Concerns and questions over the Citizenship Act
(Amendment) bill, 2016
The
Citizenship Act (Amendment), 2016 bill has provoked me to deposit a few thoughts
and concerns into the box of ongoing debate on it around the state. The bill
simply has not much complicated perspectives in draft because the nation wants
to facilitate any non-Muslim religious minorities migrated from three Muslim
ruled countries but willing to stay in India as citizen. Those minority
communities are believed to be migrated to India under compulsion due to
various kinds of tortures and harassments there on the basis of religions. They
will not be restricted from applying acquisition of Citizenship under the new
law and granting of same to those will not be illegal, which is regarded so
under the existing law. Though the term
religious minority is used, the main purpose of the bill is to serve Hindu
interest because hardly a microscopic Jains, Sikhs, Buddists, Christians,
Parsis religious group of people will be found in those minority migrants group.
Nowhere,
in the Constitution of India the word SECULARISM has properly been defined with
its explicit meaning. Only in the 42nd Amendment of the constitution in 1976,
the term Secular was inserted in the Preamble. As per the constitution of India,
has or had no state religion, it is only the census record that shows Hinduism
as the religion of majority. The simple as well as the ordinary description of
the Secularism is like that – ‘every religion should be treated equal before
the law, no one should be discriminated on the basis of religion.’ But never in
the history of free India Hinduism was declared as state religion. That speaks
that the tradition of secularism itself was so strong in this country that
compelled thinkers of the nation to insert the term in the Preamble after 29
years of Independence.
The Constitution has made the Parliament such
a Supreme Body that under Article 368 the Parliament can bring amendment to any
provisions of this constitution in exercise of its constituent power. Further,
Parliament can frame any regulation and Act as per the requirement of the
provisions of the constitution as amended. The democracy is a number game, if
number supports then you can change provisions created by previous Governments
of different parties. But Parliament also is not empowered to change its basic
tenets like Preamble in totality and so the meaning of the term 'Secular' being
a preamble word, cannot be altered or affected by any new general law unless
there is constitutional review. But at the same the term Secularism does not
restrict any religion from expanding its influence and also flourishing on
their way. Any religious group of people, if they become stronger than any
other group; can rule any state or country. So Hindu flourished to rule India, whether
it is Congress, BJP, SP, BSP, DMK, AIADMK or Communists parties rule,
ultimately Hindus are the masters of the Country since the beginning
Under
the existing provision of the Citizenship Act, 1955, persons belonging to
minority communities like Hindus, Parsis, Christians, Jains, Sikhs and
Buddists, who have entered India from the Afganistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan
without valid travel documents or validity of their documents got expired, are
regarded as illegal. They are not eligible for applying for acquisition of
Indian citizenship despite their willingness to stay in India. The new
amendment will make them eligible for acquiring citizenship in India under that
Act, even if their root of family were not of Indian origin. Under section – 5
of the Act their citizenship will be denied if they fail to produce proof of
their being Indian origin. As per section 6, a person can acquire citizenship
by way of naturalization where as the qualification, a person need to proof his
or her residing in India for at least 12 years.
Proposed Act will remove that hindrances, enable any non-Muslim resident
to apply for citizenship if they are willing to stay in India. In the case of
naturalization also the term of residing in India will be reduced to 7 years
from the earlier 12 years. In Original provision of the constitution a person
migrated to India, if he/she is born in India or his/her parents or any of
his/her grandparents were born in India, could only acquire citizenship in this
country. That provision restricted migrants, who are victim of religious
intolerances and violence, from acquiring citizenship by way of naturalization.
As stated by the present Government, the number of such migrants is increasing
day by day due to growth of religious bigotry in those Muslim ruled countries
and Islamic fundamentalism is fuelling up such growth of intolerance. So the present
BJP Government, as a compulsion of the situation as they interpret, felt it
necessary to create new provision in the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 and
facilitate Hindu migrants within the circuit of constitution.
The Article - 11 of the constitution empowers
the Parliament of India to regulate the right of citizenship by law.
