North Eastern region of India has been bursting firecrackers, and
people have been dancing, singing and organising victory rallies.
The reason for this happiness is that the controversial Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill could not be tabled in the second house of the parliament.
The present government is in the last days of ruling until the
new election happens in a couple of months.
Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram have a population of
two categories- the first one are the locals in majority and second one is of
refugees who migrated due to various reasons.  |
| A picture of protest of Chakma Community |
The Reason to Protest
There is a perception among local of Mizoram and
Arunachal Pradesh that many Chakmas have crossed over from the adjoining
Chittagong hill tracts in Bangladesh following displacement by the Kaptai dam
in the 1960s.
Some came later along with some 2,000
Hajongs, who are Hindus, because of alleged religious persecution.
Nearly 5,000 Chakmas and a few Hajongs who had
taken refuge in Mizoram — then the Lushai Hills part of Assam — were settled in
Arunachal Pradesh.
Indigenous groups in Arunachal Pradesh say
their population has now increased to beyond 1,00,000 but the Chakmas and
Hajongs say they are half that number.
Therefore,
locals in Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram protested against the Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill, 2016 because it would support the claims of Chakma and Hajong
refugees as the local (indigenous) people of the state.
Who are Chakmas and Hajong?
The Chakmas, who are Buddhists, and the Hajongs,
who are Hindus, also allegedly faced religious persecution and entered India
through the then Lushai Hills district of Assam (now Mizoram). The Centre moved
the majority of them to the North East Frontier Agency (NEFA), which is now
Arunachal Pradesh.
Citizenship
(Amendment) Bill 2016 and 2019- An analysis
The Citizenship Amendment Bill passed
in Lok Sabah in January 2019; the bill sought to amends the citizenship Act,
1955 to make illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, jains, Parsis
and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, eligible for
citizenship.
Note
– The citizenship Act, 1955 prohibits illegal migrants from acquiring Indian
citizenship
The bill will provides that
registration of overseas citizen of India (OCI) cardholders may be cancelled if
they violate any law. It also seeks to reduce the minimum years of residency in
India to apply citizenship to be lessened from 12 years to 7 years for such
migrants. The bill will apply to all states and union territories of the
country.
What
citizenship Act 1955 says?
According
to the Citizenship Act (1955), there are categories of – citizens and
aliens. Citizens are the people of India, and aliens from different land.
However recently there have been various controversies related to illegal
migrants, who are not treated as citizen of India. In some states which
share border with other countries have seen a huge influx of migrants, and no
deny that there were regional protest against these migrants in – Assam and
Tripura State.
While, these migrants and refugees were
about to send back, there was issues related to their human rights.
Who
is considered as illegal migrant?
An illegal immigrant is defined
as a person who enters India without a valid passport or stays in the country
after the expiry of the visa permit. It also includes the immigrant, who uses
fake documents in the process.
Earlier
Citizenship Act Amendments and NRC in Assam and Tripura
The National Register of Citizens (NRC)
is a list that contains names of Indian citizens of Assam and later in Tripura
the matter arrived in concern. It was last prepared after Census in 1951.Assam,
which had faced an influx of people from Bangladesh since the early 20th
century, is the only state having an NRC.
The
Assam government on July 30, 2018 released the second and final draft of the
state’s National Register of Citizens (NRC). The draft includes the names of
Indian citizens who have been residing in Assam before March 25, 1971.
As
per the Draft, the total number of persons included in the list is 2, 89,
83,677 leaving a total of 40, 70,707 as ineligible for inclusion. Out of 40,
70,707 names, 37, 59,630 names have been rejected and 2, 48,077 names are kept
on hold.
The Citizenship Amendment Bill was proposed in Lok
Sabha on July 19, amending the Citizenship Act of 1955. If this Bill is passed
in Parliament, illegal migrants from certain minority communities coming from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan will then be
eligible for Indian citizenship.
In short, illegal migrants belonging to
the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and Jain, Paris or Christian religious communities
from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan would
not be imprisoned or deported. Moreover, these citizens gain
permanent citizenship after six years of residency in India instead of 11 years
— as mentioned in the Citizenship Act (1955).
The registration of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI)
cardholders may get cancelled if they violate any law.
Citizenship
is granted to an individual by the government of the country when he/she
complies with the legal formalities, so it’s like a judicial concept.
In India, the Citizenship Act, 1995
prescribes five ways of acquiring citizenship:
1. Birth.
2. Descent.
3. Registration.
4. Naturalization.
5. Incorporation
of the territory.
What are the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS?
However, it contains neither any
permanent nor any elaborate provisions in this regard. It only identifies
the persons who became citizens of India at its commencement (i.e., on January
26, 1950).
It does not deal with the problem of
acquisition or loss of citizenship subsequent to its commencement.
It empowers the Parliament to enact a
law to provide for such matters and any other matter relating to citizenship.
According to the Constitution, the
following four categories of persons became the citizens of India at its
commencement i.e., on 26 January, 1950:
Condition
to be a citizen of India- Earlier
A
person who had his domicile in India and also fulfilled any one of the three
conditions, viz.
To
sum up, these provisions deal with the citizenship of
(a)
Persons domiciled in India;
(b)
Persons migrated from Pakistan;
(c)
Persons migrated to Pakistan but later returned; and
(d) Persons of Indian origin residing outside India
What are the issues and challenges?
The Bill seemed to be violating the
Right to Equality, (Article 14) which seeks to grants citizenship to illegal
migrants on the basis of religion.
It fails the test of reasonability
which is contained in Article 14. This is because it does not provide any
appropriate reasons for limiting eligibility of citizenship to 6 minorities of
only 3 countries.
For example – Rohingya Muslims from
Myanmar, Ahmadiyya and Shia Muslims from Pakistan and Uyghur Muslims from china
who face religious prosecution have been overlooked.
Fails on international refugee law
United Nation’s refugee convention
1951, granting refuge based on humanitarian considerations is arguably a norm
of customary international law. Though India is not a signatory of the
convention. The bill considers persecuted minorities as migrants whereas word
migration refers to the voluntary movement of people, primarily for better
economic prospects. Contrarily, refuge is an involuntary Act of forced
movement.
The bill particularly violates clause 1 of the
United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples which states
that indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to
forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
Conclusion
The bill should be considered a
positive sign as it seeks to address the problems of ill- treatment of
minorities who had no other option aside from coming to India illegally. The
government must look to accommodate the Ahamdiyyas, Uyghur and Rohingyas who
are persecuted minorities and have approached India to seek refuge in time of
need. There is also a need formulate policies and take right measures to
provide education, employment and a proper facilities to the migrants, there is
also need to take necessary steps to assure that the rights and socio-culture
identity of indigenous people is not affected.
