The Supreme Court today adjourned the petitions challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 to December 6 2022. The bench consisting of Chief Justice UU Lalit, Justices Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi decided to treat the petition filed by the Indian Union Muslim League as the lead matter. The Court also appointed two lawyers as nodal counsels who will ensure that the compilations are ready by the next date.

“Having noted that there are various matters projecting multiple issues, in our view the resolution to instant controversy can be achieved if 2-3 matters are taken as lead matters and convenience compilations are prepared well in advance, such process will make the conduct of the proceedings easy. We have been appraised that the Writ Petition filed by Indian Union Muslim League has been complete. The petition has been filed by Advocate Pallavi Pratap. We therefore appoint her and Mr. Kanu Agarawal as nodal counsels,” reported LiveLaw.

The nodal counsels were also advised to consider designating some other matters as lead matters keeping in view the grounds of geographical and religious classifications among other things. The petitions raising issues relating to Assam and North-East could be separately classified.

The bench also granted time to the states of Assam and Tripura to file their responses to the latest affidavit filed by the Union Government in relation to the issues of North-Eastern region. As many as 232 plus petitions challenging the CAA were listed before the Court. Nearly 50 petitions raise issues specific to Assam and other North-Eastern states.

Issues Raised in the lead IUML Petition

The 2019 Act amends the Citizenship Act 1955 to ease, or liberalise the norms for granting citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. The petition filed by the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) [Indian Union of Muslim League And Ors. v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 1470/2019] avers that while they do not oppose the grant of citizenship to migrants, they are aggrieved by the discrimination and illegal classification based on religion. The exclusion of Muslims from the Act amounted to religion-based discrimination. As per the petition, the religious segregation made by the Act is without any reasonable differentiation and results in violation of Article 14 and also the very idea of India as a country which treats people of all faiths equally. The Indian Constitution only recognises citizenship by birth, descent or acquisition by bona fide residence. The Act makes religion a criteria for citizenship. The linking of religion to citizenship is opposed to secularism, which is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

“CA, Act 2019 explicitly discriminates against the Muslims. The Act extends the benefit to individuals belonging Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, but excludes the same benefit to the individuals belonging to the Islam religion. Since, CA, Act 2019 discriminates on the basis of core and intrinsic trait of the individual that is, religion of the individual, it cannot form a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia”, the petition argued.

The petition further contends that the yardsticks adopted for selecting the countries within which populations of minorities were persecuted and the categories of persons therein have not been uniformly applied. The exclusion of Myanmar and the inclusion of Afghanistan (which was not a part of British India, and has no history of partition) are illustrative, states the petition. Specifically, the exclusion of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees and the Rohingya Muslims –both minorities that have suffered persecution– are also flagged to illustrate the bias and illogicality of the discrimination.

In early 2020, the aggressive push by the second term elected Modi government, to first push through the CA Act of 2019 and thereafter also announce the launch of the National Register of Citizens (NRC-All India) had generated outrage, insecurity and nationwide protests. Given the fallout of the arbitrary ‘test’ of documented citizenship currently being undertaken in Assam these were well-founded.

Based on this ground reality, the lead petition has also voiced the apprehension that the Act will result in harm to Muslims in the exercise of National Register of Citizens which is proposed to be carried out nationwide. “With the passage of the Amendment Act, and the nationwide implementation of NRC, it shall ensure that those illegal migrants who are Muslims shall be prosecuted and, those illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians such shall be given the benefit of naturalization as an Indian Citizen”, stated the plea.

Centre’s Response through the MHA

The Centre, through an affidavit made public recently, submitted that the CAA did not impinge upon any existing right that may have existed prior to the enactment of the amendment and further, in no manner whatsoever, sought to affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any of the Indian citizens.  The move to amend the CA Act of 2019 merely fast-tracks citizenship-by-naturalisation process for ‘illegal migrants’ from six religious communities, other than Muslims, who have fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a “benign piece of legislation” which seeks to provide a relaxation, in the nature of an amnesty, to specific communities from specified countries with a clear cut-off date, the Home Ministry told the Supreme Court late on Sunday, October 30. The affidavit further submitted that the existing regime for obtaining citizenship of India by foreigners of any country was untouched by the CAA and remained the same and that the legal migration, on the basis of valid documents and visa, continued to be permissible from all countries of the world including from the three specified countries. The Centre also stated that CAA was merely a limited legislative measure, circumscribed in its application which did not affect the existing legal rights or regime concerning citizenship [falling outside the purview of specialized measure] in any manner. It added that the question of entitlement and conferment of citizenship and issues related thereto were within the plenary domain of the competent Legislature.

