The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) need no introduction. The new Citizenship Act coupled with the promised implementation of NRC across India, have been the reason for peaceful, peaceful-turned-violent and violent protests going on in the country for over a week. As much as our ruling government would like to assure us that ‘citizens will not be harmed’ due to any of these new rules, there is still an overwhelming feeling that these assurances are meant to mask the ugliness of what is to come. In order to understand and decode these two Acts of Parliament and their alleged link, I thought it best to talk to students currently pursuing law and ask them the questions instead of resorting to news companies whose only job is to act as mouthpieces for best friends Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah.
Are the CAA and NRC linked?
No, they are not technically linked but a huge question is what would happen if the two are put into effect simultaneously, which Mr. Amit Shah is very keen on doing. There is no knowing what an all-India NRC model would look like, but if Assam’s model is anything to go by, then it would certainly be very chaotic.
Is the CAA unconstitutional?
Many people are challenging the constitutionality of this Act based on Article 14, which is about equality. There is a two-fold test for equality: one, the classification should be reasonable and two, there should be a rational connection between the classification and the objective sought to be achieved; the objective itself should be legitimate and democratic.
The CAA is clearly excluding Muslims and the government’s justification is that they are not minorities in the neighbouring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh—the countries they want to help and they are fully within their right to choose very specifically which peoples they want to help. However, one must consider the precedent this specific decision sets and the possibility of there being underlying motives.
Why did you take part in the protests?
It was not a protest or a strike but rather a boycott conducted under the guidelines of the Constitution which guarantees us the right to form a peaceful assembly. We had two objectives: to condemn the police brutality on the students of Jamia Milia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University, and to oppose the Citizenship Amendment Act. It was also personal in that we wanted to show solidarity with the injured students. As regards the JMI police brutality, it is very wrong. Since the protests were happening inside the college campus, it was technically under the control and jurisdiction of the college management. Only if it was outside the campus involving the public and causing ‘chaos’ or ‘public nuisance’ would the police have any jurisdiction to take action. What happened was a complete violation of human rights.
We did not force anyone to join us—the students came voluntarily. Through the boycott we are questioning the validity of such a law when there is disharmony and unrest amongst existing laws. This law has made minority communities feel unsafe and insecure. These divisive politics can go only as far as the Constitution allows it to go. When it is violated the educated population cannot be expected to stay quiet, especially when we have a constitutional right to question those in power. We are all better off as Indians than we are as Muslims or Christians or Hindus. Everyone keeps saying that students are the future of India. If we are the future, why are you hurting us?
Using the above inputs, take, for instance, a Muslim family with two kids. If one or both parents were born after March 24, 1971 and they have no documents to ‘prove’ their pre-1971 ancestry, then it would not only be that person losing their citizenship, but also the kids, as they have to fall back on the same nonexistent documents as their parent(s). This poses a real problem as many people’s ancestors were born during the time of the British Raj, and in homes rather than hospitals. Few people would have thought about their birth certificates or similar government approved documents.
A non-Muslim family, on the other hand, would not have to worry as much, it being much easier for them to gain citizenship status. Though it is the Muslim community that seems to face the brunt of it, the dangerous CAA-NRC duo is likely to affect multiple sections of the population, especially those who are already at a disadvantage—the poorest classes, lower castes, and those from the transgender community who have ‘officially’ transitioned.
If our government’s aim is to appear as the torchbearers of humanitarian values by welcoming select religious minorities as its citizens they had better douse the fire as they are not taking into account the number of Muslims being persecuted in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Myanmar and China. Not to forget also that they are completely excluding persecuted minorities from Sri Lanka.
Are the CAA and NRC linked?
No, they are not technically linked but a huge question is what would happen if the two are put into effect simultaneously, which Mr. Amit Shah is very keen on doing. There is no knowing what an all-India NRC model would look like, but if Assam’s model is anything to go by, then it would certainly be very chaotic.
Is the CAA unconstitutional?
Many people are challenging the constitutionality of this Act based on Article 14, which is about equality. There is a two-fold test for equality: one, the classification should be reasonable and two, there should be a rational connection between the classification and the objective sought to be achieved; the objective itself should be legitimate and democratic.
The CAA is clearly excluding Muslims and the government’s justification is that they are not minorities in the neighbouring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh—the countries they want to help and they are fully within their right to choose very specifically which peoples they want to help. However, one must consider the precedent this specific decision sets and the possibility of there being underlying motives.
Why did you take part in the protests?
It was not a protest or a strike but rather a boycott conducted under the guidelines of the Constitution which guarantees us the right to form a peaceful assembly. We had two objectives: to condemn the police brutality on the students of Jamia Milia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University, and to oppose the Citizenship Amendment Act. It was also personal in that we wanted to show solidarity with the injured students. As regards the JMI police brutality, it is very wrong. Since the protests were happening inside the college campus, it was technically under the control and jurisdiction of the college management. Only if it was outside the campus involving the public and causing ‘chaos’ or ‘public nuisance’ would the police have any jurisdiction to take action. What happened was a complete violation of human rights.
We did not force anyone to join us—the students came voluntarily. Through the boycott we are questioning the validity of such a law when there is disharmony and unrest amongst existing laws. This law has made minority communities feel unsafe and insecure. These divisive politics can go only as far as the Constitution allows it to go. When it is violated the educated population cannot be expected to stay quiet, especially when we have a constitutional right to question those in power. We are all better off as Indians than we are as Muslims or Christians or Hindus. Everyone keeps saying that students are the future of India. If we are the future, why are you hurting us?
Using the above inputs, take, for instance, a Muslim family with two kids. If one or both parents were born after March 24, 1971 and they have no documents to ‘prove’ their pre-1971 ancestry, then it would not only be that person losing their citizenship, but also the kids, as they have to fall back on the same nonexistent documents as their parent(s). This poses a real problem as many people’s ancestors were born during the time of the British Raj, and in homes rather than hospitals. Few people would have thought about their birth certificates or similar government approved documents.
A non-Muslim family, on the other hand, would not have to worry as much, it being much easier for them to gain citizenship status. Though it is the Muslim community that seems to face the brunt of it, the dangerous CAA-NRC duo is likely to affect multiple sections of the population, especially those who are already at a disadvantage—the poorest classes, lower castes, and those from the transgender community who have ‘officially’ transitioned.
If our government’s aim is to appear as the torchbearers of humanitarian values by welcoming select religious minorities as its citizens they had better douse the fire as they are not taking into account the number of Muslims being persecuted in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Myanmar and China. Not to forget also that they are completely excluding persecuted minorities from Sri Lanka.