The RTI filed with the government had request sought details about the number of applications received through the indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in portal, the number of people granted citizenship under the CAA, and the number of pending applications. However, the MHA stated that no such data was being maintained, citing the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, which do not require records to be kept of citizenship applications. Similarly, in response to an RTI filed by Maharashtra resident Ajay Bose on April 15, 2024. The MHA reiterated that there was no obligation to maintain such records, and as per the RTI Act, the CPIO is not authorized to create new information, treating the requested data as unavailable.

The MHA notified the CAA rules on March 11, 2024, enabling the implementation of the Act just before the 2024 general elections. The CAA, passed by Parliament on December 11, 2019, provides a pathway for undocumented migrants from six non-Muslim communities—Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians—who came from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan before December 31, 2014, to apply for Indian citizenship. The Act also reduces the residency requirement for citizenship from 11 years to five years for these particular communities, leaving out certain other communities such as Muslims.

It is essential to highlight here that while the total number of beneficiaries under the CAA remains uncertain, Union Home Minister Amit Shah stated during a Rajya Sabha debate on December 11, 2019, that “lakhs and crores” of people would benefit. However, the Director of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) presented a more conservative figure, testifying before a parliamentary committee that around 31,000 individuals would be the immediate beneficiaries. According to a parliamentary report tabled on January 7, 2019, 31,313 individuals from minority communities had been issued long-term visas based on their claims of religious persecution in their home countries. These include 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists, and 2 Parsis, who were expected to be immediate beneficiaries of the CAA.

On May 15, 2024, a press release by the MHA provided that the first set of citizenship certificates under the CAA was issued to 14 people. Additionally, the MHA had also specified that many other applicants are being given digitally signed certificates through email. As per The Hindu, more than 300 people who applied under the CAA have been granted citizenship.

Related:

Kin of incarcerated anti-CAA activists question Selective use of ‘Bail is the Rule’ principle

First set of citizenship certificates issued to over 300 under CAA: MHA

Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it

BJP’s Tathagata Roy calls for CAA procedures to conduct genitalia check to confirm religion

The post MHA says data on CAA citizenship applicants not maintained, cites lack of record -keeping provisions to RTI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Roy was originally from Netaji Nagar in Kolkata, but he had gone to his maternal grandparents’ residence for a visit and was staying there before the  incident unfolded. According to police reports, Debashish’s family found him hanging on the night of March 20 and rushed him to a nearby hospital, where he was pronounced dead upon arrival.

Debashish’s father, Tapan Sengupta, has alleged that his son often expressed fears about the implications of the CAA and how he would prove his citizenship if the need arose. As per a report by the Indian Express, Tapan Sengupta described the situation in the police complaint, “…Since the announcement of the notification of CAA, my son had been suffering from mental trauma and agony and was also in acute fear psychosis for not having all the required documents as prescribed in the said notification…”

According to the Deccan Chronicle, he has urged the police to prevent such incidents, and termed the CAA as a ‘draconian Act.’

According to the New Indian Express, Debashish’s relatives have claimed that he had been experiencing panic attacks ever since the announcement of the implementation of the CAA. Furthermore, he has been particularly worried about his father who is bedridden and had migrated from Bangladesh but lacks proper documentation of his migration.

In response to the situation, the BJP has slammed the TMC in turn for creating fear in the minds of citizens. A delegation from the Trinamool Congress (TMC), led by state minister Shashi Panja visited Debashish’s family the following day. Similarly, Srijan Bhattacharya, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) candidate for the Jadavpur constituency also offered his condolences and criticised both the TMC and the BJP for politicising the CAA issue, according to Indian Express.

In 2019, chief minister of West Bengal, Mamata Bannerjee had claimed that over 11 people had committed suicide in fear of being sent to detention camps.