“By the very nature of the question regarding citizenship of the country and issues pertaining thereto, the said subject matter may not be within the scope of judicial review and may not be justiciable” said Centre. 

The Parliament, in its competence, has passed the law taking into consideration the acknowledged class of minorities in three countries. It said the plight of these classified communities in neighbouring Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan had been attracting the attention of successive governments in India. “But no government took any legislative measure and merely acknowledged the problem and took some administrative action through executive instructions regarding entry, stay and citizenship issues of these classified communities,” the government said.

‘Narrowly tailored law’

The CAA, the government said, was a “narrowly tailored legislation” seeking to address the problem which awaited India’s attention for several decades. “The CAA does not seek to recognise or seek to provide answers to all or any kind of purported persecution that may be taking place across the world or that may have taken place previously anywhere in the world,” the Home Ministry reasoned.  The affidavit said the CAA does not in any manner affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any Indian citizen.

“In matters concerning foreign policy, citizenship, economic policy, etc, a wider latitude is available to the Parliament/Legislature,” the affidavit said.  The Ministry said the CAA had been challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory on the ground that federal structure was breached and on the exclusion of certain areas.

Fears of the North East Unfounded

The classification of tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura as included in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and the area covered under ‘The Inner Line’ notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulations of 1873 has been made in the CAA on tangible material, historic reasons and prevalent classifications based on differences in population density, native culture, economic and social inability in case of mass migration and reasons of national security.

Requesting the court to decide the validity of the CAA by taking cognisance of the persistent persecution of minority communities, specified in the CAA, in the three theocratic countries, it said, “Parliament, after taking cognizance of the said issues over the course of the past seven decades and having taken into consideration the acknowledged class of minorities in three specific countries, has enacted the present amendment.”

Simultaneously, it also underlined that the issue pertained to foreign policy, where the legislature and executive have a wider latitude. “The CAA does not impinge upon any existing right that may have existed prior to the enactment of the amendment and further, in no manner whatsoever, seeks to affect the legal, democratic or secular rights of any of the Indian citizens,” it said.
On the petitioners’ question about exclusion of Muslim immigrants already in India from the ambit of the CAA, the Centre said the SC must look into the provisions of the Assam Accord and the memorandum of settlement between the Government of Tripura and the All Tripura Tribal Force under which certain areas of Assam and Tripura have been excluded from being settled by CAA beneficiaries to protect the interests of ethnic minority communities and not to allow them to get swamped by immigrants.

“There is required to be a harmonious construction of the Assam Accord and the CAA as the CAA is a beneficial legislation intended for benefitting persons escaping religious persecution in particular neighbouring countries. The Assam Accord or the memorandum of settlement signed between the Government of Tripura and a tribal group of Tripura, i.e. the All Tripura Tribal Force (ATTF), cannot form the basis of judicial review of legislation before the SC. It is submitted that by excluding certain regions of Assam and Tripura, the Parliament has tried to balance the interest of the classified communities and the indigenous people of Assam and Tripura,” it said.

The government has also argued that restricting the purview of the CAA to minority communities facing persecution only to the three Islamic countries qualified for the justifiable, reasonable classification and was in keeping with the spirit that led the Constitution to accept as citizen’s people who flooded India from undivided Pakistan after the Partition on religious lines.

“Article 6 of the Constitution deems all migrants in India from Pakistan (including present day Bangladesh) as citizens of India if such persons or their parents or grandparents were born in undivided India or such persons had migrated into India before July 19, 1948,” it said.  “If such persons had migrated after this date and got registered before a competent officer and had been resident in India for at least six months before the date of registration, then such persons were also deemed to be Indian citizens. It is obvious that Article 6 deemed a special class of migrants post-partition (which clearly took place on religious lines and resulted in large scale migration on religious lines) as citizens of India due to their very special circumstances,” the government said.