Accordingly provisions of acquisition of citizenship or termination of same
will be as per provisions made by the Parliament. In exercise of that power the
present BJP Government has brought said amendment bill in the Parliament. The
amendment move welcomes specifically the Hindus, Buddists, Parsis, Christians,
Sikh and Jain migrated to India from Afganistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan for acquiring
Citizenship in India. Muslims have been pin-pointedly prevented from that right
because, as said in various Medias, they have many other options to go in the
world. That means India wants to say that Hindus living in Muslim countries, need
not to tolerate anymore harassment or oppression for longer period, they can
better run away from there and acquire
Citizenship in India. It is like an open invitation to India to live and also clear
indication that India is not going to shoulder anymore burdens for the Hindu’s
security in those countries in days to come. It may be contradictable
interpretation of the Act but not deniable possibility also so far the outlying
implication of the same is concern in future. I cannot imagine immediately how disconcerting
will be the proposed Act on our demographic pattern and how it will affect our
social fabric. I also agree to the principle that In India Hindus should be the
first priority of concern because they have no other alternative options to
live except India. But once that bill is passed the provisions will remain as
the permanent clause or section of the Act as well as the constitution unless
it is reviewed or amended again by the Parliament. It may be too anticipatory
question on my side that if tomorrow, taking advantage of this new Act, Hindus
are more tortured and harassed deliberately by those countries and that results
mass exodus, will it not be a reason of gradual process of Hindus disappearance
in those countries? Do we desire total disappearance of Hindus in those
countries? Hindus of different countries
may be told to leave those countries on the pretext that India has such generous
provision to welcome migrated or deported Hindu population. Today it may be
felt most hypothetical and question of negative notion but arising of such
situation will also not be totally figment of imagination if certain cares are
not taken while the Act is passed. Today it is the case of single individual or
family that they flee those countries and come to India for alternative shelter.
But in days to come it may turn to another form of large scale migration or
population transfer too from various nations to India and I can believe that this
will not be a desired result of this proposed amendment of the Act. Giving
shelter to any foreigners can be a humanitarian approach only and Government
can do it by having ‘Government resolution’ only for particular period. Making
an Act will set precedence for any new Governments of different ideologies to
come to make such Act to welcome other populations too in future. Indian
Citizenship Act, 1955 treats all foreigners equally as illegal and does not
divide on the line of religion. For the greater interest of unity and integrity
of the nation such division of Indian society is also not at all advisable for
any Government. Despite all such concerns also if the rehabilitation of those
migrants become so obligatory for the nation then that may be peaceful if their
settlement is done in those states or places only where migrants have affinity
and bonding with culture and religion of local populous. The nation might be
hearing the sound of discontentment and oppositions to the proposed Act from NE
region. There is a popular voice that the region cannot accept anymore new
population from any other countries who might have entered India after 1971. In
such case Government will have to spell out the actual number of such migrants,
who have entered India before 1971 and projected migrants entered after that.
The region has already witnessed several ant-migrants movement and militant
upsurge against foreigners also in the recent passed and therefore, if that Act
comes into force and it is made automatically applicable in the NE region, then
I am sure that it will draw wide spread reactions immediately. The NE regions
is crying for withdrawal of that bill and deal the issue of rehabilitation of
migrants on the humanitarian ground only granting them Refugee status. That
will be also the best way to avoid unnecessary haziness in clarification of
complicated constitutional aspects.
As the
Article - 369 of the constitution provides ‘Temporary, Transitional and Special
Provisions' to the Parliament to make certain laws. Under that provision many
special laws have been enacted for states in different manner. If the proposed amendment has become so
imperative and obligatory for the Centre then new Act will have to create extra
special condition in the provision that will provide power to the State
Governments for ratification of any decision or Act of the centre with regard
to rehabilitation of such migrants in the North Eastern States area, if when
such situation arises. Further NE region has significant amount of Tribal Area
or protected area in each and every states, where land laws are strictly
protective for the tribal only. Such protective laws should specially be kept
out of the ambit of the new law aiming at to uphold the constitutional
responsibility of protecting indigenous tribal people.
