The CAA imbroglio

With the EU Parliament set to vote today on the joint resolution moved by five political groups against India’s Citizenship Amendment Act, the European Union timely cited that opinions of the parliament and its members did not represent the official position of EU. The joint resolution — an evolved version of five different resolutions — “deeply regrets” the adoption of CAA and calls on the Indian government to repeal the “divisive” legislation. India hailed that CAA is an internal matter and was adopted by due process and through democratic means following public debates in both Houses of Parliament. While the EU Parliament’s mandate does not affect India in a legal capacity, it is the need for the former to debate and then vote on the issue which should be noted. While India maintained that it is an internal matter, efforts to reach out to Members of the European Parliament (MEPS), with diplomats led by India’s Ambassador in Brussels meeting with the six various groups behind the resolutions as well as individual MEPS who may oppose them, show apparent apprehensions. These apprehensions are naturally regarding the stance that the European Parliament, and in turn the member nations, may take in the light of widespread acknowledgement of the divisive step that India has taken as per them. The impact of the discussion would be visible in bilaterals between European nations and India as also in the international forums. With the EU Parliament taking due consideration of the protests and violence that followed the passing of the CAA, as well as the fact that states have opposed its implementation, the situation mires India into a probable series of debates. The Centre has been largely ignorant of the nationwide protests, curbing them but not addressing them and overlooking how CAA appears to be a violation of the Indian Constitution. However, should these questions, that protestors have been asking the Central government, are hurled at India in international forums, ignorance might not be an option. More so, even deviating from the moot point — CAA violates the secular nature of Indian Constitution — and asserting that CAA has been enacted with the due procedure and that it is meant to correct historical injustices might not be feasible.