INDIA’S sharp rejection to the US understanding of its Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is understandable. India did not expect the American reaction to be like this, particularly when New Delhi and Washington are firmly committed to their otherwise deepening strategic relationship. Elements hostile to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in and out of India, have projected the CAA as antiMuslim and it seems the US Administration has been swayed by this perception.
What is particularly galling is the State Department’s attempt to suggest that the CAA violates fundamental democratic principles of religious freedom and equal treatment under the law for all communities. In fact, there is every reason for the US to appreciate the new Indian law, given its remarkably similar response to persecuted minorities elsewhere. The CAA is about giving citizenship, not about taking away citizenship. It addresses the issue of statelessness, provides human dignity, and supports human rights. The US Administration’s reaction to the CAA not only reflects a mistaken understanding of the post-Partition history of the Indian subcontinent, but also forgetfulness about the US history itself.
The CAA enables migrants/foreigners of six minority communities from three countries – Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan – who have come to India because of religious persecution to apply for Indian citizenship. These minorities accounted for around 25 per cent of the population of what was then West Pakistan (today’s Pakistan) after the Indian subcontinent was divided in 1947. They have now been reduced to about one per cent. They were about 27 per cent in what was then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and are now about 7 per cent. Obviously, the decline is due to persistent persecution through forcible conversion, leading many of them to flee to India. In Afghanistan, this persecution was due to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in that country.
The CAA talks of those minorities who have migrated from the three countries – which proclaim themselves to be Islamic states – into India up to December 31, 2014, on account of religious persecution. It only waives the requirement of providing passports or similar documents of the countries they have fled from and fast-tracks their process of naturalisation as Indian citizens by five or six years. It does not stop anyone, including Muslims, from applying for Indian citizenship if he or she has been residing in India for 12 years and fulfils the qualifications laid down in the Citizenship Act of 1955.
Dispassionately seen, the CAA is similar in background and nature to America’s Lautenberg Amendment of 1990 and the Specter Amendment of 2004. The former reduced evidentiary burden for applications for refugee status for Jews and some Christian minorities from the former Soviet Union, as well as Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. The 2004 Specter Amendment added certain Iranian religious minorities to the list. After residing for five years as refugees in the US, people can apply for American citizenship, and their children can derive US citizenship immediately once the parent refugee gets citizenship.
India’s CAA exactly reflects the same spirit. It is meant for those who have suffered persecution for years and have no other shelter in the world, except India. Therefore, if the Lautenberg and Specter Amendments are not discriminatory, how can the CAA be dubbed as anti-democratic? The US cannot apply double standards.
