The citizenship amendment act is the limited amendment, that is been undertaken to the legislation

For the specific reason of vesting citizenship or undertaking the process of nationalization

To persecuted minorities in three specific countries namely , Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh

There is a specific cut off date that has been identified in this particular amendment legislation

Which is the that those people who have entered India before the 31st Dec 2014 are meant to be the beneficiaries of this specific amendment

Contrary to the popular prescription it does not introduce religious criteria into the fundamentals of the citizenship act

It uses this criteria specifically in the context of the three countries which has been identified for identifying who amounts to a persecuted minority community

The framing of the entire issue as an exclusion of Muslims is a fundamentally Fauld issue

This is not about exclusion of Muslims or any community what’s so ever

The object of this particular amendment is simple, specific and limited. Which is the inclusion of those people who amount to persecuted minorities in these three countries

Point one to be noted in act is that there is no reference what’s so ever to exclusion of Muslims even in these countries,however The distinction that is sort is this

Indujaval citizenship vs recognition of a group entitled to citizenship

This particular act identify three groups and does not take the right of any indujaval Muslims from any of these three countries from applying for citizenship, Asylum or Refuge under Indian laws

Therefore this is not an act for exclusion.This is an act for inclusion, that is the primary distinction

The Media has gone on and on about the legislation as an instrumentality of exclusion, this has got nothing to do with exclusion what’s so ever

Historically these three countries have had significant Indic population coupled with Non-Muslim populations

And , there is always been a question of what is that India is supposed to do , does it owe any duties to those populations which suffered from any kind of persecutions, specifically religious persecutions in these three countries

Infact , one of the most important document is Nehru Liaquat pact of 1950 . Where both the countries have given each other an assurance that the religious minorities of the respected countries be taken care of and their rights will be protected

The premise of this pact is known as critical hostage theory, which is religious minorities in both these countries shall act as hostages to the other country for the purpose of ensuring that their religious minorities are protected

For Instance , If Muslims in India are to be protected and treated at par with other citizens, then Pakistan wanted to retain a set of Non-Muslims in Pakistan so that it is in a position of bargain for the safe and equal treatment of Muslims in India and Vice versa

As for as undivided India is concerned prior to the partition of the countries they were all part of the subcontinent, They were all part of undivided India

Therefore, India as a constitutional and civilizational obligation to the persecuted minorities and it is a fact that prior to 1971 the population of Non- Muslims in undivided Pakistan was 23%

Which fell to 3% in Pakistan and 20% in Bangladesh post the partition and subsequently the number has only dwindled

So , when the argument made that it has increased from 1.6% to 1.85% , that is the population of Hindus in Pakistan, they forget that it has fallen from 3% to 1.85%

Similarly in Bangladesh it has come down from 20 % to 10.7% if my memory serves me right

Therefore there are only three ways in which this population has vanished. One , they have run away from Pakistan or Bangladesh to some other part of the world, which includes India

Or they have been subsumed in the population loosing their Non-Muslim identity, which means that they have been converted

Three, they have been Killed , these are the only options possible to the best of my understanding

No other option explains the radical and revolutionary decline of these figures in both these countries

That takes us to question of Afghanistan

Ever since ugly Talibanization reared its head in Afghanistan, it is a fact that it is the radical Islamic regime ever known in the history of the world, perhaps according to me was the predecessor of Islamic State

And that particular regime made it a point to go after everyone who did not subscribe not just to Islam but also their version of Islam

That is one of the reason when Afgan where fleeing their countries India decided to open their doors both to Muslim as well as Non-Muslims. Question that can be asked is why does the logic apply to Ahamadias and Sihas in Pakistan

The argument cannot loose sight of historical backdrop that regardless of the sectarian violence within Pakistan each of these Muslim sects have had a specific hatred for Non-Muslims specifically for Idol worship such as Hindus

Therefore there is no point in equating Ahamadias, Sihas, Sufi’s of Pakistan with the Afgan’s fleeing from Taliban

Point no two is legitimate right India must ask is would bringing in population from any other country endanger significant portion of Indian population

Therefore Ahamadia’s , Shias or Sufi’s or anybody else who subscribe to Pakistan version of Islam, if they come to India with that particular animus they post a threat to 80% of the population at the very least

