National Register Of Historic Places Registration Form: Fill & Download for Free

The amount of wrong information circulating on the internet is alarming.The way things are being presented to people by self declared intellectuals shows how important it is to form opinions of our own instead of borrowing it from others. I would like to state some facts about the CAA and NRC, the readers can cross check the facts and decide on their own. This might seem like a long answer since we need to start from the very beginning of the birth of two Nations so please bear with me.NRC – National Register of CitizensHistory : Post Partition, East Pakistan suffered from political turmoil & witnessed civil unrest which finally led to a civil war & separation of East Pakistan from Pakistan and a new country Bangladesh came into being consisting of all the geographical area of erstwhile East Pakistan. There occurred mass exodus of population from the war-torn regions into the Indian side and most of these refugees never returned. Excerpts from the White Paper on Foreigners' Issue published by the Home & Political Department, Government of Assam on 20 October 2012 – Chapter 1, Historical Perspective, section 1.2 reads:'Following Partition and communal riots in the subcontinent, Assam initially saw an influx of refugees and other migrants from East Pakistan. The number of such migrants other than refugees was initially reported by the State Government to be between 1,50,000 and 2,00,000 but later estimated to be around 5,00,000.'Even after the end of civil war & the formation of Bangladesh, migration continued, though illegally. The Government of India already had in it's stock of statutes, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950. This act came into effect from 1 March 1950 which mandated expulsion of illegal immigrants from the state of Assam. To identify illegal immigrants, the National Register of Citizens was prepared for the first time in Assam during the conduct of 1951 Census. It was carried out under a directive of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) by recording particulars of every single person enumerated during that Census. Practical implementation of the act was difficult & the measures taken under this act proved ineffective largely due to the vast stretch of the open border between the countries and illegal immigrants pushed out of India at one point of it could easily infiltrate again at some other unmanned point.The issue of illegal infiltration was becoming formidable problem in the state of Assam as migrants enjoyed political patronage. The Registrar General of Census in his report on 1961 Census assessed 2,20,691 infiltrators to have entered Assam.In the year 1965, the government of India took up with the government of Assam to expedite completion of the National Register of Citizens and to issue National Identity Cards on the basis of this register to Indian citizens towards the identification of illegal immigrants. But in 1966 the Central Government dropped the proposal to issue identity cards in consultation with the Government of Assam, having found the project impracticable.In a notification issued by the Government of India in the year 1976, the State government was instructed not to deport persons coming from Bangladesh to India prior to March 1971.Thus between 1948 and 1971, there were large scale migrations from Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) to Assam.Given this continuing influx of illegal migrants from Bangladesh into Assam, suddenly a group of student leaders in 1979 came out in fierce protest demanding detention, disenfranchisement and deportation of illegal immigrants from Assam. The events quickly developed into a mass movement which came to be known as Assam Agitation or Assam Movement led by All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) and lasted 6 years. Reportedly considered by various intellectuals and media forums as one of the largest mass movement in the history of the world led by students’ union, this six-year-long agitation left behind thousands of bleeding hearts, empty wombs, and bloodstained fields. The movement culminated in the signing of a landmark Memorandum of Settlement (MoS) - the Assam Accord, between the agitating parties & the Union of India on 15 August 1985, at the behest of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in New Delhi.The Accord ended the agitation but could not end the illegal migration. Further it had negotiated defect which called for 1 January 1966 to be the precise date based on which the detection illegal immigrants in Assam would take place and thus ironically allowing Indian citizenship for all persons coming to the territorial limits of the present-day state of Assam from "Specified Territory" (East Pakistan, presently Bangladesh since 1971) prior to that date. Along with came a new Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act, 1983 which described a controversial procedure to detect illegal immigrants and their expulsion from the state of Assam. Indian citizenship act, 1955 was accordingly amended almost immediately to incorporate provisions by dint of the accord. The act further specified that all persons who came to Assam between to 1 January 1966 (inclusive) and up to 24 March 1971 (midnight) shall be detected in accordance with the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964. The name of foreigners so detected would be deleted from the Electoral Rolls in force. Such persons will be required to register themselves before the Registration Officers of the respective districts in accordance with the provisions of the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939 and the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939. Foreigners who came to Assam on or after 25 March 1971 shall continue to be detected, deleted and expelled in accordance with law.ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAThe process of detecting and expelling immigrants suffered from teething problems for a considerable amount of time. In fact, the first attempt of systematically detecting foreigners by updating the National Register in Assam was through a Pilot Project which was started in 2 circles (referred to as Tehsil in some states), one in Kamrup district and another in Barpeta district in the year 2010, which had to be aborted within 4 weeks amidst a huge law and order problem involving a mob attack on the Office of the IAS Commissioner, Barpeta that resulted in police firing killing 4 persons. For a long time, since the bitter experience in the pilot project, NRC update was considered almost an impossible task by the government agencies.However, the task was again finally taken up at the behest of the Supreme Court of India’s order in the year 2013 in regards to two writ petitions filed by Assam Public Works and Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court, headed by the bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, mandated the Union Government and the State Government to complete the updation of NRC, in accordance with Citizenship Act, 1955 and Citizenship Rules, 2003, in all parts of Assam. Pursuant to the directive of the apex Court, the Registrar General of India via its notification Number S.O. 3591 E dated 6 December 2013 notified commencing of NRC updation.Since then, the Supreme Court of India has been closely monitoring the process and holding regular hearings on representations made to it by various interested parties & stakeholders.To make the process of NRC update smooth, the Supreme Court in its order dated 21 July 2015 passed the following directions:'We make it clear that complaints with regard to any obstruction in the matter of preparation/update of NRC by any person or authority may first be brought to the notice of the Court appointed Committee and the said Committee, upon due enquiry, will submit necessary report to the Registry of this Court where after the same will be brought to notice of the Bench.''We expect all authorities to act faithfully and diligently to carry out their assigned tasks to ensure smooth preparation of NRC and publication thereof within the schedule fixed by us. This is in reiteration of the mandate contained in Article 144 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary for us to emphasis that any person found to be creating any obstruction or hindrance, in any manner, in the preparation of the NRC would be subjected to such orders as this Court would pass in such eventualities.'In reference to Article 144 of the Constitution of India, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.METHODOLOGYThe mechanism adopted to update the NRC 1951 has been developed from scratch owing to the fact that there is no precedence of such a mammoth task ever undertaken in India or elsewhere that involved identification of genuine citizens and detection of illegal immigrants using technology since