Facts about Citizenship: A Constitutional Lens

As the teams and legal researchers of Citizens for Justice and Peace (cjp.org.in) have been contending, the issue –of the CAA 2019 read with the proposed NRC-All India –is one of seeking ‘documented proof of citizenship’ a concept alien to the provisions of the Indian Constitution.

• Citizenship is dealt with under Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution of India. Articles 5 to 10 deal with citizenship at the time of the coming into force of the Constitution i.e. 26.1.1950. It is essentially by birth with certain provisions concerning migration. But this is not very relevant for our purposes as this is frozen at the time of coming into force of the Constitution. Article 11 speaks about the future and allows the Parliament to enact laws concerning citizenship.

• Consequently Citizenship Act, 1955 was enacted which continues to be in vogue. Under the Act, there are 5 methods of acquiring citizenship:

1.  By birth

2. By descent- that is for children born outside India from Indian citizen parents

3. By registration- that is for persons of Indian origin who are not citizens and want to be Indian citizens

4. By Naturalisation- that is for non-Indians who want to be Indian citizens.

5. By acquisition of Territory for example Sikkim

• Thus if you are not born in India the major way of acquiring citizenship is through naturalisation or registration. However both these methods are not available to ‘illegal migrants’. Illegal migrant is defined as any person who entered India without a valid passport or travel document or having entered India with a valid passport or travel document has stayed behind after its expiry. Thus a Bangladeshi who is alleged to have crossed over into India without a passport or valid travel document can never acquire Indian citizenship (except under certain circumstances if the entry is into Assam before 25.3.1971 )

• As far as citizenship by birth is concerned there have been subsequent amendments. Any person born before 1^st July, 1987 in India is automatically entitled to Indian citizenship irrespective of who that person’s parents are or where they were born and even if they are illegal migrants.

• For those persons born in India between July 1, 1985 to December, 2004, they will be entitled to Indian citizenship by birth provided one of the parents was an Indian citizen at the time of birth. It does not matter who the other parent is.  For those children born in India after December, 2004, such children will get citizenship of India provided both the parents are citizens of India or either of the the parents are citizens of India as long as the other parent is not an illegal migrant. Thus for children born after December, 2004 if one of the parents is an illegal migrant then such children cannot get citizenship in India.

1.  In a nutshell, for those of us who are born before 1.7.1987 it is enough to prove that we were born in India to get citizenship. For those of us born between 1.7.87 and December, 2004 in India it is not enough for us to be born here but one of our parents has to be a citizen of India at the time of our birth. For those of us born after December, 2004 in India not only one of our parents has to be a citizen of India at the time of our birth but the other parent should not be an illegal migrant.

2. In 2009, Citizenship Rules were passed which are not of much relevance for other parts of India except Assam.

National Register of Citizens

• In 2003, The Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003 were passed under the Citizenship Act. These are the NRC Rules. Under this, the Central Government is to carry throughout the country a house to house enumeration for determining citizenship status. During this exercise all those whose citizenship is doubtful will be entered with appropriate remark in population register for further enquiry and the persons concerned have to be informed immediately after the verification is over about this in a prescribed format. These persons will be given an opportunity for being heard before final decision is taken. The Sub District or Taluk Registrar shall finalise his findings in 90 days of the entry being made. The draft of the Local Register shall be published for inviting any objection or for inclusion of any name. Within 30 days individuals have to complain or raise objection spelling out the nature and reasons for such complaint. These complaints will be considered by Sub District or Taluk Registrar and will be summarily disposed of in 90 days. A person aggrieved by the above orders can appeal in 30 days to District Registrar of Citizenship Registration. The District Registrar shall take final decision after hearing the party within 90 days. After this the final Register is published and every citizen will be issued National Identity Cards. Under this, there is no role of Foreigners Tribunal at least as the law stands today.

• If you are not registered as a citizen you will be treated as foreigner and all consequences would follow. These would include being sent to detention camps, being deported, etc.  

• All the above applies across the country but for Assam there are some distinguishing features.

