Is The Citizenship Amendment Act an Act of Kindness to the Persecuted?

 1. INTRODUCTION

India has passed and is enacting the Citizenship Amendment Act. The CAA offers citizenship to persecuted people from Jain, Sikh, Christian, Parsi and Hindu families. Muslims of Pakistan and Afghanistan persecuted these people. They came to India as refugees. Many consider it an act of kindness. However, others think that it is against Muslims in India. The people who say it is against Muslims point out that the CAA explicitly excludes the mention of the Muslim Community. It is against the secular fabric of our country. 

 

However, the government argues that it is not against Indian Muslims for the following reasons. 1. It does not take away the citizenship rights of any Indian Muslim, as some may fear. 2. It only gives citizenship rights to persecuted people. 3. There are no persecuted Muslims coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Bangladesh seeking Indian citizenship. Therefore, there is no need to include the mention of the Muslim community in an act that has nothing to do with them. 

 

In this article, the author seeks to briefly examine the issues related to the CAA from both perspectives, extrapolate the situation, and give his viewpoint with illustrations. The thesis is that the CAA is a harmless law that gives citizenship rights to persecuted people. It does not need to mention Muslims in particular because no Muslim gets persecuted in a Muslim majority country and seeks citizenship in a Hindu majority country.

 

2. A SURVEY AND EVALUATION OF MAJOR OPINIONS AGAINST CAA 

 

2.1 The CAA Is Against India’s Secular Fabric

The first group of people who oppose the CAA point out that it is against the secular fabric of our country because it purposefully excludes the mention of the Muslim community. In response, the Indian government states that there is no need to mention Muslims in the law because it does not affect them positively or negatively. Why do they say so? The CAA offers citizenship to persecuted people from Jain, Sikh, Christian, Parsi and Hindu families. Muslims of Pakistan and Afghanistan persecuted these people. They came to India as refugees. They wonder why India must grant citizenship to Muslim migrants from Islamic countries. They ask: “Who persecuted Muslims in Muslim countries?” And, rightly so.

 

Therefore, the narrative against CAA must be as follows. Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh persecuted many Muslims. They came as refugees to India because India treats persecuted Muslims better than Islamic countries. Incredible. To understand this situation, imagine the following situation. Suppose a Muslim man from Pakistan persecuted by Pakistani Muslims for his Muslim faith seeks refuge and citizenship in Hindustan, a land filled with Idolatry and Hindutva. How awkward does it seem? Moreover, think of a scenario where he is fighting for equal citizenship rights in India with Jains, Christians, and Hindus persecuted by Muslims of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. Also, imagine Indian political parties fighting for his Indian citizenship rights in a Hindustani court. 

 

Just imagine the courtroom scene: 

 

Anti-CAA Advocate: My Lord, CAA is unfair to Muslim refugees seeking citizenship in Hindustan.

 

Judge: Alright. So can you bring a few Pakistani, Afgani, and Bangladeshi Muslim people who are seeking citizenship as refugees in our country? 

 

Anti-CAA Advocate: Certainly, my Lord.

 

Muslim Refugee 1: Sir, we want refugee citizenship in India like ex-Pakistan Jains and Christians. 

 

Judge: Wonderful. What is your name?

 

Refugee: Jhoome Joe Pathaan. 

 

Judge: Excellent name. Do you have your ex-Pakistan documents?

 

Advocate: sir, he is a refugee. He has no documents.

 

Refugee 1: I have photostat copies if you need. All original ka photostat from Pakistan.

 

Judge: Really. That’s amazing. Show me the documents. 

 

Advocate to Refugee 1: No need. No need. I told you it is not needed. 

 

Refugee 1: But I have. I can prove my Pakistani origin. 

 

Judge: Awesome. It seems your documents are more genuine than the originals. So now tell us. Who persecuted you in Pakistan? 

 

Refugee 1: My Lord, my name is Jhoome Joe Pathan and I am not a terrorist. Nobody persecuted me. 

 

Judge: What do you mean? Pakistani Muslims did not persecute you? Then, how did you become a refugee? Why do you need Indian citizenship?

 

Refugee 1: I am a refugee. That’s all. 

 

Congress Advocate: sir, he was persecuted but he has lost his memory.

 

Judge to Advocate: Oh, I am so sorry. So, Vakil sahab, who persecuted Jhoome Joe Pathan in Pakistan?