Similarly, Assam Rajya Sabha MP Sushmita Dev has slammed the BJP for bringing the law, saying what happened in Assam is now happening in West Bengal, “In Assam, during the NRC rollout, many took their lives, uncertain of their citizenship. Now, Bengal faces the same tragic reality after the CAA notification.” Assam has seen the implementation of the National Registry of Citizens process. The process has seen over 19 lakh people declared excluded from the list. Several people in the state have committed suicide due to the fear of being sent to detention camps. As the government recently notified rules for th CAA, Assam has been up in protests. Citizens for Justice and Peace had reported in 2019 of a 70 year Hindu man who had been forced to kill himself in Assam after he was declared stateless. iN 2019, CJP had provided a list of 51 names people understood to have died by suicide in Assam  after Assam’s first updated draft of NRC was released in 2018.

Related:

CAA: An attempt to legitimise expansionist nationalism

Selective & discriminatory, CAA notification likely to be followed by NPR-NRC

Government notifies CAA regulations, opposition decries it as a means to polarise voters

Assam: ‘No Aadhaar, No Citizenship, So No Vote to BJP’, said a Citizens Convention

Gauhati University is under complete lockdown, as protests against the CAA implementation spread across Assam, fears of the 2019 repression and loss of life…

The post Kolkata man commits suicide, family claims CAA rules led him to it appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, the Indian government made it clear that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) also aims to further the concept of United India, or Akhand Bharat (see interview of Amit Shah to ANI on March 14, 2024, also available on the NDTV website). However, critics see the concept of Akhand Bharat as an attempt to build a theocratic state based on Hindutva ideology, which lacks nuance and could be detrimental to South Asia’s regional stability as well as international peace. Any call for Akhand Bharat would give rise to India’s ambitions for expansion, endangering the peace and security of the area. This demand ignores the goals and sovereignty of surrounding countries, which fuels tensions on the geopolitical, ethnic, and religious fronts, particularly in South Asia. It is critical to comprehend the larger implications of this law and the disastrous situation it may create if not rolled back. While the CAA may seem like a well-intentioned legislation aimed at giving expedited citizenship to persecuted minorities from neighbouring countries, a closer examination reveals a sectarian law that ignores international obligations and goes against India’s constitutional ethos.

Why CAA unconstitutional, illegal and unethical

In 2019, the Indian Parliament passed the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a law that has stirred controversy and division within the country. The CAA deviates from the fundamental principles of the Indian Constitution, as it is discriminatory towards Muslims, who form a minority group in India. The law intends to provide citizenship rights based solely on religion to religious minorities from neighbouring nations, which goes against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and is fundamentally unfeasible. The Citizenship Act of 1955 outlines five methods to obtain Indian citizenship, such as birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and the incorporation of a region into India. However, the CAA contradicts these methods and instead, bases citizenship on one’s religion. The “reasonable classification” defence taken by the government is not tenable under the eyes of the law. Rather it is not “reasonable classification” but “class legislation” hence fundamentally wrong and unconstitutional. Moreover, the CAA also hit the Preamble of the Indian Constitution which declared that India is a secular, democratic republic.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) flagrantly contravenes the principles of plural and heterogeneous society, equality, and justice enshrined in the Constitution of India. By introducing the concept of citizenship based solely on religious identity, the CAA discriminates against those who do not belong to the specified religious minorities. This not only violates the fundamental tenet of secularism, which is integral to the Constitution, but also undermines a host of other fundamental rights, such as the right to equal treatment under the law (Article 14), neutrality of the State with respect to religion (Articles 15 and 16), freedom of religion (Articles 25, 26, 27, and 28), and enhanced protection to minorities (Articles 29 and 30). The CAA is therefore ultra vires and must be challenged as a gross violation of the Constitution and the basic feature of secularism.