The unfettered power under the hitherto unchallenged 2003 Rules –given the tragic trajectory of the NRC process within Assam –has rightly raised the antenna of all Indian citizens at this arbitrary measure –un-deliberated and without checks and balances by the NDA II government at the Centre.

Related:

CJP is urging people to understand, organise and fight back democratically. Arm yourself with the knowledge to fight back with our FAQs, booklets and other material explaining the Citizenship conundrum.

Wrong intention, wrong rationale, wrong method: Teesta Setalvad on CAA-NPR-NRC 

Teesta Setalvad addresses massive crowd on CAA, NPR-NRC“

My Hindu Hriday Samrats: Teesta Setalvad

What next for those left out of the NRC – ? From the Secretary’s Desk

The post Controversial CAA 2019 challenge in SC on December 6, Centre urges non-interference in its ‘legislative competence’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A recent article in The Stanford Review titled “Why Stanford protestors are wrong about India’s citizenship bill” argued that the premise of the recent Stanford protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was faulty and informed by false information. I’d like to argue that this article lacked historical context and analysis in explaining the dangers of this act.

As a student of Indian history pursuing a thesis on the creation of the modern Indian state, I was disappointed by the arguments made, mainly because they propagate the same false narratives espoused by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its supporters in India. The argument forwarded by the Review article lacked historical depth.

The only point I agree with the article on is that the CAA needs to be viewed in its historical context. However, the author of the article possesses an incomplete and poorly researched idea of how modern India was formed. Moreover, the CAA must be analysed through the lens of the BJP’s policy of Hindutva, which essentially advocates the creation of a Hindu state in which religious and ethnic minorities are not considered equal citizens.

The CAA provides fast-track citizenship to select minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan but fails to specify a pathway to citizenship for Muslim minorities from the same countries. In essence, it allows Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians an expedited Indian citizenship process. The government claimed that the CAA would be used to help those fleeing religious persecution. However, the Act does not mention persecution at all. 

There were several opportunities for legislators to craft a more inclusive bill. In December, as I stayed up late to watch debates on the bill in Parliament, several amendments were proposed, including one which would have allowed all religious minorities, including Muslims, to be covered by the Act. This proposed amendment failed. Additionally, there was an amendment proposed to include minorities from other countries including Sri Lanka, where thousands of Hindu Tamils fled the Sri Lankan War to India, Bhutan and Nepal, but that also failed. So here is a question I pose to any supporters of the CAA: What is the problem with including Muslims in a bill that is meant to help minorities?

The Review article reads, “Most importantly, the CAA does not affect existing Indian citizens. Anti-CAA propaganda at Stanford has painted an apocalyptic picture of an India in which Muslims are relegated to second-tier status. This mischaracterizes the bill. The CAA does absolutely nothing to curtail the rights of any existing Indian citizen, Muslim or otherwise.”

The writer has failed to even mention the creation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and how that process is discriminatory and undermines the rights of Indian citizens. The NRC officially instituted a state-wide register of citizens in the Indian state of Assam following the 1951 Census of India. It was created in response to large-scale migration to Assam after the Partition of India and Pakistan (and present-day Bangladesh) in 1947. This migration disrupted relations between the Assamese, Muslims and Bengali Hindus. The aim of the 1951 NRC was to compile a list of legal citizens in the state and remove illegal immigrants from Bangladesh given the state’s ethnic and religious factions. Contrary to fundamental democratic principles, the burden of proof fell on individuals to prove their citizenship, rather than the state to disprove their claims to citizenship. The NRC was carried out at significant costs and left out 1.9 million individuals from the registrar, many of whom are Hindus. The process has proven to be extremely burdensome to the people of Assam, with many committing suicide because of the prospect of being locked up in detention camps or spending their savings in legal fees. 

The CAA will allow disenfranchised Hindus under the NRC to regain their citizenship, while leaving Muslims at a disadvantage. One of the many reasons for the recent uproar in India over the Act is that many Muslims view it as a direct threat to their citizenship. How? The Act disenfranchises millions under the tedious NRC process, in which citizens are expected to provide papers that prove their ancestors entered the country before a particular date, which most poor and illiterate Indians do not possess. However, unlike disenfranchised Hindus and non-Muslim minorities, Muslims will be left in bureaucratic limbo and might not be able to get their citizenship back under this law, while Hindus and other religious groups will be granted expedited citizenship. To the writer’s point about Muslims being able to apply for citizenship through other means: this does not negate the fact that the priority that the CAA gives non-Muslims still makes it discriminatory. 

