Why the “Mandatory State approval for Indian Citizenship” is an impractical move!
OPINION | January 23, 2019
They say "Charity begins at home" but the stance of the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016 certainly does not prove the statement right. Atleast not in the context of Northeast Indian states and the MHA's recent statement on the Bill proves how impractical the justification of the entire exercise is.
In a statement issued on January 22, the Home Ministry said Indian citizenship would not be granted to any foreigner without the consent of state governments concerned after the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill.
Ministry spokesperson Ashok Prasad said every application for Indian citizenship will be checked by the deputy commissioner or district magistrate concerned, who will carry out due diligence and submit it to the state government concerned.
But the truth of the matter is this that even if one state govt approves citizenship of a certain number of persons from another country, will it guarantee that these persons will not move to the already influxed Northeast India? Is there a law that checks the movement of Indian citizens within India from one state to another? Certainly the answer is NO!
Also, considering the fact that certain states in Northeast India fall under the provisions of Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, will it guarantee that the newly accredited 'Indian Citizens' will not be imparted its benefits? Is the law strong enough to keep a close watch on the proceedings? We definitely know the answer here.
When the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016 was passed in the Lok Sabha on January 8, Northeast India was affected by sporadic violence in its battle to stand firm against the passage of the Bill. This is the same region where Assam, Tripura, Manipur and Arunachal welcomed BJP with open arms who altered their political histories, in the hope of something better. But now, with the passing of the Bill in the LS, the region risks its own demography being altered.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan after six years of residence in India instead of 12 years, which is the norm currently, even if they do not possess any document.
The obvious reason to oppose the Bill being the fact that Northeast India shares close boundaries with Bangladesh, Bhutan and Myanmar and is already facing the problem of influx, the answer to which was a supposed NRC exercise in Assam but the Citizenship Bill seems to have turned the whole objective of NRC upside down. In Tripura, the rapidly declining population of the indigenous Kokborok Tribe is something that other indigenous tribes from Northeastern states do not risk facing.
And while the region continues to protest the Bill's passage in the Rajya Sabha which is scheduled to be taken up on January 30, the MHA's statement has come in as an impractical one.
Opposition to the Bill is strong in Assam, where there is fear that non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh will become Indian citizens. It must also be mentioned that a large section of the people and several organisations in Northeast India have opposed the bill saying it would nullify the provisions of the Assam Accord of 1985, which fixed March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for deportation of illegal immigrants irrespective of religion.
Again, it is to be noted that the proposed Bill violates the refugee policy that refugee have to return to their homeland once normalcy is prevailed. But this Bill not only provides citizenship but also relaxes the procedure.
It also fails on the tenets of international refugee law. First, the bill terms minority religious people as migrants while they are refugees not migrants and second, Shelter to selected religion defeats not only the intention but also the rationality of refugee policy.
It may have been appropriate if the Bill used the term "persecuted minorities" instead of listing out non-muslim minorities. Religious persecution cannot be reason enough to be articulated in a manner that dilutes the secular foundations of citizenship in India.
And while the Centre is fully aware of the fact that the Bill might not receive a majority vote in the Rajya Sabha with many allies even withdrawing support from the BJP, the Home Ministry's move of considering the state's approval for Citizenship certainly cannot be taken as a rationale for justification of sacrificing India's secular ideology.
The writer can be reached at shweta@thenortheasttoday.com
————————————————————————————————-
You can also submit your articles and opinion. Mail us at web@thenortheasttoday.com