it involved data of over 3 crore people and over 6.6 crore documents.If any one wants to see his name in the selected list of the citizens of Assam then they have to submit a form with any ‘List A’ documents to prove his residence in the state before March 25, 1971.If anybody claims that his/ her ancestors are native residents of the Assam then he/she has to submit a form with any document mentioned in the ‘List B’.List A documents includes;Electoral Rolls upto March 25, 1971NRC of 1951Land and Tenancy RecordsCitizenship CertificatePermanent Resident CertificatePassportBank or LIC documentsPermanent Residential CertificateEducational Certificates and Court order RecordsRefugee Registration CertificateList B documents includes;Land documentsBoard or University CertificatesBirth CertificateBank/LIC/Post office recordsRation cardElectoral RollsOther legally acceptable documentsA Circle Officer or Gram Panchayat Secretary Certificate for married womenThe process of NRC update is divided into the following phases:‌Publication of Legacy Data‌Distribution & Receipt of Application Form‌Verification Process‌Publication of Part Draft NRC‌Complete Publication of Draft NRC‌Receipt and Disposal of Claims & Objections‌Publication of Final NRCHow is verification carried out?The updating process started in May 2015 and ended on 31 August 2015. A total of 3.29 crore people applied through 68.31 lakh applications. The process of verification involved house-to-house field verification, determination of authenticity of documents, family tree investigations in order to rule out bogus claims of parenthood and linkages and separate hearings for married women.NRC in data: The government has spent around 1200 cr rupees on the NRC process, 55000 government officials were involved and 64.4 million documents were examined in the whole process.Final NRC list releasedAssam final NRC list released on 31st August 2019. This list excluded 19,06,657 people while 3,11,21,004 make it to citizenship list. A total of 3,30,27,661 people had applied for it.Creation of additional Foreigners' Tribunals & Construction of Detention Camps.On May 30, 2019, the Government of India passed a Foreigners' (Tribunals) Amendment Order 2019, which allows all states & UTs within the union of India to constitute their own Foreigners' Tribunals, earlier unique to the state of Assam only, to address the question of citizenship of a person. The amendment empowers district magistrates in all states and union territories to set up Foreigners' Tribunals to detect foreigners. Following the Amendment, the provincial Government of Assam has initiated the process of establishing 400 additional Foreigners' Tribunals out of which 200 are made functional since beginning of September 2019. The Government of the state is also set to construct ten more detention camps besides six already in place in anticipation of the possible requirement to house a large number of illegal foreigners who may be declared as such by the Foreigners' Tribunals.Does exclusion from the list mean declaration of foreigner?No; those excluded from the list can apply to the foreigners tribunals which are quasi judicial bodies exists under the 1964 law. These people can appeal to these tribunals within 120 days from the release of the list.If anybody is declared foreigner at foreigners tribunals then he/she can approach to the higher courts. If somebody is declared foreigner by the courts then he/she can be arrested in the detention centre. As of July 2019; there are 1,17,164 persons have been declared foreigners out of which 1,145 are in the detention.Timeline of NRC1948: There were no restrictions on the movements of persons from India to Pakistan or vice versa even after Partition till July 19, 1948, when ‘Influx from West Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1948’ came into existence. Later, the Constitution of India formalized this as the cut-off date that entitled the Right to citizenship of certain migrants from Pakistan.1950: Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act came into force from March 1, 1950, following influx of refugees from then East Pakistan to Assam after partition.1951: The first-ever NRC of India was published in Assam based on Census Report of 1951 containing 80 lakh citizens.1955: The Citizenship Act came into force that codified rules for Indian citizenship by birth, descent and registration.1957: Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act was repealed.1960: The bill was passed in the Assam legislative assembly to make Assamese the only official language.1964: The Centre issued the Foreigners’ Tribunal Order under the Foreigners’ Act, 1964.1964-1965: Influx of refugees from East Pakistan due to disturbances in that country.1971: Fresh influx due to riot and war in East Pakistan. Bangladesh comes into existence.1979: Anti-foreigners’ movement started in Assam in 1979.1979-1985: Six-year-long Assam agitation, spearheaded by the All Assam Students' Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP) for detection, disenfranchisement and deportation of foreigners.1980: All Assam Students' Union (AASU) submitted the first memorandum demanding updating of NRC to Centre on January 18, 1980.1983: Massacre at Nellie in Central Assam which claimed the lives of over 3,000 people. Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act passed.1985: Assam Accord signed by the Centre, the state, AASU and AAGSP in the presence of then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on the midnight of August 14. It stated, among other clauses, that foreigners who came to Assam on or after March 25, 1971 shall be expelled.1990: AASU submitted modalities to update NRC to Centre as well State Government in 1990.1997: Election Commission decides to add 'D' (doubtful) against names of voters whose claim to Indian citizenship is doubtful.1999: Centre took the first formal decision to update the NRC as per the Assam Accord’s cut-off date to detect illegal foreigners during a tripartite meeting between Centre, State Government and AASU on November 17, 1999.2003: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act was introduced. Among other changes to the 1955 law, it said anyone born in India between 1950-1987 is an Indian citizen. Anyone born between 1987-2003 is a citizen provided one of the parents is Indian. Anyone born in India since 2004 is a citizen provided one of the parents is Indian and other is not an ‘illegal immigrant’ at the time.2005: Supreme Court strikes down IMDT Act as unconstitutional. Tripartite meeting among Centre, state government and AASU decides to update 1951 NRC. But no major development takes place.2006: Central government issued the Foreigners (Tribunal) Amendment Order, exempting Assam from the 1964 tribunal order.2009: Assam Public Works (APW), an NGO, files case in Supreme Court praying for deletion of foreigners's name in electoral rolls and updation of NRC.2010: Pilot project starts in Chaygaon, Barpeta to update NRC. Project successful in Chaygaon. Four killed in violence in Barpeta. Project shelved.2013: Supreme Court takes up APW petition, directs Centre, state to begin the process for updating NRC. NRC State Coordinator's office set up.2015: Updation of NRC process begins.2016: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) introduced the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill. It proposed to facilitate citizenship for non-Muslim minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh.2017: On December 31 midnight, Draft NRC published with names of 1.9 crore of total 3.29 crore applicants.2018: Another Draft NRC published, 40 lakh of 2.9 crore people excluded on July 30.2019: Publication of Additional Draft Exclusion List of 1,02,462 was released on July 26.2019: Final NRC released on August 31.CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT - 2019Citizenship Amendment Act - is an Act to speed up citizenship process for minority refugees who came into India from 3 neighbouring countries.Legislative historyThe Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 19 July 2016 as the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016. It was referred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on 12 August 2016. The Committee submitted its report on 7 January 2019 to Parliament. The Bill was taken into consideration and passed by Lok Sabha on 8 January 2019. It was pending for consideration and passing by the Rajya Sabha. Consequent to dissolution of 16th Lok Sabha, this Bill has lapsed.Subsequently after the formation of 17th Lok Sabha, the Union Cabinet cleared the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, on 4 December 2019 for introduction in the parliament.The Bill was introduced in 17th Lok Sabha by the Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah on 9 December 2019 and was passed on 10 December 2019, with 311 MPs voting in favour and 80 against the Bill.The