The writer also mentions that the CAA does not undermine Indian secularism. However, it undermines fundamental components of the Indian constitution, whether it is Article 14, the equality clause or its secular preamble. Moreover, the Act undermines the intentions of the founding fathers, which was to create a state that upholds rights equally, to all its citizens. When citizenship was debated in the Constituent Assembly of India in 1947, Sardar Patel, then Home Minister, made his intention of making citizenship a non-issue clear.

Patel said, “There are two ideas about nationality in the modern world, one is broad-based nationally and the other is narrow nationality. Now, in South Africa we claim for Indians born there South African nationality [referencing the Apartheid regime]. It is not right for us to take a narrow view.”

The CAA propounds a narrow view of citizenship that Patel himself was against. Making religion a basis under which some individuals are prioritized over others contradicts the view expressed above. While I agree that minorities in Pakistan and other countries have been persecuted by the state, why not broaden the parameters of citizenship? Why limit it only to religion and not other factors? 

Another broad generalisation many other pro-CAA supporters make is that because Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan are Islamic states, Muslims cannot be persecuted there. This analysis is flawed and can be refuted by a simple Google search. It assumes Islam is a coherent, homogenous religion. It is not. Indian Muslims have lived on the subcontinent for centuries and have become a constituent part of Indian culture. Just think Bollywood music, chicken tikka, Mughlai food and Indian clothes. Shia and Sunni Islam and very different in their practices, and these broad categories include further sub-divisions. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both Muslim states, but they are still opposed to each other because Saudi Arabia is a Sunni-majority state, while Iran is a Shia-majority state. Some Muslims are discriminated by others in these “Muslim states”; the CAA washes over these important distinctions within Islam. The writer of the Review article mentions that India recognizes Ahmadis as Muslims. However, they are unable to sit on the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which is the body recognized as the representatives of Indian Muslims by the government. Moreover, Pakistan declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims in 1974, so by definition, they should be recognized as minorities (which the CAA does not). 

Finally, the Review article fails to make mention of the nationalist ideology of the BJP and its anti-Muslim ideals. Since Modi took office in 2014, hate crimes against Muslims have increased exponentially, and after his re-election in 2019, his government has exacerbated its anti-Muslim actions. On Aug. 5, his government stripped the Muslim-majority state of Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomy and demoted it to a Union Territory controlled by the Central Government. The BJP-led central government also imposed an internet blackout when it stripped the state of its autonomy, suppressing all forms of dissent in the state. The blackout has persisted for longer than 150 days, making it the longest that a democratic region has seen. In protests against the CAA in Uttar Pradesh, the country’s largest and most populous state, Muslim homes have been targeted by the police, while militant Hindu groups have been able to roam scot-free. Are these actions taken by the state not discriminatory?

I would suggest that the Review writer, along with other CAA supporters, take a class or two in source analysis and read some seminal works on the modern Indian state. Some of these include “The Indian Constitution: A Cornerstone of the Nation” (it has chapter-wise breakdowns of fundamental rights and other provisions) and “The Discovery of India” (specifically the last two chapters), two works that explain the political and social context under which India was founded. It would be worth also reading AG Noorani’s anthology “The Muslims of India: A Documentary Record” to understand how the differential interests of minorities were reconciled in the country (it is also a treasure trove of primary sources!). India’s founders strove to avoid incorporating religion into the state’s activities to ensure that all Indians, regardless of their cultural, religious or ethnic backgrounds were allowed to participate in the experiment of Indian democracy. Finally, I would recommend reading the section on Fundamental Rights in the Constitution of India itself. It is an expression of what India ought to be and the work that needs to be done to make it a truly sovereign, secular, democratic republic.

If you are a student interested in learning more about South Asia, I would recommend taking HISTORY 296E: “Modern South Asia,” HISTORY 296C: “The Making of Modern India,” HISTORY 297D: “Oral History and the Partition of India” and HISTORY 297G: “Rulers, Reformers, Radicals: History of India in Two Centuries.” I hope the University offers more classes on South Asian Politics; they are needed.

