Deciding Citizenship
With the Union Cabinet approving the Citizenship Amendment Bill, the debate has intensified. Ideally, government and opposition should agree on a bill that protects both national interests and humane values.
Now that the Union Cabinet has approved the Citizenship Amendment Bill, it is natural for the debate over it to intensify, since several opposition parties were already opposing it. It was because of this opposition that the bill could not get Parliament's approval during the Modi government's first term.
The Citizenship Amendment Bill says that only minorities from neighbouring countries, especially Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, namely Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians and Parsis, will be entitled to Indian citizenship, subject to certain conditions. The opposition's objection is: why is this concession not being given to Muslims from neighbouring countries?
The government's argument is that all three are Muslim-majority countries where it is people of other faiths, not Muslims, who are persecuted. No one can deny this fact, but it raises the question of whether the proposed rules for granting citizenship to foreigners are in keeping with India's ideals of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family) and equal respect for all religions. Those who raise this question also stress that India is a country that has embraced people from all over the world.
That is quite true, but should we ignore how crores of people who came from Bangladesh have changed the social and political climate of Assam and the other north-eastern states? Nor can we ignore that the National Register of Citizens is being opposed because only 19 lakh infiltrators could be identified in Assam. The reason for this opposition is that outsiders have created a threat to the local culture. Should this threat be brushed aside?
Does India today have the resources to grant citizenship to anyone who comes from outside? No country does this today, not even those with smaller populations and far greater means than India. It is true that when minorities in neighbouring countries are persecuted, they prefer to take refuge in India. But in the eyes of the world community we should also not appear to be a country that decides whether to shelter outsiders on the basis of their religion.
It would be better if the government and the opposition agreed on a Citizenship Amendment Bill containing a solution that protects both national interests and humane values. In doing so, they must also take care that generosity does not turn into self-destruction.