It’s worth noting that the standard period of eleven years for foreign nationals who are lawfully residing in the country cannot be altered to six years for a particular group of people as specified by the CAA. Doing so violates Article 14 of the Constitution, as it is both arbitrary and discriminatory. Additionally, the selection of the cut-off date is arbitrary and runs contrary to the Constitutional principle of equity and natural justice as outlined in the CAA rules. While the Parliament has the authority to designate December 31, 2014, as the expiry date for the classification of certain immigrants as citizens, such a decision must be logical and consistent with the Act’s stated objective. The CAA rules specifically zeroed on the deadline of 31 December 2014, and citizenship benefits will be given only to those who entered India as illegal immigrants before the above deadline. Shockingly, there is no evidence to suggest that the migration that occurred before December 31st, 2014, was solely due to religious persecution. Therefore, this decision must be reconsidered and aligned with the principles of fairness and equality that are enshrined in our Constitution. It is unclear why the deadline for migration was set for December 31st, 2014, and what will happen to those who migrated after that date. Furthermore, it begs the question as to why the CAA is not providing benefits to those who have migrated illegally after the stipulated deadline.

The current form of CAA and the latest rules rolled out present inconsistencies and inherent complexities of this contentious legislation. Given that persecution of minorities is an ongoing issue, why was a deadline of December 31, 2014 put in place? It appears that the CAA is being used to send a clear message that Muslims will not be included in this pathway. It is incorrect to claim that there are no persecuted Muslim groups in the surrounding area. The Act effectively creates a religious-based distinction in how migrants, persecuted minorities, and refugees are treated. Its ultimate goal seems to be the transformation of Indian citizenship and the reinforcement of the notion that Muslims are not a natural part of India.

CAA-basically a sectarian law

The CAA indeed introduces amendments to the Citizenship Act of 1955, ostensibly to provide a pathway to Indian citizenship for undocumented immigrants from neighbouring countries who belong to specific religious communities. Firstly, the Act’s selective inclusion of certain religious groups while excluding others has been a focal point of criticism. By offering a route to citizenship exclusively to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians, the Act conspicuously omits Muslims. This exclusionary approach has elicited allegations of religious discrimination, fundamentally challenging the secular character of India as enshrined in its Constitution. Critics argue that such preferential treatment based on religion violates the principle of equality before the law and undermines the foundational ethos of India as a secular, pluralistic democracy.

The emphasis on religious identity as a criterion for acquiring citizenship under the Act raises concerns about the state’s role in determining citizenship. Citizenship has traditionally been based on factors such as birth, descent, or naturalisation, rather than religious affiliation. The Act’s introduction of religion as a defining factor sets a precedent that could potentially politicize and communalize the citizenship process, thus altering the secular fabric of the nation. In addition, the Act’s geographical scope, which focuses solely on migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, adds another layer of complexity. Critics argue that by singling out these countries, the Act implicitly targets Muslims, who are the majority population in Bangladesh and Pakistan. This geopolitical dimension reinforces the perception of religious bias inherent in the Act’s provisions. Moreover, the Act excludes the religious minorities of Bhutan, Sri Lanka, China, and Myanmar, and there is no clarity as to why this is the case.

The CAA’s proponents contend that the primary aim of this legislation was to alleviate the suffering of religious minorities that are persecuted in bordering Islamic nations-Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. They argue that specific laws are needed to protect Christians, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, and Buddhists from systematic discrimination and persecution in these countries. Constitutional experts contend that the CAA’s limited focus on religious persecution ignores other types of oppression people experience because of their gender, caste, political convictions, or linguistic identity. This selective approach weakens the humanitarian aim of the Act by perpetuating a hierarchy of suffering and undermining the universality of human rights. Further, the CAA rules explained the type of religious persecution in Pakistan and Bangladesh but nothing mentioned about what kind of persecution is being orchestrated in Afghanistan.

The CAA’s enactment ignited widespread protests across India, with demonstrators decrying it as unconstitutional and divisive. The issue of religious discrimination has galvanized various segments of society, including civil society groups, opposition parties, and religious minorities, who have vociferously opposed the Act on moral, legal, and ethical grounds. The current structure of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 represents a contentious departure from India’s secular ethos, introducing religious identity as a criterion for citizenship while excluding Muslims. The Act’s selective inclusion of certain religious groups raises concerns of discrimination and communal polarization, challenging the foundational principles of equality and secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The ensuing debates underscore the imperative of upholding India’s secular fabric while addressing legitimate concerns regarding persecution and the protection of vulnerable communities. 

