Wolf in Shepherd’s Clothing
Gilles Verniers | Assistant professor of political science, Ashoka University,
Economic Times
In his piece, Verniers breaks down the implications of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) and concludes that its intent is “disingenuous”.
CAB and NRC “ought to be taken together as two important pieces of a larger puzzle that aims at recasting the Indian Republic”, he writes. Indian Muslims wrongly excluded from NRC will not be extended the same generosity as non-Muslims under CAB, thereby relegating the former to “a subordinate or secondary status,” he explains.
CAB was declared to reflect “India’s age-old tradition of protecting persecuted minorities beyond its borders” but Shias and Ahmadis, Pakistan’s most persecuted minorities, have been left out of CAB’s scope, writes Verniers. Exclusion of Sri Lanka and Myanmar from the policy’s ambit also confirms that it is communal nature, he explains.
Verniers finally asks how authorities will test religious criterion upon which a person is granted citizenship. “Would the State accept people not revealing their real religious affiliations in public, as long as they don’t assert a Muslim identity?”
A constitutional obligation
Hitesh Jain | Managing Partner, Parinam Law Associates
The Indian Express
Jain argues that the Citizenship Amendment Bill makes distinctions that are reasonable and that it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Stating that Pakistan and Bangladesh are “Islamic states”, Jain writes that at the time of Partition in 1947, many minorities “found themselves at the mercy of nations that followed a state religion”.
He further argues that “being historically and geographically interlinked with both ancestral and spiritual ties, it falls nothing short of an obligation for the Indian nation-state to provide refuge to non-Muslim minorities who have been persecuted for their ‘otherness’…”.
That “obligation”, he adds, is “constitutional in nature” and that despite the doubts, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill “does conform to India’s constitutional spirit”.
For one, he writes, “Parliament is empowered to make any law relating to the acquisition or termination of citizenship and all other matters relating to citizenship”. Moreover, “a basic rule of interpretation is always presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute”. Article 14 provides for “equal protection of the law” and in the “negative aspect of ‘equality before law’, what necessarily follows is that those in unequal positions ought not to be treated equally”.
Jain maintains that “the courts allow permissible classification, which includes selective application of a law according to the exigencies where it is sanctioned”. Thus, the “provisions of the Bill appear to have made a classification based on the fact of minority communities being persecuted in the specified countries on the basis of their religion and leaving their country without valid travel documents”.
The CAB is both immoral and unconstitutional
Abhishek Singhvi | National Congress spokesperson
Muhammed Khan | Advocate
Hindustan Times
Singhvi and Khan state that Home Minister Amit Shah’s defence of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in both Houses of Parliament shows that the “proposed law is infirm, both constitutionally and morally”. They add that “four pillars emerge on which his (Shah’s) case rests”, and set out to challenge all of them.
First, Shah “states that this bill is an antidote to the fallout of Partition seven decades ago” but Singhvi and Khan say this is “nothing more than an attempt to inflame” the BJP support base. On Shah’s second claims that “Article 14 of the Constitution is not violated since a ‘rational distinction’ of protecting minorities in these three countries has been carved out,” the duo write that “such legislation is expressly barred by Article 14”. “Article 14 is attracted when the law is based on arbitrariness (such as when it incorrectly conflates persecution and religion), is discriminatory (penalises the adherents of one religion), or simply doesn’t satisfy its own objective (protecting Hindus and others since it leaves out the same from other bordering countries like China, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar),” they write.
Third, Shah asserts that “no international agreements have been violated” but the bill, the writers say, is an “act of religious exclusion, masquerading as an exercise in sovereignty”. Fourth, he maintains that “this law has nothing to do with Indian Muslims or other Indian citizens” but in the same speech, Singhvi and Khan say, “he promises a nationwide “ NRC and “attempts to defend the CAB in isolation of that announcement”.
Capitol Hill raises an eyebrow
Michael Kugelman | Deputy Director and Senior Associate for South Asia, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars
The Hindu
When the Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee issued a statement on Twitter that said “religious pluralism is central to the foundations of both India and the United States and is one of our core values”.
Kugelman argues that this tweet is “particularly significant” as it says much “about shifting perceptions on Capitol Hill about India and the U.S.-India relationship”.
Kugelman writes that importantly “it was issued by a Congressional committee – in this case, a key bipartisan body involved with legislation on international affairs”. Second, the statement “targeted a piece of legislation in India that hasn’t even been signed into law”. Third, it “invoked the U.S.-India relationship” suggesting that the Bill undermines shared values of the partnership.
Kugelman clarifies, “this isn’t to say that the bilateral relationship is about to take a major plunge” but Washington’s “love affair with Modi’s India has hit a rough patch”.
Redesign fiscal policy to fire up infrastructure growth
Ejaz Ghani | Taught economics at Delhi University, Oxford University & worked for ILO and World Bank
Mint
Ghani calls for improved public financing of infrastructure and scaling up investment through public-private partnerships (PPPs). Airports in Mumbai and Delhi are examples of PPP success stories, he writes.
Since “monetary policy has run its course,” fiscal tools need to address India’s large infrastructure financing gap which is only growing “exponentially,” he explains. With a “long-term steady revenue stream”, PPPs are “attractive for institutional investors” but first, the finance ministry needs to work with ministries and state governments “to strengthen the[ir] institutional and legal framework,” he observes.
Ghani suggests factor-market distortions, a huge constraint on PPPs, can be helped if policymakers provide more resources to commercial courts, “so that judgements flow faster”, and to small claims courts “so that entrepreneurs are assured greater enforceability of contracts”. Digitisation of land data can help too, he adds.
“A well-structured PPP can help turn a loss-making state-owned enterprise around” but the finance ministry should still budget liabilities during implementation of these projects, concludes Ghani.
Energising India’s external trade sector
Bornali Bhandari | Senior fellow, NCAER
Prerna Prabhakar | Associate fellow, NCAER
Financial Express
In the midst of the economic slowdown, Bhandari and Prabhakar look to India’s external trade as a demand driver. They discuss two issues — one, what India can do increase growth rates of exports and imports and two, what mechanisms can be put in place to “compensate losers” as external trade opens up further.
The authors first identify a “puzzle” that they say are usually seen among low-middle income countries — average growth rate of exports and imports have fallen but “their shares to GDP have risen”. Bhandari and Prabhakar look to the supply and demand sides of exports and imports to answer this. They also suggest India find new markets for its exports in order to be globally competitive. Not signing onto RCEP has been a “costly mistake” as it will further dampen 20 per cent of our weak external demand, they add.
As for compensating people who are adversely affected by external trade, the authors suggest direct benefit transfers, temporary unemployment benefits and “subsidised upskilling and reskilling programmes”.