bill was subsequently passed by the Rajya Sabha on 11 December 2019 with 125 votes in favour and 105 votes against it.Those voted in favour included BJP allies such as Janata Dal (United), AIADMK, Biju Janata Dal, TDP and YSR-Congress.After receiving assent from the President of India on 12 December 2019, the bill assumed the status of an act.The act will come into force on a date chosen by the Government of India, and will be notified as such.The first hearing by the Supreme Court of India on 60 petitions challenging the Act was on 18 December 2019. During the first hearing, the court declined to stay implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. The court has set January 22, 2020 as the next date of hearing.Who does CAA affect ?CAA affects immigrants/refugees, not Indian Citizens - whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh etc.CAA is for refugees who came into India from Pakistan/Bangladesh/Afghanistan, not any other nation.CAA is only for those refugees who came into India before Dec 31 2014, not after.CAA is for refugees who came into India based on religious persecution reasons in those 3 countries.What does CAA do ?CAA reduces the waiting time for citizenship from the usual 11 years to 5 years for Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Parsi/Christian refugeesCAA keeps waiting time at the usual 11 years for Muslim refugees.CAA does not deny citizenship to any refugee - whether they are Muslim/Hindu, whether they came for religious/economic reasons.The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 (CAA) can be broadly considered to be an immigration amnesty scheme.It does not confer citizenship upon anyone but merely removes the disability on Hindus, Jains, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Parsis from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan from acquisition of citizenship by “naturalization”, if they are illegal immigrants (those who have entered the country without valid travel documents or overstayed).They, however, still have to satisfy the Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act 1955 to acquire citizenship.Presently, there is no legal way for illegal immigrants from these countries to acquire Indian citizenship.It is the identification of the communities by name that has created some questions on whether such a law passes the muster of our “secular” Constitution.Here, we need to look into the scheme of citizenship in the Constitution.In 1947, the Constitution makers had the unenviable task of putting a square peg in a round hole.On one hand, they had to accept the cold hard fact of mass migration of Hindus from Pakistan (includes present Bangladesh), and on the other hand, ideologically, they were unwilling to accept the two-nation theory.The compromise was five articles in the Constitution that accommodated these twin concerns (Articles 5 to 10).The basic crux of these provisions was that anyone born in India and domiciled in India would be an Indian citizen (Article 5); if he has entered from the territory of Pakistan or Bangladesh, he has to register (Article 6).Under Article 7, anyone migrating to Pakistan from India will lose Indian citizenship if they have migrated to the Islamic nation.Thereafter, Article 8 extends citizenship to persons of Indian origin and Article 9 terminates Indian citizenship upon acquisition of foreign citizenship.Finally. Article 10 seals it with the mandate that the citizenship of persons having acquired the same under these provisions cannot be taken away.These provisions do not identify the communities by name but clearly creates a de-facto policy favouring the Hindu and Sikh immigrants from Pakistan over largely Muslim emigrants from India.This is not occasioned by any malice towards the Muslims, but simply an acknowledgement of the fact that the erstwhile Pakistan (Pakistan + Bangladesh) is an Islamic country (as per 1949 Objectives Resolution and later the Constitution of Bangladesh), and given the nature of politics of these countries, the return of the Hindu/Sikh migrants would never be possible.The liberals, in their desire to paint a secular Constitution, choose to ignore this policy.Post commencement of the Constitution, the power to enact a law for acquisition and termination of citizenship was left to the Parliament (Article 11).The Constitution offers no direction as to how this power is to be exercised.However, since all laws in India have to be in accordance with provision of Part-III, (fundamental rights), the liberals argue that even acquisition of citizenship has to comply with a principle of “secularism”.Why is the northeast and others protest against CAA?The opposition to the CAA has been widespread but especially vociferous in the north-eastern states. Assam and Meghalaya saw internet shutdowns and imposition of curfew. The protests took a grim turn with reports of four deaths during the crackdown by the police and armed forces on protestors.The north-eastern states for long faced large scale migration from neighbouring countries and resultant protests from indigenous residents over the strain this migration placed on the social, economic and political fabric of the region. The protests against the provisions of the CAA in these states is against legitimisation of all immigrants from any country irrespective of their faith rather than excluding only Muslims.However, The Citizenship (Amendment) Act does not apply to tribal areas of Tripura, Mizoram, Assam and Meghalaya because of being included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Also areas that fall under the Inner Limit notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, will also be outside the Act's purview. This keeps almost entire Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur and Nagaland out of the ambit of the Act.Apart from the above exceptions, the law shall be applicable across all states. The Chief Ministers of Kerala, Punjab, West Bengal, Chattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh have stated that they will not implement the act in their respective states alleging it to be against the exclusion of Muslims and thereby against the ethos of the Constitution. However, the states may not have the power to refuse implementation of the law, as it is enacted under the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.Why does CAA differentiate based on religion?CAA is designed to help minorities - based on definition. Pakistan/Bangladesh/Afghanistan are 'Islamist Republics' based on their constitution. Hence other religions are considered secondary/minority to Islam.CAA is meant to help minorities - based on population. Those 3 countries have religious minority population between 3-10%. During 1971 Pakistan-Bangladesh liberation, Hindu population was ~23% in Bangladesh. Currently it is 9%CAA is designed to help minorities - based on persecution. Minorities in those 3 countries have historically faced trauma - conversion, exodus, rape & murder.Why does CAA differentiate based on country?4 other neighbours - Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar - have a 'secular' constitution. While they may have a dominant religion (like Buddhism), and while the minority religions may be ill-treated occasionally, such persecution does not have State sanction and could be just the result of a particular government's policies.CAA does not deal with religious minorities of other nations - the goal of first iteration is to start by helping refugees from neighbouring countries.Is CAA against Muslims?Against Indian Muslims ? NO. No current Indian citizen will be asked to prove citizenship.Against Refugee Muslims ? NO. No refugee Muslim is denied citizenship, nor their waiting time is increased.For Refugee Minorities ? YES. Waiting time of citizenship is reduced.Objects of the legislationNow the objectives of the legislation are two fold, namely:(a) Protection of the de-facto refugees (de-facto because in India refugee is an administrative rather than legal category)(b) Protection of national security by regulating immigration in IndiaThese objectives have been vetted by the Supreme Court itself. The court has considered refugee influx as external aggression under Article 355 (Sarbananda Sonowal (2005) 5SCC 655).It was the Supreme Court which took the initiative on the NRC in Assam. (Assam Public Works v Union of India 2009).At the same time, it has been proactive in protecting the rights of the de-facto refugees from Bangladesh (National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996).As for the Ahmediyas and Rohingyas, nothing prevents them from seeking Indian citizenship through naturalization (if they enter with valid travel documents).In any case, since India follows the principle of non-refoulment (even without acceding to the Refugee Convention 1951), they would not be pushed back.Constitutional Aspects of CAAIs it against the Secular India ?Secularism is a Constitutional value diffused throughout Part-III. The relevant Articles could be Article 14 (Equality before law), Article 21 (right to life and liberty), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth), Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in public employment), Article 25 (freedom of conscience), Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs), Article 27 (prohibition on religion specific tax), Article 28 (protection of minority script and culture) and finally Article 30 (rights of minorities to administer educational institutions).Unfortunately, except for Articles 14 and 21, all these Articles apply to “citizens”, and thus the secularism of the Constitution seems to be a directed exclusively towards citizens and not foreigners yet to acquire citizenship.The liberal opponents are aware of this lacunae in their argument and so, their last resort is a technical reading of Article 14.Article 14 - The State shall not deny to any person equality* before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.Right to equality is a restriction on the powers of state. It defines the boundaries within which state action has to be confined. However, the restriction under Article 14 has an exception: unequal treatment to unequal persons.