After an acrimonious debate, Rajya Sabha passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which allows refugees and illegal migrants belonging to six religions—Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christianity—from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, citizenship in India. The bill excludes the Muslim migrants from availing citizenship in the country.
The bill was passed with 125 members voting in favour of it and 105 against. The absence of a few of the MPs helped the government to secure the required numbers. Shiv Sena, which opposed the bill in the upper house, boycotted the voting.
The legislation had inflamed passions in Northeast India as they felt it could change the ethnic structure of the region. Protests were reported from several regions and even curfew and internet shut down were ordered in Assam and Tripura. The opposition alleged the bill was anti-Muslim and was against the basic spirit of the Constitution which does not discriminate on the basis of religion.
Two days after the bill was passed in Lok Sabha, it was taken up for discussion in Rajya Sabha where BJP did not have full numbers. While, the JD(U) and BJD supported the bill, BJP's former ally Shiv Sena opposed it, a day after it supported it in the lower house. Before passing the bill, the demand of the opposition parties to send the bill to the select committee of the house for further study was rejected as the government secured enough numbers.
As the bill raised concerns among the Muslims that the country-wide roll-out of National Register of Citizenship and subsequent implementation of the CAB, would be used to target them, Shah said the Muslims need not worry. “Congress is trying to scare the minorities. I assure the minorities, particularly the Muslims in the country, they should not be worried or scared. Their status is not impacted. As a home minister, I can assure this to them.”
Shah gave a detailed reply to concerns raised by the opposition MPs. The home minister said Parliament holds power to make laws which can even overrule orders of the courts. “The Parliament has power to make laws. I wonder how they can raise issues over it,” he said referring to points raised by Congress leaders like Kapil Sibal and P. Chidambaram that the bill will not stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. “Senior lawyers are trying to create a scare that this will not stand the scrutiny of courts. Our role is to make laws, we cannot stop making laws based on that..” Shah said.
Shah was his combative best when he directed his attack at the Congress. “This bill would not have been needed if there was no Partition. The law was brought in due to situation aroused after Partition,” he said.
Reacting to assertion from the opposition benches that two-nation theory was supported by Jinnah and V.D. Savarkar, Shah said Partition happened on basis of religion. “I want to ask, then why did Congress agree to such a division based on religion,” he said.
Shah even went on to find similarities between statements made by Pakistan and Congress leaders, which drew sharp reactions from the opposition benches.
Shah asserted that the government was not afraid of controversies that may arise out with bill. “Modi government has not only come to rule, but to change the country....I know there is controversy, and there will be,” Shah said.
Answering questions as to why Muslims were not included as part of the bill, Shah said, “In India, Muslims were looked after. They went on become the president, vice president, chief election commissioner, chief justice, but minorities were not treated in the same manner in neighbouring countries. So those religions have been included. I am surprised that only question being raised is why Muslims have not been included. No one is praising that we are bringing six religions.”
The home minister said, “We are talking about religious persecution. As these states have Islam as state religion, there is less chance of persecution of Muslims. If someone still wants to makes an application, there is a provision of doing so. In the last five years, Modi government has given citizenship to 566 Muslims.”
Shah said the present legislation is not violative of the Article 14.
also read
- Citizenship Act: SC's verdict upholding section 6A poses serious challenge to CAA
- SC in majority verdict upholds validity of section 6A of Citizenship Act, recognises Assam Accord
- Congress ally IUML to approach SC, EC against Centre granting citizenship under CAA
- Will not implement Uniform Civil Code, CAA and NRC in West Bengal: CM Mamata
- CAA a major poll issue for AAP in Assam: Atishi
Earlier during the debate, Congress' Anand Sharma said, “The bill that you have brought is an assault on the very foundational values of Indian Constitution. It is an assault on the Republic of India. It hurts the soul of India. It is against our Constitution. It is against our democracy. It fails the morality test. It is divisive and discriminatory. It is against the very Preamble of the Constitution of our Republic, which talks of liberty, equality and secularism.”
Former home minister and Congress MP P. Chidambaram said, “This is unconstitutional. This government is ramming through this bill in order to advance its Hindutva agenda.”
Referring to the manner in which classification was done, Chidambaram said, “How do you group three countries – Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh – and leave out the other neighbours? How do you identify only six religious groups–Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian–and leave out others like Ahmadis, Hazaras and Rohingyas? Abrahamic religions are three—Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Why have you included Christianity and left the other two? Why have you excluded Sri Lankan Hindus and Bhutan’s Christians? Sri Lanka is excluded, Hindus are included! Bhutan is excluded, Christians are included. Why only religious persecution?”
TMC's Derek O'Brien drew parallels between Nazi regime in Germany when it brought citizenship law and made Madagascar Plan to deport Jews.
Replying to O'Brien, Shah said India should not worry about such allegations as country always had robust democratic system, barring a brief period of emergency.
As Samajwadi Party's Javad Ali said government was aiming to create a Muslim-free India, the home minister said even if the opposition MP wanted a such situation, it cannot be created in the country.
Shah said triple talaq, Article 370 and CAB is not anti-Muslim as Congress' Kapil Sibal said. He said these legislations were in favour of all and empowering people.
Many opposition members, particularly from Tamil Naidu, raised the issue of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka who have not be included in this bill. Shah argued that their interests are protected.
