliament, Home Minister Amit Shah has also stated that the NRC would follow the NPR.
After the nationwide agitations against the CAA 2019, NPR and NRC, in an attempt to modify the agitators, the Prime Minister publicly stated that so far the government has not even discussed the issue of NRC. The July 31 about the NPR is also no longer available on the website of the Ministry of Home affairs.
The agitation is now more than one month old though not as violent as it was in its early phase. Since the non-BJP government declared that they would not implement the CAA 2019 nor will they allow compilation of the NRC/NPR, we have no idea how the central government will prepare the NPR.
However, after perusal of the history of the amendments of the citizenship law, what we know is that the successive governments did not take the matter of national security seriously. The Bangladeshis had been entering India illegally since 1970-71 but the principle of jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) in which citizenship is inherited through parents rather than birthplace, was adopted only in 1986. Meanwhile, millions of the children born to the illegal immigrants has become Indian citizens and so are their children.
Similarly, despite the recommendation of an expert committee that in the interest of national security. the country needed NRC, the Vajpayee government did not make it mandatory in the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2003.
Another proof of failure or carelessness is non-implementation of the unequivocal recommendation of a Rajya Sabha committee headed by Pranab Mukherjee, a senior Congress leader and comprising other Congress leaders, to grant citizenship to the Hindu refugees from Bangladesh and to deny citizenship to the illegal Muslim immigrants from the same country in 2003 Act.
Had the Vajpayee government granted citizenship to the Hindu refugees from Bangladesh and made the preparation of the NCR mandatory in 2003 when there was full support of the Congress and other political parties, there would have been no agitations as we were witnessing today.
Those misleading Indian Muslims and inciting them to indulge in violence in protest against NPR and NRC will not tell them that even if the original documentary proofs of birth or citizenship are missing, there are several alternatives to collect proof. The government of India has yet to finalise the list of these alternatives.
Meanwhile, the BJP ruled states are going ahead with the implementation of the CAA 2019, but the non-BJP ruled states remain defiant in flagrant violation of the Constitution of India.
Part V – Lawmakers and bureaucrats messed up citizenship-related issues – questions the wisdom of the lawmakers of the ruling NDA who unnecessarily amended the Citizenship Act in 1949 and did not change the wordings of the Amendment At in 2019 to take the steam out of the protests. https://www.devendranarain.com/lawmakers-and-bu…p-related-issues/
Part VI is about how conspirators to intellectuals have made common cause against NPR