Why implementing Citizenship Amendment Act is India's historical and humanitarian responsibility

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, was passed in both houses of Parliament in December 2019. After a long wait of four years, finally, the 39-page detailed rules regarding its eligibility and procedure were notified in the Gazette of India on March 11, 2024. This will pave the way for the implementation of this Act. This is a decisive initiative taken to fulfill the promise of the makers of the Constitution.

The rules of citizenship are laid down in Articles 5 to 11 of the Indian Constitution. As soon as the Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950, those born in British India got Indian citizenship from that very day. But many of those who were residents of the former princely states did not take Indian citizenship. Ultimately, by passing the Citizenship Act in 1955, all of them were given Indian citizenship. This law includes areas that were annexed to India from time to time, such as in 1986, 1992, 2003, and 2005, including Goa, Daman-Diu, and Dadra, and Nagar Haveli, Pondicherry, Karaikal, Mahe, and Yanam, by resolving land disputes with Bangladesh and Pakistan. Legal amendments were made to give Indian citizenship to people living in India.

In this sequence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, was passed to give Indian citizenship to the religiously persecuted minority communities of Muslim-dominated neighbouring countries, namely, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. That includes Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, and Parsi communities from these nations.

The rules notified in the Gazette are simple and sensible. In this way, the complex process has been simplified to remove all the obstacles to obtaining citizenship. Under this, the applicant must have a valid or expired passport issued by the Government of Pakistan/ Bangladesh/ Afghanistan or any document related to the citizenship of his or her father/ grandfather/ great-grandfather, a residential permit, or a birth or marriage certificate issued by the Government of India.

Any one of the 20 documents (Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Driving Licence, Ration Card, Bank Passbook, Post Office Account, Life Insurance Policy, etc.) must be submitted with the application.

If one does not have any of these certificates, then one will have to declare eligibility by giving an affidavit. Certificates issued by local governing bodies like Gram Panchayat, Municipality, or Municipal Corporation regarding the date of taking asylum in India have also been recognised. Instead of the District Magistrate’s office, this application can now be made on the centralised online portal.

Under the Act, the list of valid documents to be submitted by the candidate was very limited. Now it has been made much broader. Apart from this, a certificate issued by an educational institution regarding knowledge of any one of the 22 languages mentioned in the Eighth Schedule was also mandatory.

Apart from this, it was also mandatory to give an affidavit regarding eligibility for two Indian citizens besides oneself. Now all these stringent rules and complex procedures have been simplified so that the target community can get the expected and immediate benefits of this Act.

From 2019 until today, it has been openly opposed by opposition-ruled states, or UTs, like West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Delhi, and Punjab.

This protest is the result of the traditional politics of Muslim appeasement. Thus, in view of the non-cooperation of these parties and the governments ruled by them, a ‘Central Competent Committee’ will now be formed to provide citizenship by centralising the application process.

The respective state governments will also be represented in it. To assist this committee, district-level committees will also be formed, which will take preliminary action. This change will control unnecessary opposition and interference from state governments. It is noteworthy that citizenship is in the central list in the Constitution.

It is a worrying fact that even today, in bordering Muslim countries, inhuman treatment and oppression of non-Muslim minority communities like Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, etc. continues. Due to the religious persecution that has been going on in Muslim-majority neighbouring countries since 1947, the number of displaced people in India has continuously increased.

If Pakistan fails to comply with the “Nehru-Liaquat” agreement for the protection of minorities, it is our constitutional and humanitarian responsibility to accept the persecuted religious minorities. Those who have been tortured for years on religious grounds and who have lost their homes, property, and shelter, should they also be deprived of the right to live a normal life? And should a country where they were pre-partition citizens ignore them? They were assured of their safety, dignity, and rights. They have been enduring insult, neglect, and oppression because of the religious faith with which they have grown up — the faith that they consider more valuable than their own lives. Seventy-five years ago, they were residents or citizens of this country, so it is natural that they would expect shelter and help from their motherland — India. A constitutional solution to this problem was necessary for a sovereign nation to fulfil its earlier assurances.

Therefore, this Act to provide citizenship was necessary to protect the human rights of the oppressed minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan (who have been living as illegal immigrants for decades).

These countries have been completely incapable of protecting the rights of their minorities. Therefore, India has made this amendment, considering it a duty to protect the citizens of undivided India on the basis of humanity.

The purpose of this amendment is to give a life of dignity to those minorities who are persecuted due to religion and who are not able to follow their religion in these countries. According to the Citizenship Act, 1955, illegal immigrants could not be citizens of India.

They applied for citizenship under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, but if they were unable to provide proof of their Indian origin, they were asked to apply for the grant of citizenship by “naturalisation” under Section 6 of the said Act. This deprived them of many opportunities and benefits. There was a provision in the Citizenship Amendment Act that to acquire citizenship by naturalisation, these persons (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan) should have lived in India for at least 11 years, but in the new Act, this period was reduced to five years, i.e., they will become citizens of India only after five years of living in India.

The Islamic countries were formed due to division on the basis of religion. That is why this amendment does not make any provision for the Muslim community there, because Muslims are neither a minority in these countries nor are they facing any oppression or harassment there on religious grounds.

Due to this, the citizenship of any Indian minority, especially the Muslim community, is not being affected in any way. This amendment is not abrogating anyone’s citizenship, but it is giving legal rights to the deprived ones.

This Act is not giving citizenship to anyone by calling, but only those who have entered India by the crucial date of December 31, 2014, will be able to apply to the Central Government for Indian citizenship.

Muslim citizens of these Islamic countries can also apply for Indian citizenship under the “Citizenship by Application” provision. This rule is applicable to all foreigners. The Government of India grants citizenship to such applications after considering them. For example, Pakistani singer and artist Adnan Sami was granted Indian citizenship on January 1, 2016. This amendment provides priority only to six minority communities displaced due to severe religious persecution from three countries if they fulfil the prescribed criteria.

Therefore, opposing it for political reasons is illogical, inhuman, and unconstitutional. The opposition, standing on the threshold of general elections, should show sensitivity, understanding, and restraint and avoid a repeat of the Shaheen Bagh protests and Delhi riots.

The author is a Professor at Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.