Some thoughts on the Citizenship Amendment Act
We the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
The unbiased sense of country hood being emphasized in the above statement was meant to be the heart and soul of our nation. It saddens me to see the very shield, designed to protect us, being used as a political weapon. The unrest, the nuisance, the violence, the agitation. All this as a result of misinterpretation of one Act, is worrisome.
Considering the CAA, a section of people is slated to be benefitted by this. However, nowhere in the document, the government explicitly states that they would not be allowing Muslim immigrants a chance to claim citizenship, which has become the discussion of the hour. There are five different ways of acquiring Indian citizenship, which can be availed by any individual, be it a Muslim or not. It does not take away the opportunity to apply for citizenship under any of those provisions.
There are 28 states which have either adopted Islam as the ideological foundation of their state and constitution or have endorsed Islam as their state religion. These states could be an option for Muslim refugees to seek asylum. However, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community belonging to Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan and are Indian asylees, are the ones in dire need of a new home and there would be very few countries in the world who would be happy to provide them with a safe place to live and work unconditionally. India, being a secular country is offering a home to these minorities.
Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle of international law that forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which they would be in likely danger of persecution based on "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". Under CAA, GOI is not inflicting any action which even remotely leads to deportation of refugees to their state of origin.
The narrative being put forth, “India becoming a Hindu Rashtra” does not coincide with what has been mentioned in the provisions of the bill. For starters, it is not only the Hindus that are being granted citizenship, but there are also five other religious minorities that are being granted citizenship. This does not undermine the notion of secularism. In fact, because of this secularism, we are able to take up minorities.
It should also be noted that Article 15 prohibits the state to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, caste, creed, sex or place of birth of the individual. Though, there is something which we missed. These are the fundamental rights of every CITIZEN of India. However, there is no provision which states that these should be followed in granting Indian citizenship. Even the supreme court of India, who is the guardian of the Constitution of India, refused to apply a stay on the bill.
There is no denying that being an Indian citizen, everyone has the right to protest against government actions which they think could harm someone’s well being. But before raising their voice, people should take into account the Fundamental Duties prescribed by the Constitution of India under Article 51 A, Clause (e) which states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to promote harmony and the spirit of brotherhood and Clause (i) states that the citizen of India is responsible to safeguard public property and abjure violence. None of these clauses seems to be even remotely considered while protesting against CAA. The very Constitution which people are pretending to protect is harmed when the violence of this magnitude is observed across the nation.
The situation of unrest across the country is nothing but a mob with no clear agenda of what is to be opposed or what they would like to be rectified. Also, most of the educated class declaring a threat to India’s secularity have not even bothered to read the actual bill, let alone watch the debate that went on in both the houses. The segment of people taking part in the protest needs to understand that the freedom of speech is a right which is to be exercised and not exploited (freedom of speech, as stated by the constitution, is not absolute. It comes with certain limitations. The most important being maintaining the sanctity of the state).
People fail to understand that multiple tiny actions aggravate into a major outburst. This, in turn, translates into uncontrolled, unchanneled aggression which ends up harming someone and something which is not even remotely related to the cause. The protests are a living embodiment of such a disastrous outburst. One thing which we fail to replicate from the west is the fact that they are more responsible for their actions and its consequences whereas, we are blatant in taking actions and are careless about the consequences.
The unbiased sense of country hood being emphasized in the above statement was meant to be the heart and soul of our nation. It saddens me to see the very shield, designed to protect us, being used as a political weapon. The unrest, the nuisance, the violence, the agitation. All this as a result of misinterpretation of one Act, is worrisome.
Considering the CAA, a section of people is slated to be benefitted by this. However, nowhere in the document, the government explicitly states that they would not be allowing Muslim immigrants a chance to claim citizenship, which has become the discussion of the hour. There are five different ways of acquiring Indian citizenship, which can be availed by any individual, be it a Muslim or not. It does not take away the opportunity to apply for citizenship under any of those provisions.
There are 28 states which have either adopted Islam as the ideological foundation of their state and constitution or have endorsed Islam as their state religion. These states could be an option for Muslim refugees to seek asylum. However, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community belonging to Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan and are Indian asylees, are the ones in dire need of a new home and there would be very few countries in the world who would be happy to provide them with a safe place to live and work unconditionally. India, being a secular country is offering a home to these minorities.
Non-refoulement is a fundamental principle of international law that forbids a country receiving asylum seekers from returning them to a country in which they would be in likely danger of persecution based on "race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion". Under CAA, GOI is not inflicting any action which even remotely leads to deportation of refugees to their state of origin.
The narrative being put forth, “India becoming a Hindu Rashtra” does not coincide with what has been mentioned in the provisions of the bill. For starters, it is not only the Hindus that are being granted citizenship, but there are also five other religious minorities that are being granted citizenship. This does not undermine the notion of secularism. In fact, because of this secularism, we are able to take up minorities.
It should also be noted that Article 15 prohibits the state to discriminate on the basis of religion, race, caste, creed, sex or place of birth of the individual. Though, there is something which we missed. These are the fundamental rights of every CITIZEN of India. However, there is no provision which states that these should be followed in granting Indian citizenship. Even the supreme court of India, who is the guardian of the Constitution of India, refused to apply a stay on the bill.
There is no denying that being an Indian citizen, everyone has the right to protest against government actions which they think could harm someone’s well being. But before raising their voice, people should take into account the Fundamental Duties prescribed by the Constitution of India under Article 51 A, Clause (e) which states that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to promote harmony and the spirit of brotherhood and Clause (i) states that the citizen of India is responsible to safeguard public property and abjure violence. None of these clauses seems to be even remotely considered while protesting against CAA. The very Constitution which people are pretending to protect is harmed when the violence of this magnitude is observed across the nation.
The situation of unrest across the country is nothing but a mob with no clear agenda of what is to be opposed or what they would like to be rectified. Also, most of the educated class declaring a threat to India’s secularity have not even bothered to read the actual bill, let alone watch the debate that went on in both the houses. The segment of people taking part in the protest needs to understand that the freedom of speech is a right which is to be exercised and not exploited (freedom of speech, as stated by the constitution, is not absolute. It comes with certain limitations. The most important being maintaining the sanctity of the state).
People fail to understand that multiple tiny actions aggravate into a major outburst. This, in turn, translates into uncontrolled, unchanneled aggression which ends up harming someone and something which is not even remotely related to the cause. The protests are a living embodiment of such a disastrous outburst. One thing which we fail to replicate from the west is the fact that they are more responsible for their actions and its consequences whereas, we are blatant in taking actions and are careless about the consequences.
Comments