CAA is a gross violation of international law

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019, through its selective treatment of immigrants based on religion, indeed represents a flagrant violation of various international treaties and conventions to which India is a signatory party. The Act’s provisions directly contravene fundamental principles enshrined in key international instruments, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1966, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) 1965, the UN Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948.The ICCPR, a cornerstone of international human rights law, unequivocally prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including religion. Article 2 of the ICCPR mandates that all individuals are entitled to the rights and freedoms set forth in the Covenant without discrimination of any kind, including on the basis of religion. By granting preferential treatment to immigrants belonging to specific religious groups while excluding others, the CAA blatantly violates this principle of non-discrimination, thereby undermining India’s obligations under the ICCPR.

Similarly, the ICERD seeks to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination and advocates for equal treatment before the law, irrespective of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. By delineating citizenship eligibility based on religious identity, the CAA perpetuates a form of discrimination that runs counter to the objectives of the ICERD. The Act’s exclusion of Muslims from its purview not only exacerbates religious tensions but also reinforces a hierarchy of belonging, thereby undermining the spirit of equality and non-discrimination espoused by the ICERD.

Furthermore, the UN Convention against Torture prohibits the expulsion, return, or extradition of individuals to countries where they may face torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. While the CAA ostensibly aims to provide refuge to persecuted minorities, its exclusive focus on religious identity disregards the broader spectrum of persecution faced by individuals based on political beliefs, caste, gender, or linguistic identity. This selective approach not only undermines the universality of human rights but also raises concerns about the protection of vulnerable populations under the Convention against Torture.

The UDHR, a foundational document in the field of human rights, unequivocally asserts the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Article 2 of the UDHR proclaims that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms outlined in the Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. By privileging certain religious groups over others, the CAA violates the spirit of this universal declaration and undermines the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined therein. The current form of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 can be seen as a violation of international law, specifically the principles of key human rights treaties and conventions that India has signed. By discriminating against immigrants based on their religion, the Act undermines the basic principles of equality, non-discrimination, and international human rights law. At this point, the international community may have an opportunity to raise India’s case at the Security Council and UNGA to ensure accountability for its obligations under these treaties. They can also condemn any legislative measures that perpetuate discrimination and inequality.

CAA and ideology of expansionist nationalism

The Union Home Minister recently declared that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) aims to create a United India, also known as Akhand Bharat.[1] However, the idea of Akhand Bharat is a controversial and dangerous concept as it promotes expansionist nationalism. This ideology opposes liberal nationalism, secular politics, and democratic values, as well as inclusion, diversity, and social progress. Expansionist nationalism is characterized by chauvinistic mind-sets and jingoistic language that often leads political leaders to identify scapegoats to gain political advantage. If the Union Minister for Home Affairs endorses such statements, it implies that the Indian state has disregarded established principles of international law, along with numerous international treaties and conventions.

Political scientists and jurists have referred to this draconian ideology as a vital stage in Indian politics, one that is moving the country from a modern nation-state to a chauvinistic state. No sane individual can support the idea of establishing a state that is solely for a specific race or religion, or support expansionist ideology hidden under the cover of nationalism or ultra-nationalism. According to recognised international legal principles, any demand for Akhand Bharat amounts to an act of war since it disrupts the other nation’s sovereignty, integrity, and regional territory. There could be dire repercussions for anyone trying to operationalize this expansionist nationalism in any way, whether overt or covert. Such a provocation through an inflammatory statement must be avoided when India has already been facing global isolation on various fronts. Further, such an outburst from the leading political personality may prove costly for India’s international image as a peaceful nation that respects international law and believes in the ethos of the United Nations.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has been criticized for being an attempt to establish India as a Hindu theocratic state and to promote the expansionist agenda of the current government in New Delhi. This move could lead to escalated tensions between India and its neighbouring countries, as it reflects an expansionist ideology that poses a threat to the stability and peace of the South Asian region. The concept of Akhand Bharat, which refers to the idea of a united India, has historical roots in ancient empires and territorial expansionism. However, under the current BJP government in New Delhi, it has been revived with nationalistic fervour. The proponents of this ideology, influenced by the Hindu nationalist ideologies of Golwalkar, Hedegewar, and Savarkar, seek to restore perceived lost territories, regardless of the diverse identities and sovereign aspirations of neighbouring nations. Such rhetoric is baseless and unrealistic in the modern global political scenario.