*equality - subject to reasonable classification.Eg: The President and common man have different powers. This is not a violation of equality because the President requires extra powers to fulfill the office's duties and to enjoy its benefits.Eg: SC/ST and other castes have different reservations. This is not a violation of equality because SC/ST require extra reservations to correct historical wrongs and to uplift.Basically, 'Equal' does not mean 'Same'.The Constitution, acknowledging that inequalities exist in society and providing equal treatment to unequal persons lead to injustice, permits a state action which is discriminatory provided that such differentiation is based on an ‘intelligible differentia’ and such differentiation has a reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the state action.The term intelligible differentia distinguishes, reasonably, between persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group (see DS Nakara & Ors v. Union of India 1983 AIR 130).Moreover, such differentiation must have a nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by the state action meaning that there must be an objective of a state action and the differentiation must be necessary to achieve that objective (Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors. 1958 AIR 538).The new legislation has to pass the twin test of intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus in order to survive the test of Article 14.It is argued that CAA is under-inclusive.This is because if the purpose of classification is “religious persecution” then it fails to bring Muslim communities like Rohingyas in Bangladesh and Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan within its ambit.This is a rhetorically impressive argument. It also allows liberals to “virtue signal” their concerns for Indian Muslims (who are paradoxically not touched by the CAA at all).However, is it legally tenable?Sovereign spaceTo begin with, the justifiability of citizenship or laws that regulate the ingress of foreigners is often treated as a ‘sovereign space’ where the courts are reluctant to intervene.Thus, in Trump v Hawaii No. 17-965, 585 U.S. (2018), the US Supreme Court upheld travel ban from several Muslim countries holding that regulation of foreigners including ingress is “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”Indian courts have generally followed a similar reasoning. In David John Hopkins vs. Union of India (1997), the Madras High Court held that the right of the Union to refuse citizenship is absolute and not fettered by equal protection under Article 14.Similarly, in Louis De Raedt vs. Union of India (1991), the Supreme Court held that a right of a foreigner in India is confined to Article 21 and he cannot seek citizenship as a matter of right.Even if the court enters into a review of the CAB 2019 on merits, the State can easily satisfy the technical test for reasonable classification.Intelligible DifferentiaThe amendment makes differentiation between two groups: one consisting of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian community and the other, Muslim.The language of the proviso makes reasonable distinction between the two groups in a particular context which is discernible from the phrase “from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan”. The amendment is restricted in terms of only three countries where Islam is the official state religion and the said communities form minority groups in those countries.The differentiation in the proviso is, thus, based on the fact that it separates the minorities from the majority of these three countries. The minority communities in these countries have fear of persecution on the basis of religion and the differentiation becomes reasonable on humanitarian grounds.To get the “intelligible” differentia, we have to go back in time to partition.The partition of Bengal and Punjab have been diametrically opposite historical experiences. • In Punjab, partition was a jhatka — mass slaughter followed by population exchange. By 1949, the relative demographics of the communities have stabilised. Articles 5 to 10 of the Constitution more or less settled the question of citizenship in the west.• In Bengal, it was a “halal” — slow destruction of the Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh over a period of 70 years. The Hindu population in Bangladesh fell from 23 per cent in 1947 to about 9 per cent in 2011. Since the early 1980s, the eastern border also saw the proliferation of Muslim migrants. This migration created justified demographic anxieties in Assam and the North East, resulting in protracted insurgencies.India has traditionally not been able to address this. In 1950, the Nehru-Liaquat Ali Treaty was entered into to ‘ensure to the minorities throughout its territory complete equality..’ which included ‘freedom of movement’.Nehru-Liaquat Ali TreatyIt failed miserably. Thereafter, India maintained a policy of granting citizenship under registration under section 5(1) of the Act.This was discontinued after the Bangladesh war through an executive order dated 29 November 1971, whereby the Government of India through its Under Secretary C.L. Goyal issued an express letter No. 26011/16/71-10 to the Chief Secretaries to all state governments and Union Territory Administrations.The order reads:'Grant of Indian citizenship to refugees from East Bengal who have crossed over to India after 25 March 1971 — instructing not to register the refugees from East Pakistan as Citizens'.This policy was solidified by the amendment of the Citizenship Act in 2004 that now requires a person not to be an “illegal immigrant” (i.e. someone who has entered India without valid papers) to be registered as citizens.Thus, a vast number of Bengali Hindus from Bangladesh live and work in India and own properties and documents but have no locus standi for citizenship.Now, the ‘liberals’ sought to bring a sense of ‘equivalence’ between the two communities by arguing that migration is largely driven by ‘climate vulnerabilities, economic opportunities, community networks etc.’While these could indeed be ancillary reasons for migration, the prosecution of the Hindus and Buddhists in Bangladesh is a well-established fact.This is acknowledged internationally, being part of the records of the United National High Commission for Refugees, Report of the US Commission on Religious Freedom and various international organisations.The Muslim immigrants, all said and done, do not suffer from religious persecution.The court can simply take judicial notice of it under section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) thereby establishing the “intelligible differentia”.The law, by taking note of the fact, has eliminated the need for every migrant to prove the fact of “persecution”.Reasonable NexusThe statement of object and reasons of the amendment states that Islam being the state religion of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, minority communities have faced persecutions there and many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter and have continued to stay in India.The amendment seeks to provide protection to such individuals as many of them have incomplete or no document and are ineligible to apply for Indian citizenship under sections 5 or 6 of the Citizenship Act.The protection is simply a relaxation provided to the persons belonging to specified groups who form minority communities in these countries and expedites the process of acquiring citizenship for them.The amendment does not prohibit persons belonging to Muslim community from applying for citizenship of India. It does