*Views expressed are the author’s own. Contact Vibhav Mariwala at vibhavm@stanford.edu

The post Rigorous historical analysis is needed to comprehend contemporary politics appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Members and supporters of Indians Abroad for Pluralist India (IAPI) held a rally for D.S. Bindra outside Indian passport and visa application center in Surrey on the afternoon of Sunday, June 21.

An advocate and activist, Bindra has been named in a charge sheet filed by Delhi police against individuals accused of inciting violent protests against India’s discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which is unfair to Muslim refugees coming to India from neighbouring countries.

Bindra’s only fault was that he had organized langar or a community kitchen for the peaceful protestors in accordance with his Sikh traditions in Delhi. This follows the arrests of several activists, including a pregnant woman Safoora Zargar for raising their voices against CAA passed by a right wing Hindu nationalist government.

Canada-based IAPI came into being in response to growing attacks on religious minorities and political dissidents under the current regime.   

On Mother’s Day last month, the IAPI held a car rally outside the same venue for Safoora due to COVID 19. The June 21 rally was also kept very small because of health emergency guidelines while the physical distance was maintained by those in attendance.  

The participants held signs reading, “Serving Langar is not a crime” and “We stand with D.S. Bindra”, besides those reading, “No to CAA” and “Free Safoora”. They raised slogans against state violence in India. Since June 21 is National Indigenous Peoples’ Day, the rally was started with a moment of silence for Chantel Moore and Rodney Levi, an indigenous woman and a man who died at the hands of police recently in New Brunswick.

The speakers were unanimous in their demand for freedom of Safoora and other political prisoners and condemned the highhandedness of Delhi Police against Bindra. The Sikh activists who showed up felt that it was a direct assault on their faith and came as a rude shock to the community which is grieving the military attack on their holiest shrine, the Golden Temple Complex by Indian forces 36 years ago in the month of June, 1984.

Those who spoke on the occasion included former spokesman of Gurdwara Dashmesh Darbar, Gian Singh Gill, the president of Guru Nanak Singh Temple, Surrey-Delta Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Sikh scholar Charanjit Singh Sujjon, independent Sikh activist Kulwinder Singh, prominent anti-racism educator Annie Ohana, well known progressive Punjabi poet Amrit Diwana, and IAPI members, Sayed Wajahat and Gurpreet Singh.

Related:

Sikh man who served langar to protesters, named in Ratan Lal murder chargesheet

Free Safoora: Indians hold car rally in Canada in solidarity with student activist

The post Rally in Canada in support of a Sikh advocate who organized langar for Delhi CAA protesters appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“…lab azaad hain tere…”, a daily wage worker has painted over the first two words sprayed on one of the beams of the footbridge that straddles a Delhi road that will forever be known as the place where women started a revolution. 

“Bol, ki lab āzād haiñ tere,” meaning ‘Speak, for your lips have freedom,’ is the first line of a poem by Faiz Ahmed Faiz. The graffiti was visible from the site of the over 100-day anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) protest led by the women of Shaheen Bagh. The movement had been recognised the world over for the unique way it managed to peacefully protest a law that they say threatens their identity and rights as Indians. 

Early on March 24, a humid Tuesday morning, a large police posse, dressed in riot gear, with an addition of masks and gloves for many, accompanied heavy earthmoving machinery and swept through the road. They dismantled the stage from where poetry was recited, songs sung and speeches made, the wooden cots the women had been sitting on once the protest went symbolic in view of the Covid-19. 

According to eyewitness accounts, the stage was dismantled and the iron framework taken away by gloved workers, perhaps daily wagers hired by the police that looked on. The artwork and posters were damaged and removed including the installation that was the map of India. “There were so many policemen and women crowding the area. What happened to large groups being a Coronavirus hotspot,” mumbled an eyewitness, “there are more cops here than protestors.”

Around 10 protesters including six women were detained at Shaheen Bagh. The detention was later reported as being confirmed by the area, Deputy Commissioner of Police (southeast) R P Meena, by Indian Express. The report also quoted a volunteer, who said, “There were only 8-10 women at the site Tuesday morning. At 7 AM, the police removed them. There is a very heavy police deployment in Shaheen Bagh.”