In light of the current state of world affairs, the idea of Akhand Bharat is absurd and incompatible with the established norms of international law. This phrase refers to India’s purported expansionist goals, which are masked by claims of historical unity and cultural or religious affinity. Many nations in the region view the idea of annexing adjacent territory in order to create a single, unified Indian state as a clear breach of the concepts of territorial integrity and their sovereignty. This is nothing more than unjustified meddling in the foreign nation’s domestic affairs. This expansionist agenda is evocative of colonial goals and seriously jeopardises the autonomy and sovereignty of India’s neighbours, inciting unrest and instability in the area. The aim of Akhand Bharat has intensified regional rivalries and sparked new territorial issues. This has increased the likelihood of armed conflict and militarization. India’s expansionist goal is viewed with mistrust and trepidation by its neighbours, who worry that it may result in the loss of their sovereignty. A major threat to global peace and stability in South Asia is posed by the pursuit of Akhand Bharat, which exacerbates already-existing tensions and ignites geopolitical rivalries. The international community needs to act appropriately to prevent the issue from getting worse because it is quite concerning.

Advocating the concept of Akhand Bharat, or United India, may potentially harm India’s diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries and the international community. This approach undermines mutual trust and cooperation, hampering diplomatic efforts to resolve longstanding disputes through dialogue and diplomacy. India’s isolationist stance poses a risk of marginalization in regional forums and global alliances, reducing its soft power and influence on the world stage. This fallout may significantly impact India’s economic and strategic interests in the Middle East and South Asia. Therefore, the demand for United India or Akhand Bharat highlights India’s expansionist ambitions, posing a threat to regional stability and international peace in South Asia. This approach disregards the sovereignty and aspirations of neighbouring nations, perpetuating ethnic, religious, and geopolitical tensions. Rather than pursuing expansionist agendas, India should prioritize dialogue, cooperation, and respect for the principles of sovereignty and self-determination to foster genuine peace and prosperity in the region.

(The author is assistant professor of law, University of Delhi)

Views and opinions expressed in this article is solely that of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views or position of SabrangIndia and this site. 

[1] https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/amit-shah-citizenship-amendment-act-caa-why-parsis-christians-caa-eligible-but-not-muslims-amit-shah-explains-5235705#pfrom=home-ndtv_topscroll

The post CAA: An attempt to legitimise expansionist nationalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will be notifying today, the Rules under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA-2019). These rules, called the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 will enable the persons eligible under CAA-2019 to apply for grant of Indian citizenship. (1/2)

— Spokesperson, Ministry of Home Affairs (@PIBHomeAffairs) March 11, 2024

Designed to speed the citizenship process for non-Muslim migrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, the CAA fast-tracks the process of granting Indian citizenship specifically to people belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi, and Christian communities. This process is granted to those who migrated and entered India prior to 2014. The Act has finally been notified after encountering numerous delays and criticism from opposition parties as well as widespread protests, all over the country in 2019 and 2020. It has also seen strong opposition in Assam.

The applications will be submitted in a completely online mode for which a web portal has been provided. (2/2)@HMOIndia @PIB_India @DDNewslive @airnewsalerts

— Spokesperson, Ministry of Home Affairs (@PIBHomeAffairs) March 11, 2024

According to an ANI report, the Home Ministry has stated that the process can be done completely online and eligible people can now submit their applications under the CAA. Officials have also clarified that no additional documentation would be required from applicants.

