Modi may put brakes on citizenship legislation
Protests have erupted across the country over a law facilitating Indian citizenship for non-Muslim illegal migrants
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), passed by parliament last week, has prompted protests and rioting across India. The act facilitates claiming of Indian citizenship by non-Muslim illegal migrants from neighbouring South Asian countries. Some critics believe it fosters religious discrimination while others fear increased migration to areas such as the north-east. President Ram Nath Kovind has signed the act into law, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has yet to give official notification of it.
What next
In view of the immense pushback it is facing domestically and internationally, the Modi government may find ways to hold back the legislation; the need to save face militates against a U-turn. It will probably delay notification of the act, and quietly ensure that it is never implemented even when it comes into force.
Subsidiary Impacts
- As protests over the CAA continue, Delhi will face growing external criticism over instances of heavy-handed policing.
- A prolonged delay by the Supreme Court in passing judgement on the CAA would undermine confidence in India’s judiciary.
- India-Bangladesh ties will come under considerable strain over the legislation, possibly pushing Dhaka closer to Beijing.
Analysis
The nationally ruling, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) introduced a Citizenship (Amendment) Bill into parliament on December 9, aiming to revise the 1955 Citizenship Act. It was passed by the lower house on December 10 and the upper house on December 11. The president signed the new act into law on December 12.
The CAA applies to illegal migrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh who entered India by December 31, 2014, and are Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian or Christian. Such individuals can avail of citizenship by naturalisation after just six years of residence, rather than the eleven otherwise stipulated.
The legislation is effectively a corollary to the updated National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the north-eastern state of Assam.
The NRC had excluded from Indian citizenship nearly 2 million inhabitants of Assam who were unable to prove personal or ancestral residence in the state before March 24, 1971 -- the eve of Bangladesh's declaration of independence from the Pakistani state and its concomitant liberation war, which sparked an influx of refugees into India.
Although the NRC was principally aimed at isolating Muslims in Assam, many of the people excluded from it were Hindus; the CAA is a means of rescuing them.
The continued protests over the CAA reflect two rather different sets of concerns:
- As the legislation implicitly defines citizenship by religion, some critics say it undermines India's constitutionally enshrined secularism.
- In the north-east, those opposed to the legislation say it will increase (Hindu) migration to the area and undermine local culture (see INDIA: Citizenship policies will cost Modi support - October 9, 2019).
Anti-CAA protests
Protests in the north-east show no signs of abating.
Many in Assam have long felt their culture under threat from migration of Bengali-speaking people. Between 1991 and 2011, the proportion of Assamese speakers in the state fell to 48% from 58% while that of Bengali speakers rose to 30% from 22%.
The CAA will not apply in certain tribal areas of Assam and two other north-eastern states, and it completely excludes from its writ four north-eastern states to where travel is restricted by a special permit regime. However, this is insufficient to assuage local concerns about the legislation.
The BJP defends the act by saying it offers sanctuary to non-Muslims facing persecution in majority-Muslim countries.
Yet critics regard the CAA as degrading the citizenship status of India's nearly 200 million Muslims. Outside of the north-east, protests have been strongest in West Bengal state and other parts of north India with significant Muslim populations (see INDIA: Modi’s outreach to Muslims will be cosmetic - July 31, 2019).
The CAA makes many Indian Muslims feel insecure about their citizenship status
The CAA assumes greater significance in the light of Home Minister Amit Shah's desire to extend the NRC across the whole country.
Tens of millions of Muslims could be at risk of losing citizenship if they cannot prove a long-standing connection to India. Only around 40% of Indians have a birth certificate.
Judicial challenges
The Supreme Court, which is charged with defending the constitution, today ordered the government to respond to several petitions against the CAA and said it will hear the pleas on January 22. It did not stay the CAA.
Since the Court has recently shown itself sympathetic to arguments couched in terms of Hindu majoritarian values, it may be unreceptive to the challenges (see INDIA: Supreme Court will be amenable to Modi - December 4, 2019). It last month issued a verdict favourable to Hindus in a case regarding a disputed religious site in the north. The NRC's revival in Assam was the brainchild of the previous chief justice, Assamese himself.
The Supreme Court is unlikely to pass judgement on the CAA soon
The Court's procedures encourage prevarication and procrastination. A decisive judgement on the CAA is unlikely in the near term.
International issues
The Modi government will face diplomatic and legal problems abroad, as the CAA appears to contravene UN agreements on citizenship and refugee status and threatens the interests and sensitivities of other states.
In terms of international law, India's position is complicated, as Delhi never signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention nor its 1967 enabling protocol. India has no specific laws dealing with refugee status. Technically, therefore, the CAA may not violate agreements seeking to prevent the declaration of 'statelessness' and the forced deportation of 'non-citizens'.
However, India has recognised and cooperated with the office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees since 1981. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has declared the CAA to be "fundamentally discriminatory".
India has ratified the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and is a signatory to the Global Pact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The CAA may violate each of these commitments.
Meanwhile, fallout from the CAA could affect India's bilateral ties.
The government possibly chose to include Christians among the illegal migrants eligible for Indian citizenship to appease Delhi's key partner, Washington. However, the CAA has already drawn condemnation from the (advisory) US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which called for Shah to be personally sanctioned.
Japanese investment in the north-east could be imperilled
Bangladesh's foreign and home ministers cancelled visits to India last week and Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe postponed a trip to Assam. Delhi is counting on Tokyo to step up investment in the north-east, partly as a means of countering Beijing's influence in the neighbourhood, but prolonged unrest in Assam and other states would put that in doubt.
Government messaging
Thus far, Modi and Shah have insisted that the CAA, like the NRC, is an entirely domestic matter with no implications for India's relations with surrounding countries. It rejects suggestions that the legislation could result in forced expulsions of people deemed to be illegal Muslim migrants.
If India were to try undertaking mass repatriation, its ties with neighbours would be at risk of fracture. The alternative to expulsion could only be detention, but if the NRC were applied nationwide, this would be impracticable.
Meanwhile, if there were signs of Delhi fast-tracking naturalisation of Hindu migrants to the north-east, local unrest would likely intensify. This could increase support for ethnonationalist insurgents.
The Modi government probably did not anticipate the scale of the pushback it would face over the CAA and may now decide that it is best to let the legislation slide.