According to local residents the deployment continued well after the area was cleared.

The Shaheen Bagh sit-in was led by the feisty daadi ammas, or grandmothers of the neighbourhood, who had seen the area they live at grow from a small residential area nearly on the outskirts of what was then the city of Delhi, to a buzzing neighbourhood with shopping complexes, the ultra modern metro line and a road that was wider than all the lanes of the colony put together. They sat on one side of the road and were joined by others from their neighbourhood and outside. They sat through bitter Delhi winter nights, braved allegations that they were ‘paid protestors’. Bemused, they watched as the media lenses zoomed in and news reports shared their message with the world. And the authorities watched them with greater intensity and built pressure to make them move out of the protest and retreat into their kitchens. They were being called ‘anti national’ and were asked to go back. 

Not once did they entertain that thought. Instead they invited the politicians to ‘come sit with us’, and see for themselves the truth of the protest. 

The grandmothers inspired other protests that sprung up across the countries as if daughters from the area had taken the revolution as they moved out and set up home elsewhere. Mini-Shaheen Bhaghs came up in other parts of Delhi, and across the country. Each protest came to be known as the “Shaheen Bagh of…” the place it was situated at.  

As the winter of 2019 melted into the spring of 2020, the attempts made by the government authorities to heckle, scare, persuade, even force the thousands of women who gathered, to retreat from the protest, intensified steadily as days passed. Smaller protests were forced shut as the tents were dismantled and the protestors evicted. In the days that followed, North east Delhi was singed by the worst anti-Muslim pogrom in February 2020 ever seen in the National Capital. 

Across town, the Shaheen Bagh women bravely held their ground and found solidarity in volunteers, artists, peace and civil justice activists from across the country. 

It was only when the Covid-19 pandemic began spreading in India that the situation began to change. As large public gatherings were now dangerous and vulnerable to the virus the anti-CAA-NRC-NPR protests across the city suspended their movement in the larger interest of public health. “Ladai jaari hai, lekin ehtihaad baratni hai! Inquilab Zindabad!” was the voice of most protestors who had suspended their movements to help flatten the Coronavirus contamination curve. 

The Shaheen Bagh protest too went symbolic by Sunday and only five women remained at the site. Strict hygiene protocols were also in place. “But we will not go home. Our protest has to continue,” they said. 

Delhi is under strict lockdown; public movement is restricted and section 144 has been invoked. The police are reported as enforcing this. However, there was no directive against removing any art, or grafitti. Still more labourers were sent to paint over and erase the vibrant artwork outside the Jamia Millia Islamia university even though the students have already suspended their protest against police violence they faced, and the CAA. The revolutionary artwork they had left behind on the walls was a reminder of their story.

By late afternoon the skies darkened as storm clouds gathered, thunder roared and rain lashed Delhi. “Symbolic,” said many. The sun does shine after it rains. It is the darkest before dawn breaks. It is now important to see what comes next for those who survived and lived to tell the tale.

The post Shaheen Bagh, the mother of them all appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Karkardooma Court of Northeast Delhi granted bail to former Congress councilor Ishrat Jahan and three others who were arrested from an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protest site at Khureji Khas in February.

However, activist Khalid Saifi’s bail application was dismissed. The bail orders came late and the court cited that he could not get bail due to pending investigation against him.

Surprisingly though, during this while, the special branch of the Delhi police filed another case against both, Saifi and Jahan stating that they were the masterminds of the Delhi communal riots that took place in February. Both were then produced before the Patiala House Court without the presence of a lawyer post which a Special Cell of the police decided to remand them to a custody of six days.

In light of this, United against Hate put out a statement condemning the false charges invoked against Khalid Saifi and Ishrat Jahan and demanded their immediate release. The organization has also demanded that an independent investigation team under the guidance of the Delhi High Court be instituted to probe into the Delhi violence.

The Jagatpuri police had arrested Saifi on February 26 and brutally tortured him at the police station. Due to this, he suffered a fracture in his leg and is now moving around in a wheelchair. He is a diabetic and now his health is deteriorating day by day. Even then, the Delhi police is accusing Saifi of lying saying that if he was hurt why he didn’t say so during his first court appearance. However, the fact is that Saifi’s first appearance in court was not in the court room, but at the parking lot of the premises where lawyers were not allowed entry.

