Dr. Asangba Tzudir
The passing of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) on 11th December 2019 with 125 member voting for and 105 members against the Bill after negating the demand for referral of the bill to a select committee have caused a lot of discontentment and uproar leading to protests and violence including loss of lives in various parts of the country. The fact that this controversial Bill has provoked religious sentiments has only heightened the protests in terms of its mass and magnitude.
This has happened in the wake of addition of a ‘category’ by the Government in the granting of Indian Citizenship aptly termed by Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament P. Chidambaram as Citizenship by “Arbitrary Executive Feat” in addition to the recognition and granting of Indian Citizenship based on universal principles like birth, descent, registration, naturalization, and by incorporation of territory. The addition of this ‘category’, he says is like “asking the parliament to support the government in passing what is blatantly an “unconstitutional Law.”
As elected representatives of the people sitting in the August house of Parliament, any Bill that comes to the Parliament is for the members to deliberate mainly on the constitutionality of any Bill having been entrusted with the responsibility to judge whether a bill is first and foremost constitutional. And based on the collective wisdom and common sense of the parliamentarians and having merited the constitutionality of the bill, it ‘ought’ to be passed.
However, the passage from CAB to CAA after the President of India cleared the Bill making it into a law took the level of protest to another level across the country which speaks volumes about the constitutionality of the CAA. There are some pertinent questions that are in need of answers. But even with the passing of the Bill as an Act, the questions are left unanswered which has a strong bearing on its constitutionality.
Why is it that only three countries - Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh were brought into the purview of the bill? How does one offer explanation for identifying only religious groups like Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian and leaving out others like Rohingyas, Hazaras, Ahmadiyyas? Why has it included only Christianity and not Judaism and Islam from among the Abrahamic tradition? The Act being controversial and contentious is further explicated by the fact that the granting of Indian Citizenship is clearly based on the premise of religion. Why should only religious persecution be considered? What about the many other forms of persecution happening on various lines – political, linguistic, etc. The majority of the parliamentarians in supporting such an unconstitutional Bill have only abdicated their primary moral responsibility.
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution provides for equality before the law or equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, that, “the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” One can simply see that the fundamental elements enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is being violated, that, such an unreasonable classification leading to unequal treatment in the eye of law has only wrecked the Constitution from within.
In sum, these fundamental questions left unanswered only highlight the unconstitutionality of the Act while also reflecting the politics of ‘inclusive-exclusion.’ The Citizenship Amendment Act is simply another select ‘refugee policy’ based on religion.
(Dr. Asangba Tzudir contributes a weekly guest editorial to The Morung Express. Comments can be mailed to asangtz@gmail.com)