 

Advocate: That’s a mystery. Usually, Muslims do not persecute Muslims. And, we know from Karnataka Vidhan Souda that Pakistan is a friendly neighbour. So we don’t know who persecuted Jhoome Joe Pathan in Pakistan. 

 

Judge to Advocate: So, why do you recommend him for citizenship as a refugee? 

 

Advocate: 🤔(Thinking]

 

Conclusion: No Muslim gets persecuted in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh to seek citizenship in India. Therefore, there is no need for inclusion or exclusion of Muslims in a law that provides citizenship rights to persecuted people only. 

 

The people who talk about fairness need to understand the following. They say India is multi-religious and multi-cultural. Yes, it is. They say the CAA omits Persecuted Muslims and, thus, is against India’s secular fabric. Yes, it does not include Muslims, but not because it is partial to Hindus. The CAA omits Muslims because nobody has persecuted Muslims in Muslim countries. If they can bring some Muslims persecuted by Muslims in Islamic countries, India will be glad to hear their case. If these Muslims cannot show kindness to Muslims, how will they show it to Hindus persecuted by Muslims in Muslim countries?

 

2.2 Implementation of the CAA Will Cost India More

Another opinion is, “Why should India take care of the Pakistani Hindus, Jains, Christians, or Buddhists? It will cost India much. Why should we entertain foreign refugees? What if ISI agents enter into India as Pakistani Hindus?” It came from a group of people who wanted India to include Rohingyas in the CAA and give them citizenship rights along with the rest of the persecuted refugees. They ask: They forget three key things. 1. The CAA people are people persecuted by Pakistanis. 2. Hindus do not do circumcision, so it will be evident if an ISI agent comes as a Hindu. Therefore, it is a pointless point. 3. The same people who question the rise of cost are also fighting to give Indian citizenship rights to Rohingya Muslims. Will it not increase the cost of the Indian government?

 

Therefore, the government rightly asked these political figures, “If we have enough funds to take care of Rohingyas, we will have funds to take care of Hindus persecuted by Pakistani Muslims also.” Yes, it will cost India more to include these persecuted Hindus. If Pakistani Muslims were kind, we would never have such a situation. The Hindus have only one place to go if persecuted: India. These political figures who wanted CAA to include the Rohingya Muslims fear a rise in the Hindu population due to CAA. Their ulterior motive is that their voter bank will be compromised. As they point out, “The government is trying to disturb the demography of India by giving persecuted Hindus citizenship rights.” The party concerned seems to rely on Muslim voters and Muslim-friendly votes only. 

 

Kindness. If the Indian kings of the past thought like the people who questioned the CAA, there would be no Syrian Christians, Parsis, or Jews living in India. India has shown kindness to many non-violent, peaceful, persecuted refugees. Arabian Muslims persecuted them. Now, we have a similar situation. Pakistan is a Muslim country. The Muslims of Pakistan did not show kindness to Hindus like Hindus of India did to all communities. That is why many persecuted Hindus –who got their children and wives raped and properties confiscated– came to India. The intent of those who question the CAA is the opposite of kindness.

 

Kindness. Where will the Persecuted Hindus go? Persecuted people usually flee to places that are safe for them. Persecuted Christians prefer to go to prominent countries that have more Christians. Persecuted Muslims can go to the wealthy and big Arab or Asian Islamic republics. There is only one big country in the world that has more Hindus than Muslims and Christians. It is India. That is why the Hindus persecuted by Pakistani Muslims came to India. The exodus has been happening since independence. Until now, no Indian government has given them citizenship rights. It shows their commitment to the Hindu people. Now, India is ready to give the persecuted people the right to live as citizens. Think about whose backs itch.

 

Now, the pertinent question is: Where will the Rohingyas go? They will go to like-minded people. Well, there are many Rohingyas in Bangladesh also. They are Bangla-speaking Bangladeshi Muslims who settled down in Myanmar years ago. Myanmar cast Rohingyas out because they –despite being a minority– raped many Buddhist women. They may be a Persecuted community. However, they are violent people. That is why they find it challenging to get accepted by India. We cannot afford another communal riot.