After the notification from the Home Ministry arrived, opposition politicians from across the country spoke out against the act, calling the government out. Trinamool Congress leader and chief minister of West Bengal, Mamata Bannerjee was among the first opposition leaders to criticise and decry the news. She has stated that the government will be against discrimination, as per a report by NDTV, “If there is any discrimination, we won’t accept it. Be it religion, caste, or linguistics. They won’t be able to give citizenship to anyone in two days. This is just a lollipop and a show-off. After multiple extensions in four years, its implementation two to three days before the election announcement shows that it is being done for political reasons.”

DMK leader and chief minister of Tamil Nadu, MK Stalin has also criticised the move, and took to X to state, “Union BJP Government’s divisive agenda has weaponised the Citizenship Act, turning it from a beacon of humanity to a tool of discrimination based on religion and race through the enactment of CAA. By betraying Muslims and Sri Lankan Tamils, they sowed seeds of division. Despite staunch opposition from democratic forces like DMK, the CAA was passed with the support of BJP’s stooge ADMK. Fearing backlash from the people, the BJP kept the act in cold storage.”

Senior Congress leader and Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh called the move motivated by election strategy on X as well, “After seeking nine extensions for the notification of the rules, the timing right before the elections is evidently designed to polarise the elections, especially in West Bengal and Assam.”

The Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) has reportedly also filed a petition in the Supreme Court urging for an urgent stay on the CAA. According to the Deccan Herald, IUML leader P K Kunhalikutty stated that they will take the matter to court and argued that it was illegal to link citizenship with religion.

Meanwhile, news has arrived that Delhi Police and Paramilitary forces have been deployed across Delhi, especially in Muslim concentrated areas such as Seelampur, Shaheen Bagh and north east Delhi after the news of the enforcement of rules for the CAA arrived. North East DCP Joy Tirkey stated yesterday, “Arrangements have been put in place in the North East district. Drawing from our unpleasant experience in 2020, which led to significant losses, we have taken proactive measures. The rules are set to be notified today, and the Police Headquarters has provided timely alerts.” The police have also stated they are monitoring social media for any such inflammatory posts.

DCP Tirkey further disclosed that a meeting of the Aman Committee had been convened, where the police engaged with members of both communities. The DCP also told the media as per Mint news, “We have tagged the potential troublemakers and some known criminals. We are in touch with our beat constables and keeping an eye on social media too. We are doing a flag march for two days and will have an extensive flag march from Tuesday. Special care will be taken in sensitive areas through drones.”

Similarly, Assam which saw a strong movement against the CAA as well also saw preventive measures taken by police where about 16 opposition leaders were given a legal notice by the Assam police to retract their statements calling for a ‘sabartmak harta’, as per the Indian Express.

 Related:

Anti-CAA protest: Delhi High Court quashes trial court’s order taking cognizance of FIR against Shabnam Hashmi for holding banner

Union Home Ministry seeks further six months to frame CAA rules, has implementation however begun?

‘Slip of Tongue,’ now says BJP MP who had promised CAA in 7 Days

CAA rules to be framed by March 2024, says Union Minister

Identifying fake Aadhaar, a plot to bring in CAA-NRC?

The post Government notifies CAA regulations, opposition decries it as a means to polarise voters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Thakur is, however, not the only Bengal BJP MP who has brought up the CAA – first introduced in 2019 to countrywide protests but since kept dormant by the Narendra Modi government – recently. Nisith Pramanik also mentioned that the law would be implemented soon.

The CAA offers an accelerated-track path to citizenship for non-Muslim religious minorities (Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists, and Christians) from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who entered India before December 31, 2014. This amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955 was passed in the midst pf nationwide protests and controversy in December 2019.

Now, Thakur has clarified that he meant that the rules for the Act would be “framed within seven days.”

The All India Matua Mahasangha chief was reportedly pulled up by the BJP high command for claiming on January 28 that the CAA would be implemented in seven days, “not only in Bengal but across the country.” Thakur was speaking in Kulpi in south Bengal then.

Clearly the BJP is caught between two rival support bases when it comes to the CAA – one which is the Rajbanshi community which is strongly opposed to it and the other which is the Matua community which wants it. Rajbanshis also present in next door Assam have been victims of being rendered citizenship-less over the past five years.