not ‘freshly’ declare foreign Muslims as illegal migrants. The position of foreign Muslims remains unchanged by the amended Act and only a relaxation to foreign persons belonging to minority communities of specific three countries has been provided based on a reasonable objective.The debate surrounding the amendment also raises questions on inclusion of minorities from only three countries where Hindus are a minority. Other questions revolve around ignorance of the government to the fact that even certain groups within the Muslim community face persecution in these three countries.However, the answers to such questions fall under the sphere of policy decision and are not the subject of Article 14 of the Constitution. So far as the constitutionality of the Amendment is concerned, it, in my opinion, passes the twin test laid down in Article 14.Minorities (Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh/Parsi/Christian) and Muslims have different citizenship requirements. This is not a violation of equality because religiously persecuted minorities require faster citizenship to raise their standard of living which was denied in those 3 countries.Minorities, however, still have to satisfy the Third Schedule of the Citizenship Act 1955 to acquire citizenship.Let’s not forget that while the bill overlooks Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh it also leaves out Hindus: Tamils in Sri Lanka and Hindu Rohingyas (a minority within a minority) in Myanmar. This suggests that the Citizenship Amendment Bill is about securing human rights and not persecuting a religion.The precedent was well established by Indira Gandhi’s regime when it denied full citizenship rights to Pakistani Hindu refugees but positively discriminated in favour of refugees from Bangladesh and those cast out by Idi Amin’s Uganda in 1972.Do the minorities face discrimination in these countries?In practice, non-Muslim minorities do face discrimination and persecution.What are Pakistan's blasphemy laws?Human rights group Amnesty International has pointed to Pakistan's blasphemy laws, which it says "are vaguely formulated and arbitrarily enforced by the police and judiciary in a way which amounts to harassment and persecution of religious minorities".Pakistani Hindus who moved to India in recent years told the BBC they face social and religious discrimination, with a particular issue being the targeting of Hindu girls in Sindh province.In Bangladesh, there are various reasons for the decline in the proportion of Hindus over the years. The better-off Hindu population have had their homes and businesses targeted, sometimes in attempts to get them to leave so their land or assets can be taken over. Hindus have also been the targets of attacks by religious militants.In Pakistan, 14 year old Christian student was kidnapped and enforcedly converted her to Islam and marriage with Muslim cabby. The horrific incident of burning home of Christian family in Kasur district of Punjab is an eye opening for human right defenders on situation of Christians in Pakistan[1] .The international media reports that 629 Pakistani women were wrongfully married by Chinese men taken to China where they were kept in brothels and abused. In some cases when Chinese men took these brides to Islamabad, they were sexually attacked by many other Chinese allowed by their husbands on which these brides refused to migrate to China and returned back to their parents.The marriages of Chinese men surfaced in early 2018, when some Pastors of House Churches were approached by these alleged criminal human traffickers from China declaring themselves as Christians and expressed intentions to marry Christian girls from poor families with monetary help and a lucrative life in China.Its also reported that among 629 Pakistani women are 80% Christian and other Muslims which shows the reach of these Chinese human trafficker gangs and their support in Pakistan[2] .The Pakistani Christians witness rising abduction of Christian women and forcibly converting them to Islam , Gang rape of Christian women, murder of innocent Christians on petty issues and dispute covering under blasphemy laws, increasing unemployment of Christian youth in government and semi-government institutions and due share in resources of federation[3].The only promising action was seen, the release of blasphemy accused Christian woman Asia Bibi was facing death sentence but again she was taken in protective custody by secret service agencies of Pakistan and moved to undisclosed location from release of jail where she was not even allowed to attend Christmas services; which disappointed all who expected freedom for Asia Bibi.[4]read more :US, UK, Canada slam China, Pakistan for persecuting minorities. [5]Pakistan’s religious minorities continue to suffer [6]Religious persecution remains a silent feature of Pakistan[7]Girls from religious minorities are under constant threat of forced marriage and conversion [8]Why are Pakistan's Christians targeted?[9][10]CAA + NRC (in all states)Do Indian Muslims need to worry about CAA + NRC?No Indian citizen of any religion needs to worry either about CAA or NRC.Will people be excluded in NRC on religious grounds?No. NRC is not about religion. NRC, as and when conducted, shall not be on religious grounds.How is citizenship decided? Will it be in the hands of government?The citizenship will be decided as per The Citizenship Rules, 2009 as framed under The Citizenship Act, 1955. They are in public domain. There are five ways in which a person can become an Indian citizen:I. Citizenship by birth,II. Citizenship by descent,III. Citizenship by registration,IV. Citizenship by naturalization,V. Citizenship by incorporation of territoryWhen NRC comes, will I have to provide details of birth of parents etc. to prove my Indian citizenship?Details of your birth like date/month and year and place of birth are enough. If not available, you may have to provide such details of birth of parents, but no documents will be required to be compulsorily submitted w.r.t parents. The citizenship can be proved by submitting any documents relating to date and place of birth. The details of such admissible documents are yet to be decided. But they are likely to include voter card, passport, Aadhaar, license, insurance papers, birth certificate, school leaving certificate, land or house papers or such other documents issued by public authorities. The list of these documents is likely to be fairly long so that no Indian citizen is put to any undue harassment.When NRC comes, do I have to prove ancestry dating back before 1971?No. You don’t have to prove any ancestry by presenting any document like ID cards or birth certificates of parents/ ancestors dating back to before 1971. That was valid only for the Assam NRC and mandated by the Assam Accord and implemented on the directions of Supreme Court. NRC procedure in the rest of the country is entirely different as provided under The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.What if a person is illiterate and does not have relevant documents?In this case, authorities will allow him to bring witnesses, various other proofs/community verification etc. A due procedure will be followed. No Indian citizen will be put to undue trouble.Does NRC exclude anyone for being transgender, atheist, Adivasi, Dalit, women and landless without documents?No. NRC, as and when carried out, shall not affect any of the mentioned above.I see CAA as an Act, as an evolution of Indian citizenship jurisprudence over a period of time rather than a sudden sharp move by the Bharatiya Janata Party. The law is constitutionally sound and historically prudent but that’s said I strongly believe that including Ahmadiyyas community also under the category of the religious minority will only justify the purpose of this amendment as Ahmadiyyas are not considered as muslims in Pakistan and also faces religious persecution.See also:CAB: CPIM wanted citizenship rights for Bengali Hindus in 2012When former PM Manmohan Singh supported Indian citizenship for neighbouring minorities | India News - Times of IndiaBIBLIOGRAPHYNational Register of Citizens - WikipediaWhat is (CAA) Citizenship Amendment Bill and why it has triggered protests | India News - Times of IndiaCitizenship Amendment Act 2019: All you need to knowCitizenship Amendment Bill: A humanitarian act A Constitutional Defence Of The Citizenship Amendment BillCAB in simple wordsNational Register of Citizenship (NRC): All You need to knowFrom 1947 to 2019: NRC timeline shows milestones in Assam’s history FAQ: All you need to know about the CAA and its link with the NRC | Citizen MattersFootnotes[1] Present situation of Christian in Pakistan is worsening. By Nazir Bhatti[2] Imran Khan government protecting Chinese criminal involved in human trafficking of Christian brides. By Nazir S Bhatti[3] Pakistani Christians faced worst religious freedom issues in year 2018. By Nazir S Bhatti[4] Where is Asia Bibi? A mystery surrounds about her whereabouts. By Dr. Nazir Bhatti[5] US, UK, Canada slam China, Pakistan for persecuting minorities[6] Asia Times | Pakistan’s religious minorities continue to suffer | Opinion[7] Religious persecution remains a silent feature of Pakistan: Rights activist[8] Pakistan’s persecuted minorities[9] Why are Pakistan's Christians targeted?[10] Pakistan Christians still persecuted

