A biased approach

The new Citizenship Bill makes illegal migrants eligible for citizenship on the basis of religion. This is not desirable

In July, the Centre introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, in Lok Sabha. The Bill 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. But last week, under pressure from parliamentarians who objected to the government’s move to grant citizenship to migrants from these nations on religious grounds, the Centre decided to add the nomenclature “discriminated” to the Bill. It, however, has no provision for Muslim sects like Shias and Ahmediyas who face persecution in Sunni-dominated Pakistan. The Bill has been referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee of both the Houses under the chairmanship of Satyapal Singh for examination and presenting a report to Parliament.

The public suggestions sought on the Bill by the House panel have already reignited, as expected, the debate on ‘foreigners’ in Assam, a state where immigration from Bangladesh has had a strong impact on local politics and was the main plank from where the BJP rode to power in the state. On Thursday, All Assam Students’ Union got 28 ethnic groups and nine ethnic literary bodies to oppose the controversial Bill. The Union feels that is that the Bill, if passed, would open floodgates for more migration to Assam and threaten the existence of the locals. Outside Assam, parties like the CPI(M), the Trinamool Congress and the Biju Janata Dal too have opposed the Bill.

According to the PRS legislative, the Bill makes illegal migrants eligible for citizenship on the basis of religion and this violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to equality. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill also fails to meet the basic tenets of international refugee law. While it is true that India is not a signatory to the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention, even then the country cannot defy certain customary tenets of international law on refugees.