The Citizenship Amendment Act is turning out to be a classic case of dead on arrival. There have been reports about the Bengali Hindus of Assam’s Barak Valley being excluded from the controversial National Register of Citizens and the Matuas of West Bengal not being enthused with the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 notified on 11 March.
The Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 require the applicants to mandatorily submit three sets of documents under Schedule 1A, Schedule 1B and Schedule 1C for claiming Indian citizenship. Except for the “eligibility certificate” from an unspecified “locally reputed community institution” under Schedule 1C (which can also be acquired after paying bribes), prospective applicants are unlikely to be able to meet the required criteria under Schedule 1A and Schedule 1B.
Gauging challenges
Under Schedule 1A, an applicant is required to produce documents such as passport, birth certificate, educational certificate, identity document, license, land or tenancy record, or any document issued by a government authority in Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. The document should show that “either of the parents or grandparents or great grandparents of the applicant is or had been a citizen of one of the three countries”.
A persecuted refugee fleeing their country would be unable to carry the documents required under Schedule 1A, while an economic migrant would destroy such papers to avoid being caught as a foreigner. Furthermore, these foreign documents would have to be verified because accepting them at face value would mean promoting forgery.
Moreover, it would realistically take decades to verify each document, leaving applicants identified as foreigners in limbo. Indian High Commissions in these three countries simply do not have adequate staff to carry out verification tasks.
Under Schedule 1B, applicants are required to produce documents issued by the Government of India to prove their entry into India on or before 31 December 2014. These documents include a passport showing entry into India, a licence, certificate or permit issued in India (driver’s Licence, Aadhaar Card et al), or a ration card. They can also constitute a letter issued by the government or court to the applicant with an official stamp, a birth certificate, land or tenancy records, or a registered rental agreement. Applicants can also furnish their PAN Card or any other document issued by the central or state government, Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), banks or a public authority.
Applicants can also produce a certificate issued by an elected member of any rural or urban body or a revenue officer; bank account details; insurance policies; electricity connection papers; electricity bills, or court or tribunal records. They can also furnish their Employees Provident Fund/General Provident Fund/ Pension/Employees‘ State Insurance Corporation documents, educational certificates, trade licences or marriage certificates. Anyone in possession of these documents can claim to be an Indian citizen unless proved otherwise. These persons will be categorised as foreigners if they choose to re-apply for Indian citizenship under the CAA.
India’s CAA contradicts existing international practices on the grant of refugee status or citizenship through naturalisation. Across the world, when refugees claim political asylum, refugee and immigration departments verify the authenticity of their nationality and claims of persecution. India is not even verifying nationality and assumes persecution en masse of the non-Muslim religious minorities in these three Muslim-majority countries.
The director of the Intelligence Bureau Dineshwar Sharma had in fact told this to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016. Those claiming religious persecution, he said, “will have to prove that they came to India due to religious persecution. If they had not declared so at that time of their arrival in India, it would be difficult for them to make such a claim now. Any future claim will be enquired into, including through R&AW [Research and Analysis Wing] before a decision is taken”.
Also read: CAA comes not with a bang, but with a whimper. Without NRC, it will fade into academic debate
The contradictory nature of CAA
The Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024 are indeed contrary to India’s own practices regarding the grant of refugee status or citizenship. In post-Partition India, minority refugees from Pakistan were issued migration/rehabilitation certificates that documented their entry into India. However, the non-Muslim religious minorities from these three Muslim-majority countries who entered India on or before 31 December 2014 were not provided with any such migration/rehabilitation certificates. The Citizenship Amendment Rules are therefore seeking to cover up the date of entry with false documents.
In fact, the 1.9 million people who were excluded from the National Register of Citizens (NRC) include a large number of Hindus purportedly from Bangladesh. They had submitted their claims for inclusion into the NRC with the documents listed under Schedule 1B. Can these Hindus apply for citizenship under the Citizenship Amendment Rules based on the same documents submitted during the preparation of the NRC? False documents are simply inadmissible. Whether admitted false documents could be used to obtain Indian citizenship under the CAA itself requires interpretation by the constitutional court.
It is precisely because of these complexities that CAA Rules could not be notified and the Government of India had to seek nine extensions. And these complexities remain unresolved under the notified CAA Rules.
The only people who would, perhaps, benefit from this are the minorities who have entered India with visas. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016 was informed by the Intelligence Bureau that 31,313 persons belonging to minority communities (Hindus – 25,447; Sikhs – 5,807; Christians – 55; Buddhists – two; Parsis – two) were provided with long-term visas based on claims of religious persecution in their respective countries.
The CAA reinforces Jawaharlal Nehru’s view on refugees from undivided India. After the Partition, the Nehru government treated fleeing Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan as refugees. The Muslims wishing to return, though, were termed evacuees under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 and Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954. As of date, the Government of NCT Delhi maintains the list of built-up evacuee properties in different municipal wards of Delhi. After the 1965 War, India enacted the Enemy Property Act of 1968, a replica of Pakistan’s 1965 Enemy Property Act that had even ruined the Hindus in Bangladesh.
Apart from concerns about its constitutional validity and the exclusion of religious minorities who entered India after 31 December 2014, the CAA is actually opposed to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)’s Akhand Bharat vision. The idea of Akhand Bharat cannot be promoted by excluding the Muslims in these three countries.
The CAA is a classic case of travesty of justice. After the issuance of the Citizenship Amendment Rules 2024, the Indian government opened up its online portal instantly. However, not a single citizenship application of the Chakmas and Hajongs of Arunachal Pradesh submitted with proof of migration issued by the Government of India from 1964 to 1968 has been processed as of date. This is despite two Supreme Court judgments on 9 October 1996 and 17 September 2015 to process their citizenship applications earnestly.
If vote bank politics were not an issue, the Chakmas and Hajongs would have been granted citizenship by now. It is precisely for the same reasons that CAA will become a forgotten issue after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Suhas Chakma is director of Rights and Risks Analysis Group. He tweets @ChakmaSuhas. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)