Georgia has some of the most restrictive voting regulations in the nation. Mostly to suppress the black vote, closing polling stations making them far from where people live, purging folks they say have not voted, but one case showed they were not using that as a reason because one lady never missed an election yet she was purged. Even Stacy Abrams was purged she never missed a election either.Georgia modified its absentee/mail-in voting and candidate filing procedures for the November 3, 2020, general election as follows:Candidate filing procedures: The petitioning deadline for minor-party and unaffiliated candidates was extended to August 14, 2020. The petition signature requirement for independent and minor-party candidates was reduced to 70 percent of their original numbers.Voting in person was limited from 7am till 7pm. At 7pm if you were in line, you could not vote passed 7pm.Mail in ballots received after 7pm the night of the election were thrown away. Thousands of black ballots were thrown away. Remember Trump's man changing the post office to make sure votes were mostly late. There were no notary or witness requirements on ballots ever in Georgia. Georgia law allows for absentee by mail ballots to be requested up to 180 days before an election. To request an absentee ballot, voters should complete an absentee ballot application and return the absentee ballot application to their county registration office.In areas that were mostly white, there were many places to early vote, compared to mostly black areas where in some cases only one place. You can find the voting manual here: Do you have questions about the Georgia runoff?In March 2016 a federal judge invalidated Georgia's statuary signature requirement. Not in 2020.The state requires voters to register 29 days before Election Day — one of the earliest deadlines in the nation — but counties don’t always process those registrations in that month long period. In the past, that’s left tens of thousands of voters registered by the New Georgia Project without the ability to vote despite filling out a voter registration form more than a month in advance.The state’s aggressive approach to voter roll maintenance — a tactic that regularly purges voters from the books — makes it easy for eligible voters to inadvertently become disenfranchised. This month, the Black Voters Matter Fund, the Transformative Justice Coalition, and the Rainbow Push Coalition sued, alleging that nearly 200,000 people purged during routine list maintenance last year were still eligible voters. They also challenged a law that tosses voters from the rolls if they do not vote or communicate with election officials for nine years.Currently there is no excuse needed to vote by mail. The state says they will change that to suppress votes by blacks.The lawmakers also said they would unwind a consent decree struck in 2020 between the state and Democrats to standardize the signature matching policies used to verify people’s identity and eligibility. Voters of color have historically faced higher rejection rates than white voters when voting by mail.This barely touches on how whites have tried to stop people of color from voting. This year Dems finally accepted that voting by mail was safe. Whites have for years said it wasn't. That’s why Republicans are mad. They went through years teaching blacks that, so they would not vote by mail, and this year blacks voted by mail and changed everything that Republicans used to stop them from voting. In other words blacks used the whites’ laws to beat them at their own game. And now whites are mad that they were able to vote.

The Indian idea of citizenship – as embodied in the Constitution and the law – is in the throes of a profound and radical metamorphosis. The twin instruments of this transformation are the National Register of Citizens and the Citizenship Amendment Act. If the former is carving out paths to statelessness for disfavored groups, the latter is creating paths to citizenship for preferred groups. While the first is, despite the looming threat of its extension across India, presently limited to the state of Assam, the second is designed to be pan-Indian in its application.Not only do the two need to be read alongside each other, both of these in turn need to be read in the larger context of the government’s policies towards minorities, whether in the forced amelioration of Muslim women by the criminalisation of the triple talaq or the clampdown, since early August, in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. They also need to be read in the context of the acceleration of violence against minorities over the past few years, especially by vigilante lynch mobs who have been thriving on the promise of legal impunity. An adequate understanding of both the NRC and the CAA depends on an appreciation of the ecosystem for minorities constituted by these twin phenomena, emanating from the state and society respectively.On the watch of the Supreme Court and under its unrelenting pressure for the completion of the NRC within a certain time-frame, Assam has served as a laboratory for a potentially dangerous experiment. Even though the results belied the expectations, the talk of sending those excluded from the Register to detention centers has given credence to the fear that thousands of people are vulnerable to being rendered stateless and right less. Existing detention centers in Assam are already populated, and new ones are being erected on an unprecedented scale.In Assam alone, there is the ongoing construction of a large detention camp, with a capacity of 3,000 detainees, with ten others planned to fit a thousand people each. A detention center in Nelamangala, near Bangalore, is being touted as a first in south India. Meanwhile, the Global Detention Project has cataloged 10 existing detention centers in India, most of them in use since 2005 and 2006.Implications of CAAThe implications of these developments can be interpreted in multiple ways. From a legal perspective, they imply a foundational shift in the conception of the Indian citizen embodied in the Constitution of India, followed by the Citizenship Act, 1955. This is, first, a move from soil to blood as the basis of citizenship, from a jus soli or birth-based principle of citizenship in the direction of a jus sanguinis or descent-based principle, and second, a shift from a religion-neutral law to a law that differentiates based on religious identity. From the perspective of India’s social fabric, they signal an ominous fraying and unraveling of what was a daring and moderately successful experiment in pluralism and diversity.From a political perspective, they point to a possibly tectonic shift from a civic-national to an ethnic-national conception of the political community and its terms of membership. From a moral perspective, they prompt us to confront the weakness of our commitment to human rights and to the moral and legal person-hood of all human beings. From an international perspective, they remind us of, on the one hand, our longstanding aversion to signing international treaties on refugees and the reduction of statelessness and, on the other, our easy engagement in doublespeak with a valued neighbor. I will elaborate on some of these aspects to show how they are collectively refashioning the fundamentals of our collective life.In a sense, we are once again rehearsing the debates on citizenship in the Constituent Assembly. The chapter on citizenship in the Constitution was necessitated by Partition and is limited to the determination of citizenship for those extraordinary times. The debate on what became Article 7 – relating to citizenship for the large numbers of Muslims who had fled India in the midst of the Partition violence but later returned – was fraught, the contention reflecting the communally charged atmosphere of Partition. Several members of the Assembly, who cast aspersions on the loyalty and intentionality of these returning migrants, called it the “obnoxious clause”.Though the markers of religious difference were not openly displayed, they are easily spotted in the consistent use, in the Assembly, of the words refugee and migrant for distinct categories of people – Hindus fleeing Pakistan described as refugees, the returning Muslims described as migrants – subtly encoding religious identity in a shared universe of meaning. The Assembly eventually adopted what it called the more “enlightened modern civilized” and democratic