Significant Indian Muslim has problem with Bangladesh Muslim as well , because they are taking away their jobs as well

Therefore monolithic approach to this discussion is stupid and ignorant of the basic facts

The only constitutional argument that has been used in this entire debate is that of Article14

If Article 14 is to be interpreted in the manner in it actually reads before we apply for the question of citizenship , is to render a thousand different scheme which bestow special treatment, preferential treatment, different treatment to minorities unconstitutional point one

Point no two perhaps, constitutional law should not be the preserve of constitutional experts anyone and everyone can sit and interpret the constitution basically by reading its provision , I don’t think that’s how it works

Three, Article 14 uses and applies the concept of equality by identifying which group are you applying the test of equality , therefore it the question of the smaple

If there are similarly placed people are you treating them on par with each other is test of equality , not treating un equals equally

The motivation behind the persecution of Ahamadias or Shihas in Pakistan is not the motivation of persecution of Non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan or Afganistan one has sectarian basis and other religious basis

This amounts to reasonable classification for the purposes of Article 14 .because , it does not suffer from over inclusion, under inclusion. It specifically address to target audience which has been selected on the basis of Identifying metrics

Which is to say , who amounts to religious minority in Pakistan and is that particular minority being persecuted on religious basis

That’s take you to the question , What about Jews in Pakistan? But , are there any Jews left in Pakistan?

Hence the Argument does not hold water. Assuming for the moment this amendment does not include the Christian minorities of Pakistan then perhaps the question could have been raised

Even then one thing people have not taken note of , that is people have not read the amendment act

Amendment act specifically says under sec6(b) Even in granting citizenship to persecuted minorities of these countries in India , Enhanced obligation can be imposed on them in the grant of the citizenship even after they become citizens

Some citizens who are refugee turned citizens cannot be treated at par with other citizens, because they have undergone the process of naturalization

What is the guarantee person coming to India is truly a Hindu , Sikh, Jain , Buddhist , Christian? How do we know that for a fact ?

Therefore , if they have lied in seeking enter to India and that lie is detected in later point of time , then India can prosecute them

Until they have settled in this country , Until authorities have had the opportunity to monitor the activities in this country they shall continue to be in the radar of the government. There fore these enhanced obligation are enforced.

Nobody has highlighted this fact , If Article 14 logic has to be applied there cannot be enhanced obligation applied on them

Article 14 cannot be the ground for the challenge to this legislation

Question we have to ask is , What is the legal position that applied to the grant of citizenship under the Indian constitution , which are the legislation one is supposed to look at

Artcle 14 is not the provision that deals with the citizenship, it falls under part three. Part two of the constitution Article five to eleven are the specific provision that deals with citizenship

Question of citizenship is not addressed entirely under constitution. Article 11 says grant of citizenship shall be subject to any further law the parliament may pass in this particular regard

Hence , states have no other option but to follow rule or law which is laid down by the parliament in this regard

Law in question becomes the Citizenship act , Article 5 – 11 must be read along with citizenship act of 1955 coupled with foreigners act of 1946

Article 14 applies to non-citizens as well. In interpreting article 14 to non -citizens you have to take into account the other specific provisions that deal with the question of citizenship

General principle in law is that if there is a general provision or a specific provision, that provision which has the closest proximal relationship with the issue must be looked at

Therefore the provisions would be Article 5-11 read along with citizenship act 1955 and foreigners act 1946 and not the Article 14

When the constitution has given the power parliament to pass the legislation it also means that so long the parliament passes the legislation which does not militate the spirit of Article 5-11 that particular amendment under the citizenship act must be taken constitutional under citizenship act

If government undertake nationwide NRC, Muslims stands excluded from the exercise because of the product of that exercise and Hindus also stands excluded apparently , Citizenship amendment bill will protect only Hindus not Muslims

This as no basis, as CAA 2019 is not broad enough to encompass all those Hindus who may or may not be excluded by the nation wide NRC

Therefore , Linking NRC and CAB has no basis

Those media agencies who have indulged in fear mongering , having complete knowledge of this structure should be taken to task at the very least

Situation that is facing us today and the riot on the street we are seeing is not the consequence of the legislation, but because of the fear mongering that is being indulged

Media had an obligation to inform people, but they have indulged in rumour mongering