 

Further, the best place for the Rohingyas is Bangladesh, which already has many of them. Why cannot Bangladeshi Muslims show Kindness to Rohingyas? Take them in like India took Hindus. Rohingyas are Bengali-speaking Muslims of Burma. The Burmese law considers them as resident foreigners and not as citizens. Rohingyas have a violent history of raping and killing Buddhist people. In retaliation, the otherwise non-violent Buddhists persecuted many Rohingyas over the years. Many Rohingyas already live in Bangladesh. I think they are more comfortable living among like-minded Muslim people who speak the same language. Perhaps Bangladesh is ideal for Rohingya Muslims since the Burmese have displaced them. May they find a place to settle and also learn to live with other kinds of people without doing violence and rape.

 

2.3 Religious Identity Used as Criteria for Citizenship

Some people point out that the criteria for citizenship through CAA are as follows: 1. Persecution. 2. Belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian, or Christian community. They point out that the CAA is the first time in Indian legal history that “religious identity has been used” as a criterion for citizenship. “Religious identity has hitherto not been used” in citizenship laws. 

 

People who argue this way are caught up in the particulars and lose sight of the big picture. The big picture is upholding the spirit of the Constitution, which favours the weak, persecuted, and minority. Indeed, the Constitution has not “used” religious identity as a citizenship criterion hitherto. However, let us examine if it uses religious identity as a criterion in this particular occasion. The author would say, “no.” Why? 

 

First, the author will replace the word ‘used’ with ‘mentioned’ in the phrase “Religious identity has hitherto not been used.” The law is for the persecuted minorities. The term Persecuted Minorities already has religious connotations. For instance, when we talk of the minorities in India, it connotes Muslims and Christians. The persecuted minorities of our neighbouring countries were persecuted because of their religious beliefs. That is why their religious identity is “mentioned.” It is mentioned as an explanation of who these persecuted people are. 

 

Second, the perception is entirely different if we use the word “used” instead of “mentioned.” The law does not ‘use’ particular religious beliefs “as a determinant of” a person’s eligibility to obtain Indian citizenship. Instead, it merely points out who these persecuted minorities are. Let us examine what would happen if we did not mention the names of the persecuted religious groups in the law. It would make no difference to those who would obtain citizenship. This is because the persecuted minorities are only Jains, Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Buddhists, and Christians. Therefore, the argument would have zero effect even if we removed the mention of the religious identities of the persecuted people from the law. 

 

Further, the founding fathers of India created the Constitution for the people, not the people for the Constitution. What is wrong with mentioning the religious identities of persecuted people if that is the only way to identify them? The emphasis is on identifying the people who deserve Indian citizenship. The law to include Persecuted Minorities as citizens considers persecution as evidence for their inclusion. Since Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh do not persecute Muslim people, the persecuted people, by default, are the people from the faiths mentioned above. Therefore, the author does not think mentioning the religious identity of persecuted people in this context would hurt the spirit of our Constitution. 

 

Shashi Tharoor writes, “Western dictionaries define secularism as an absence of religion, but Indian secularism does not mean irreligiousness. It means profusion of religions.” He defines “Indian secularism [as] a profusion of religions.” Going by this definition, what is wrong with giving citizenship to Persecuted Minorities who are “a profusion of religious beliefs?” How does giving citizenship to these Persecuted Minorities become a violation of Indian Secularism? Further, the criterion for offering citizenship is Persecution, not their particular religious beliefs. The mention of their religious beliefs is to identify these Persecuted Minorities. For, they got persecuted only because of their Hindu, Jain, Buddhist, and Christian identities. Hence, mentioning their religions does not hurt the Spirit of the Indian Constitution.

 

3. CONCLUSION

It is good to give citizenship to persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, and Christians who came from Pakistan. Many people have suffered because Pakistan did not hold its side of the bargain. At the time of the Indo-Pak division, Pakistan had 14% Hindus. However, now it is reduced to two percent. In India, Muslims increased from 4 to 14% in the past eighty years. The peaceful and persecuted Hindu people who left Pakistan and took refuge in India are Indian now. Where will they go? Rohingyas are Bangla Muslims and can go to Bangladesh, but where will persecuted Hindus go? They also must get the right to vote and buy properties in their country. Therefore, the CAA is an act of kindness extended by the Indian government toward the persecuted minorities of our Muslim-majority neighbouring countries. Moreover, merely mentioning the religious identity of persecuted people in the law in this context does not hurt the spirit of our Constitution.