conception of citizenship, as opposed to “an idea of racial citizenship” and the Citizenship Act 1955 gave a statutory basis to the idea of jus soli or citizenship by birth.Over time, chiefly triggered by the political unrest in Assam, this conception has been moving slowly but surely in the direction of a jus sanguinis or descent-based conception of citizenship. Assam has a long and complex history of in-migration, mostly from Bengal, from the 19th century onwards. It witnessed substantial in-migration from 1947 onwards, peaking in 1971, and continuing steadily thereafter. It was no secret that many of the immigrants in recent decades had acquired forms of what Kamal Sadiq has called “documentary citizenship” through “networks of complicity” and “networks of profit”.In 1985, in the wake of the gruesome Nellie massacre of 1983, the Assamese students’ organisations that had led the agitation against the enfranchisement of migrants from Bangladesh entered into the Assam Accord with the Rajiv Gandhi government, leading to an amendment in the provisions relating to naturalization in the Citizenship Act. This amendment created categories of eligibility for citizenship based on the year in which a person had migrated to India. All those who came before 1966 were declared citizens, those who came between 1966-1971 were struck off the electoral rolls and asked to wait 10 years before applying for citizenship, and those who came after 1971 were simply deemed to be illegal immigrants. Though these provisions were a response to the genuine grievances of the Assamese, they already contained the seeds of the politicization and incipient communalisation of the issue of migrants.Religion as identifierMeanwhile, the gradual dilution of the principle of jus soli and the increasing recognition of elements of jus sanguinis – dependent on religious identity – was proceeding apace. Two amendments of 2004 – one to the Citizenship Act and the other to the Rules under the Act – show how religious identity was gaining ground as the basis of legal citizenship. Both introduced religion into the language of the law, the first implicitly and the second explicitly. The amendment to the Citizenship Act covertly introduced a religion-based exception to the principle of citizenship by birth. The amendment undercut the jus soli basis of citizenship, by stating that even if born on Indian soil, a person who had one parent who was an illegal migrant at the time of her or his birth, would not be eligible for citizenship by birth. Since most of the migrants from Bangladesh, against whose arrival there was so much political ferment in Assam, were Muslims, the term “illegal migrant” signaled this religious identity.The Citizenship Rules were simultaneously amended to exclude “minority Hindus with Pakistani citizenship” from the definition of illegal immigrants. This amendment, firstly, destigmatised Hindu migrants, most of whom had come into the border states of western India from Pakistan, by dropping the label of “illegal migrants” for them, and officially describing them henceforth as “minority Hindus with Pakistan citizenship.” Secondly, it openly introduced a religious category into what was until then a religion-neutral law.In the run-up to the Assembly elections in Assam in early 2016, the Bharatiya Janata Party had made an electoral promise to “free” the state from illegal Bangladeshi migrants by evicting and deporting them. This was a dog-whistle reference to a specific religion, as it simultaneously promised to give Indian citizenship to all Bangladeshi Hindu immigrants if it won the election. This promise will be fulfilled by the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, which not only makes explicit but also legitimizes the inflection of the law on citizenship with religious difference.The Act essentially provides for fast-track citizenship by naturalization for migrants from the neighboring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who are religious minorities in those countries. It makes it possible for the preferred categories of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians to obtain Indian citizenship in six years instead of the 11 it usually takes. Muslims are conspicuous by their absence in this listing, ostensibly on the grounds that they are not minorities in these three countries and cannot, therefore, be seen as persecuted.The fact that Muslim sects like the Ahmadiyyas and Rohingyas are also persecuted in these countries does not make them eligible for similar benefits. By introducing a religion-based difference in the presently religion-neutral law on citizenship by naturalization, this amendment would in effect create two categories of potential citizens: those professing the Hindu and other “acceptable” faiths; and those professing Islam.The Assam exerciseThis was also the implicit objective of the just-concluded NRC in Assam. The first National Register of Citizens for Assam was compiled in 1951, but remained largely dormant until political considerations gave it a new lease of life. In 2005, a meeting between the Center, the Assam Government and the All Assam Students Union, chaired by the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, resolved to take steps towards updating the NRC to fulfill the requirements of the Assam Accord.In 2009, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court by an NGO called Assam Public Works asking for the updating of the NRC to be started. The Court gave a direction to this effect, and the exercise began in 2015, with the objective of recording all those who have documentary proof of being Indian, and of them or their ancestors having been in India before midnight on March 24, 1971. In a society as historically undocumented as India, and in a region that is regularly visited by natural calamities like floods, there are many people who cannot produce documents to establish their ancestry. In fact, those who are native inhabitants for generations may be undocumented even as immigrants have acquired “paper citizenship”.The result of the NRC has demonstrated the very real possibility that undocumented nationals may be unfairly deprived of their citizenship status. At the end of its first round, four million people out of the 32.9 million who had applied, were excluded. Fresh claims for inclusion were filed by 3.6 million people and at the end of this process, in August 2019, 1.9 million remain unauthenticated.Champions of the NRC have been surprised and disappointed by this outcome, as large numbers of Hindus are unexpectedly among the excluded, and the percentage of exclusion was larger in areas inhabited by indigenous people, and lower in border areas where illegal migrants have settled. Those left out include people who have served in the Indian Army or the Border Security Force for decades, the nephew of former Indian president Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, and even Syeda Anwara Taimur, the only woman chief minister Assam ever had.Ironically, a former anti-immigration activist and even a local BJP leader found themselves excluded. In some cases, children’s documents were found to be acceptable but not those of their fathers. Notwithstanding the unexpected outcome of the NRC, public pronouncements from the ruling party continue to threaten the nationwide implementation of the Register. It is of course another matter that the state capacity to ‘sort’ citizens in this manner is very doubtful.As the factual outcomes of the process contradicted the political expectations of the enthusiasts of this exercise, the political messaging has sought to assuage fears by affirming that no Hindus would be deported. They could anyhow, on the basis of their religious identity, be reinstated as citizens under the CAA. It is genuine but undocumented Indian nationals belonging to the Muslim faith who would be excluded with no recourse to the CAA, while documented and possibly illegal migrants who belong to other faiths would be included.The legal battleA legal challenge to the Citizenship Amendment Act could plausibly bring into question its constitutionality, specifically its contravention of Articles 14 and 15 of the chapter on Fundamental Rights. Article 14 guarantees 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.” This is not a right that is dependent upon such a person being an Indian citizen, it is available even to foreigners who happen to be within the territory of India.As such, differential treatment to individuals on the basis of their religious faith would appear to be in contravention of the right to equality. Article 15 prohibits the state from discriminating “against any citizen on ground only of religion, race, caste…” and the introduction of religious identity as a criterion into a matter as fundamental as citizenship is certainly questionable. Placing people in detention centers is arguably also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to