By Shiv Bhagwan Saharan
The recent notification related to the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules 2024 has made headlines due to the contesting narratives put forward by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party and opposition parties, who argue that the provisions of the Act are discriminatory against a vast number of Muslims. However, the philosophy of the CAA Amendment Act transcends any game of numbers, regardless of the election season, and incorporates the imagination of Indians who, regardless of caste, creed, and gender, see Bharat, i.e., India, as a last refuge for the preservation of Indian civilisational identity, guided by the Indic value of ‘Karuna,’ which has given shelter to the oppressed across millennia. It is no secret that this fertile and agriculturally prosperous Indian subcontinent has welcomed and sustained people who were suppressed and tyrannised across different parts of the world.
Whether it be the Zoroastrians who arrived in India in the 8th Century after the Arab conquest of Persia, the Armenian Christians who reached India in the 15th Century after Safavid and Ottoman capture of their homelands spread across the highlands in present-day Armenia, the Shias who escaped to India on multiple occasions since the Rashidun Caliphate period, the Jews during the Holocaust, the Baha’is and the Ahmadis during recent times, India, and, more importantly, Indians, have opened up their arms and hearts to the injured, distressed, and dispossessed, regardless of time and space. India, or, in fact, more important than that, ‘Bharatiyta’ or ‘Indianness,’ provided a space for refugees from diverse ethnicities and religions to not only stay in the country but also to maintain their socio-religious traditions and values.
At the same point in time, the agriculturally rich and hence, economically prosperous land of India has been subjected to an innumerable number of onslaughts and murderous invasions around medieval times that were led by the Arab Muhammad Bin Qasim, the Afghan Mahmud of Ghazni, the Timur invasion in 1398, the Uzbek Babur – the founder of the Mughal dynasty, Ahmed Shah Abdali, and ultimately the colonial rule led by the British empire, which started consolidating with the battle of Plassey in 1757. However, from Muhammad Bin Qasim to the British Raj, the alien rulers had one thing in common – a contempt against Indian traditional and religious practices and values, aiming to dismantle Indian socio-religious institutions. In the radical political Islamist parlance, Indian culture belonged to darkness or ‘Jahilyah’ that must be replaced by the light of true religion.
Similarly, as per the Orientalist outlook, Indian values and traditions lacked rationality. From a colonial lens, the contempt towards India or Hindu culture can be aptly summarised by Reverend Hastie, who was associated with the Scottish General Missionary Board and controversially argued that idolatry led to “a mass of shrinking cowards, unscrupulous deceivers, of bestial idlers, filthy songsters, and degraded women” which can be saved by adopting Christianity. Thus, it must be clearly realised that Hindu Nationalism and pride developed in the 19th Century in an environment that was hostile to ‘Bharatiya’ values and reduced all forms of native expression to barbarism. And ever since that unfair onslaught carried out in the name of modernity, the Indian response has been to carve out a space and society that aims to preserve ‘Bharatiya’ values. The Citizenship Amendment Act is precisely an attempt to carve out a balance between the preservation of ‘Bhartiya’ values of Karuna and resistance against alien onslaught on its culture and traditions.
Revisiting the criticism of the recent Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, It is within this conceptual understanding of ‘balance’ that the criticism of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has to be seen. A few criticisms have been raised by the opposing parties pertaining to the constitutional challenges and demographic threats that the CAA Amendment Act might bring. But the act is not arbitrary and random, as its critics claim. The fact that the government pursued the path of passing the Act through the Parliamentary process instead of any executive order displays the government’s faith in Parliamentary democracy. Further, due process has been followed at all steps of granting citizenship. Under Section 6B of the Citizenship Act, 1955, applicants must follow a specific application process, including electronic submission of the application to the Empowered Committee through the designated District Level Committee.
Upon submission, applicants will receive an acknowledgement in Form IX. This will be followed by document verification by the District Level Committee, ensuring fair play at all procedural levels, thereby adhering to the values of Justice and ‘nyaya’ among fellow citizens. Some critics also argue that the Citizenship Amendment Act’s deliberate action of excluding Muslims from attaining citizenship under the provisions is violative of the Right to Equality mentioned under Article 14 of the constitution. The argument doesn’t stand the test of Bhartiya values of Karuna as the Act is more about granting citizenship to the persecuted minorities than not granting it to Muslims.
Further, Muslims or, for that matter, persons belonging to any other nationality or religion can apply for Indian citizenship under the previously applicable method of citizenship by naturalisation. Another threat of demographic shift has been raised among the Northeastern states by the opposition parties and some interest groups. Even this claim is not sound because the Citizenship Amendment Act has been carefully drafted to exclude Myanmar. This ensures that any demographic shift in volatile states like Manipur does not occur. The exclusion of the application of the Act from areas protected by the inner line permit ensures the preservation of tribal rights. Assam has seen an increased number of protests after the Act came into being due to the threat to the Assamese identity by the Bengali-speaking population.
However, the Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sarma, is firm on his commitment to protect the interest of the native Assamese population while simultaneously showing empathy to the persecuted Bengali population. Sarma categorically asserted that “I am a son of Assam, and if a single person who has not applied for the NRC in the state gets citizenship, I will be the first to resign’’. He is trying hard to strike a balance between the preservation of the Bharatiya value of ‘Karuna’ that lies at the heart of Indian Civilization and the protection of the interest of the Assamese-speaking population. The threat to Assamese culture will not arrive from people who are genuinely seeking shelter in the state after repeated persecution in the neighbouring country.
At the same point in time, he is trying to resist any shrewd attempt that aims at gradual subversion of Indian values with alien values whose ultimate goal is to dislodge Indian socio-religious structure. The Assam government is working proactively to deport and identify the migrant population that has influxed Assam, causing a visible demographic shift in lower Assam. The government is taking effective action against radical outfits and their infrastructure. Therefore, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a pragmatic and morally justified step, and there is a need to appreciate its human and Civilizational dimension as it protects Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian communities who have been victims of persistent religious persecution in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh.
The author is a Doctoral Candidate at the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He tweets at @ShivBhagwan_JNU.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.