Religion cannot be the criteria under the Indian Constitution where the principles of secularism, liberty, equality, justice and fraternity are enshrined in the Preamble
PRABHAKAR TIMBLE
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) which the government claims to be progressive and positive legislation granting Indian citizenship has galvanized the students, youth and political opposition of the country as the basis for the endowment is religion. Whatever the arguments for and against CAA, religion cannot be the criteria under the Indian Constitution where the principles of secularism, liberty, equality, justice and fraternity are enshrined in the Preamble. The Indian constitutionalism makes these modern values as an integral part of the basic structure. Grant on the criteria of religion also tantamounts to denial on the basis of religious faith. Such a discriminatory provision of law is incomprehensible and impermissible under the fundamental law of our country. From the commencement of the Constitution, citizenship is guaranteed to all without distinction on the basis of religion. Introducing this element saying it as a humanitarian approach to refugees is retrograde and unconstitutional.
Let us peruse the questions in respect of this highly debated CAA which have aroused consistent and strong protests throughout the country. These are raised by the propagandist and the protagonist as well as by the opponent and the antagonist.
Propagandist and protagonist
How a law which grants citizenship can be regressive? How can the exclusion of a religious community enjoying complete majority in another nation be subversive of the Indian Constitution when parliament in its wisdom decides to offer protection to persecuted religious minorities from that nation? Is it inappropriate to hold that the Muslim religious community in other nations does not show commitment to secular principles? Is not the classification ‘persecuted minority groups’ rational and reasonable, hence valid? How can the Muslim majority from an Islamic nation be appended to the persecuted minority group? The aim and object of the CAA are to protect the persecuted minorities in three neighbouring nations by offering them the Indian citizenship cover. The stand of the government is that the classification done is intelligible and has the nexus with the object of the amendment. The corollary, therefore, is that inclusion of the Muslims which form part of the majority community would go against the object and spirit of the CAA as the nexus does not exist. These arguments paint the Muslim community as not being secular and as enjoying full insulation from persecution. With the same brush, all other religious communities are assumed to sport secular medals and as facing persecution. It is submitted that the Parliament or no other instrumentality of the state can conduct itself through such generalized hypothesis and grouping religious communities as it fancies.
Opponent and antagonist
The crux of the argument is that protective discrimination cannot have the trapping of religion, belief and faith. Why only six religious groups are chosen and assumed to be persecuted? How to determine that the refugee is persecuted? What’s the rationale to keep out Muslim refugees? Is the huge immigration in Assam and North-East a result of persecution? Is it not largely for survival, labour and employment? Are not the other reasons other than persecution more relevant and compelling and religion pales into insignificance? What are the relevant materials relied upon to decide on the cut- off date as December 2014? Is it based on any rational data? What’s sacrosanct about 2014? Why is the ambit restricted to the three Muslim-dominated nations? Will not this provision result in the grant of citizenship to all immigrants from Bangladesh except Muslims, who have made India their home for many years? Will the children born to these immigrants be deported or sent to detention centres only because their parents are Muslims?
Apart from all the above, the intent of the government is immoral and unethical. Such legislations even if fitted within the parameters of the Constitution clearly trample upon constitutional nationalism. This sends a signal to Indian Muslims that they are unwanted citizens. The Muslim community becomes vulnerable to a hunt and hate wave from the ‘Hindutva’ brigade. The social and political environment in the country gets polluted to the detriment of Muslims making their economic life and social cohesion more difficult. This appears to be the hidden agenda of the government.
NRC panic and fear
NRC is another vehemently contested programme which the government wants to push through with no clear gainful objective to be achieved except the generation of panic and fear amongst citizens. The public expenditure on NRC in Assam was Rs 16000 crore involving 50,000 officers for 3.3 crore applicants. Our population is around 136 crore and the implications for this enormous wasteful and unproductive public expenditure can be calculated. With 45% of people without registered records of birth, the agony of millions at the mercy of legal professionals and bureaucrats will be the price to satisfy the ego of the right-wing politicians. Added to the direct public spending on official machinery, the nation would be decorated with more jails and detention centres. Citizenship litigation will further boost the arrears of cases and worsen the docket crisis with government officials and
later in courts.
Whether it is the CAA, NRC, NPR, Data Protection Bill, or the deliberate build-up of hate against minorities, the liberals, intellectuals, public thinkers, social activists and reformers from the majority community the corrective will have to be political. Public protests and agitations mark the beginning of the political answer. It also serves the purpose of staying visible in the mass media despite a large section of the media today actually protesting against the protestors through the drama they stage on the TV screens. The political answer to this virus planted by the right-wing forces will gather strength if we adopt civil disobedience by not surrendering for documentation. This is the preparedness required to protect and preserve inclusive and constitutional nationalism. The final round should be through the ballot to restore the derailed constitutional India. Though the legal route is an option, it appears to be less safe, more risky and unpredictable.