life and liberty.Experts have moreover questioned the legality of the NRC on the grounds that a provision under the Rules cannot contravene the provisions of the parent Act. Authorized by the Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Card Rules, 2003, the NRC uses the cut-off date of 1971 – based on the Assam Accord – rather than the date of 1987 which is the defining criterion of citizenship by birth according to the Citizenship Act.The NRC and the CAA are manifestly conjoined in their objectives. The first paves the way to statelessness and detention centers for many poor and vulnerable people, and most unjustly for those whose genuine nationality is repudiated only on the basis of their faith. The second offers a smooth path to citizenship for groups of migrants who are deemed acceptable only on grounds of their faith. In other words, faith is set to become the exclusive criterion for determining who is an Indian citizen and who is not, for inclusion as well as for exclusion.Together, the NRC and the CAA have the potential of transforming India into a majoritarian polity with gradations of citizenship rights that undermine the constitutional principle of universal equal citizenship, with privileges of inclusion being attached to some categories of citizens while others suffer the disabilities of exclusion.Though the Citizenship Amendment Act ostensibly relates only to migrants seeking the legal status of citizenship, this is not just about migrants. The threat, rhetorical or otherwise, of a nationwide NRC shows that the fig leaf of illegal immigration is being used to bring the citizenship of all Muslim citizens into question. Migrants – beginning with those in Assam – are fast becoming a pretext to fabricate and advance a much more ambitious and nationwide project of “othering”. The multiple identities that have historically been at play in Assam make it disingenuous to present the animosity towards migrants exclusively in terms of Hindu sentiments against Muslims.When it visited Assam in May 2018, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on what was then the Citizenship Amendment Bill was petitioned by hundreds of organisations agitating against the CAB, expressing not only the secular constitutionalist objection to introducing religion-based citizenship provisions, but also in many cases the fear of both Assamese-speakers as well as indigenous tribal communities becoming minorities in their own land. The attempt to extrapolate lessons for a national-level Hindu political consolidation from the Assam situation is based on a misrecognition of identities in that state, and on a flawed singularising of its plural identity-related anxieties.Not only does the CAA exclude Muslim migrants from the provisions for fast-track citizenship, Indian Muslims who are full citizens by birth, have also been experiencing the abrogation of their constitutionally guaranteed rights of equal citizenship. Their endemic under-representation in India’s public institutions and their abysmal education and employment indicators are well-known. The unprecedented increase in incidents of vigilante violence against them over the last few years, and the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of such violence, signifies a systematic political and ideological attempt to render them second-class citizens.Shades of nationalismThe politicization of religious identity, finding articulation in and through the law, is a worrying portent for the founding vision of Indian nationalism which was emphatically civic-national in form. The march from a jus soli to a jus sanguinis conception of citizenship is also simultaneously a march from civic-nationalism to ethno-religious nationalism, from a universalist and inclusive form of nationalism to an exclusionary form that renders difference as graded hierarchy. This is nothing less than a radical re-invention of the imagination of India that informed and inspired the freedom struggle and found embodiment in the Constitution.The context of the anti-immigrant discourse that underlies the NRC, and the selective acceptance of persons “treated as illegal migrants” that underpins the CAA is important. It entails a substantive disenfranchisement of the Muslim minority, a normalization and justification of violence – both discursive and physical – against it, and a reconstruction of the Indian nation in the form of a Hindu Rashtra in which this minority lives on sufferance and must be prepared for everyday discrimination, legal and social.In comparisons between the anti-immigrant and Islamophobic rhetoric of populist politicians across the world, it is rarely acknowledged that the “other” in India is wholly, historically and organically Indian, and not a recent entrant or stranger as in Europe or the United States. It is the Sri Lankan Tamils, the Afghans and the Tibetan Buddhists who are relatively recent immigrants to India, but even before the CAA, India had no difficulty in assimilating them. In a society as plural and diverse as that encompassed by the territorial boundaries of the Indian nation, the quest to make the borders of religion and nation coincide is tantamount to opening up the scars of the Partition of 1947. This cannot be achieved without damaging the delicate balance in a society characterized by multiple heterogeneities of language, region, caste and even of religious sects.At the same time, it cannot be denied that India has never had a spectacular record of commitment to human rights, or even to the idea that all human beings are entitled to moral and legal person-hood. The conundrum before us recalls a contention, most starkly identified by Hannah Arendt in her book The Origins of Totalitarianism. The supposedly universal and inalienable rights of man, Arendt argued, could not be invoked or claimed in contexts of statelessness. In the inter-war years, there was no international body to which 10 million de facto stateless people could appeal for their human rights, because a human being who is not a member of some political community is without recourse to such rights.The loss of a polity is the loss of humanity, for only membership in a political community, ie citizenship, can give people what Arendt famously called the “right to have rights”. The deprivation of legality, of a juridical existence, is tantamount to the loss of moral person-hood. Rights are meant to be enjoyed within a community, and the calamity of the right less, said Arendt, is that since they do not belong to any community, no law exists for them, and nobody even wants to oppress them. This was why the Nazis first deprived Jews of their legal status of citizenship before conveying them to concentration camps.In Assam, following the NRC, 1,145 people have already been placed in six detention centers in Assam, living in sub-human conditions; 335 of these have spent three years in camps; 25 persons declared “foreigners” have already died in the detention camps; and an estimated 33 person have been driven to suicide by the fear of not possessing papers.Although the Supreme Court has passed orders for the improvement of the conditions in these centers, there is a genuine moral concern about the very idea of such detention centers, which is at odds with India’s constitutional values, and more generally with the idea of human rights. Stripping people of citizenship, even of the merely documentary kind, and rendering them stateless is a clear violation of the duty, placed on states by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to avoid taking actions that result in statelessness and the deprivation of citizenship.Bangladesh, meanwhile, has been persuaded at the highest inter-governmental level, that the political rhetoric of sending the “termites” and “infiltrators” back to Bangladesh is an internal matter, and that there will be no deportation. In fact, the impressive economic indicators of Bangladesh today give rise to the speculation that we could now be looking at less migration from Bangladesh to India than in the reverse direction. Already, with 1.1 million illegal Indian immigrants, Bangladesh is the fifth largest sender of remittances to India. Given the cross-border movement of people in both directions, the two countries could even consider devising a mutually acceptable arrangement based on guest-worker visas.In the meantime, as the NRC converts legitimate citizens into illegal immigrants and illegal immigrants into stateless people, both destined for the camp; as the CAA selectively legalizes illegal migrants; and as minorities are rendered second-class citizens by the insidious use of the law, India stands on the edge of a dangerous precipice where not only its constitutional values but also its moral compass are at grave risk.Source: https://scroll.in/article/947458/the-caa-and-nrc-together-will-reopen-wounds-of-partition-and-turn-india-into-a-majoritarian-state