The Telegraph report quoted Thakur as having said last Saturday, February 3, that he “actually wanted to say that the process of framing the citizenship rules would be completed within a week.”

“But by a slip of the tongue, I said the CAA would be implemented within a week, I didn’t mean it,” Thakur added.

Related:

CAA rules to be framed by March 2024, says Union Minister

The post ‘Slip of Tongue,’ now says BJP MP who had promised CAA in 7 Days appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This appears to be a design to whip up social tensions around the controversial 2019 amendment to the citizenship law that has little to do with Indian citizens and more to do with discriminatory citizenship (allowing non-Muslims from neighbouring countries to get fast-tracked citizenship).

“You will get the full rights of citizenship. In the absence of proper documents, no action can be initiated against you. This we have included in the Act,” the Minister told the gathering.  As per his latest information, the Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation in the Lok Sabha had fixed time till January 9, 2024 while the committee in the Rajya Sabha had fixed a time of March 30, 2024 for framing the CAA rules.

The union minister’s remarks assume significance ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. The delay of framing CAA rules had irked a section of Matuas, including even the MLAs from the community representing the BJP. After the 2019 polls, a number of BJP leaders have been trying to allay the fears of Matuas regarding delay in the implementation of the CAA. Earlier this year, the Home Ministry was granted an extension for the seventh time to frame the rules for the CAA.

“We are hopeful that the rules of the CAA will be framed by then. In case there are issues, some more time may be required. The CAA has been implemented in the country. It is the promise and commitment of the Government of India to provide [you] citizenship,” Mr. Mishra said. He was joined by Minister of State for Shipping and Bongaon BJP MP Santanu Thakur at the event.

Thakur, a descendent of the founders of Matua sect, had won the 2019 Lok Sabha polls from Bongaon on the promise of providing citizenship to the members of the community. Matuas, a community comprising Hindu Namasudras, many of whom have migrated from Bangladesh (East Pakistan earlier), will be the deciding factor in large parts of south Bengal during the coming Lok Sabha polls and the issue of rules of the CAA remains crucial to their support.

The Trinamool Congress leadership, including Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, has been claiming that the CAA was a farce as everyone residing in the State was a citizen.

Related:

Union Home Ministry seeks further six months to frame CAA rules, has implementation however begun?

3 Years Later, ‘Historic’ Anti-CAA Protest Still Resonates With Shaheen Bagh’s Women

CAA discriminatory against Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka: DMK

The post CAA rules to be framed by March 2024, says Union Minister appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Home Ministry has sought an extension of time for framing the rules of the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which was passed by the Parliament in 2019. CAA came into force on January 10, 2020.

During the ongoing monsoon session of the Parliament, a question was posed to Nityanand Rai, the Minister of State (Home Affairs), whether the Government is aware of missing the deadline to frame and notify CAA rules.

To this, Rai’s written answer read, “The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) has been notified on 12.12.2019 and has come into force w.e.f. 10.01.2020. The Committees on Subordinate Legislation, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have been requested to grant further extension of time upto 09.01.2022 to frame the rules under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.”

On February 9, 2021, Rai was faced with similar questions about CAA. In a written reply, he had stated that the Committees on Subordinate Legislation, of both houses had been granted extension of time to frame the rules. The Lok Sabha Committee had time until April 9, 2021 and the Rajya Sabha committee had been given time until July 9, 2021. This is reportedly the fifth extension sought by the Centre.

According to the Parliamentary Procedure Manual, Rule 11.3.1 states that Statutory rules, regulations and bye-laws should be framed within a period of six months from the date on which the relevant statute came into force.

The reason behind calling CAA controversial is that it seeks to grant citizenship to immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, belonging to Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian, and Sikh communities, and only excludes Muslims. President’s assent to this amendment act was followed by widespread protests calling the new amendment anti-minority and discriminatory.

The answer may be read here: 

Related:

What’s going to happen to CAA now?
CAA rules yet to be framed, NRC in Assam yet to be notified, says MHA

The post Centre seeks another extension till January 2022 to frame CAA rules appeared first on SabrangIndia.