In its statement, United against Hate has said that the Delhi police is avoiding nabbing the right-wing extremist elements who perpetrated the violence in Delhi during February 23 – February 25 and falsely implicating social and human rights activists in these cases.

Their statement read, “We oppose such false, offensive and fake actions of the Delhi Police, because due to this the real culprits are still being allowed to roam free while people who work for the betterment of the society are being ill-treated.”

“At a time when the country is going through a severe health crisis, when people are being prevented from going to public places and the courts are working at minimum capacity, it is shameful to see that at such a time too, human rights and social workers are being wrongly arrested by the police and not even being provided adequate judicial facilities for their protection,” the statement added.

Related:

Delhi violence: Volunteers submit memorandum of demands to Delhi gov’t about relief and rehabilitation 

Doctors need more protective gear now, before COVID-19 cases explode

Covid-19 update: Positive cases over 400, 7 deaths; lockdown in 75 districts

The post United against Hate condemns implication of Khalid Saifi and Ishrat Jahan in false charges appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Even as all peaceful civil protests against the CAA, NRC, and NPR, in Delhi, and other parts of the country, have suspended their sit-ins in view of the CoronaVirus pandemic, anti-social makers have begun seeing this lull at the protest site as an opportunity to create disturbances.

On Sunday morning, as Shaheen Bagh protest, which has now gone symbolic with less than five women at the sit in, was targeted with glass-bottle petrol bombs. The petrol-bombs were thrown at the police barricades that have been erected some distance away from the tent where the protesters sit. The attacker(s) have not been identified yet. The area has a regular police, and paramilitary presence, and has been under constant surveillance.

The lockdown on Sunday has resulted in deserted roads, and neighbourhoods as most people have been indoors most of the day. It appears that the miscreants took advantage of the fact that not many will be at the protest site for the first time since it began nearly 100 days ago. According to medi areports, the attacker came on a motorcycle and threw the bombs, but thankfully no one was hit, and no injuries were reported.

Some reports also said that another crude bomb was thrown near the Jamia Milia University area. Students protesting peacefully at the Jamia University gates had already suspended their protest yesterday to help stall the spread of Covid-19. This area is a few kilometers away from Shaheen Bagh. 

According to information shared by the Jamia Coordination Committee, “Some miscreants fired and threw Petrol Bomb at a Protest Site at Jamia Square, Gate No. 7, Jamia Millia Islamia. As per CCTV Footage, He has a Get up of Delivery Boy with a Helmet and has Three Bags on his Bike, due to which the Number Plate of the Bike was not visible. Police have taken away Bullet, while Pieces of Glass Bottle still lies here. (sic)”

“Two people were seen on a bike near the barricades, we are checking the CCTV footage for detailed investigation,” senior police officer Kumar Gyanesh told NDTV. It appears that the police have already floated a theory on who the attackers could be. Police have told journalists that this attack could be a result of an ‘internal feud’.

The Indian Express quotes Kumar Gyanesh, Additional DCP (Southeast) as saying, “Prima facie..it was one of the protesters who hurled the bombs. There have been clashes amongst the protesters regarding the protest since yesterday. Last night, we received a call about a fight there and had to intervene.” 

This theory evolves from the now known factor that there have been many discussions, and disagreements between various groups at Shaheen Bagh over suspending the protest in the face of the Coronavirus pandemic. Though by Saturday evening almost all protests went off the roads. Shaheen Bagh women continued their protest in a symbolic manner with all health and physical distance precautions to guard again Covid-19, in place. Police told reporters  that the crude bombs were thrown from the road opposite the site and ‘only locals’ can access it from the lanes that run through the dense residential colonies, as that is the only way to avoid the manned police barricades. 

However, those lanes are accessible to anyone visiting from outside too. As any police persons, and crime reporters know, miscreants are known to map areas well ahead before they actually attack. 

Areas like Shaheen Bagh, and Jamia are densely populated, and commercially busy zones, they have a web of internal lanes, apart from public roads, metro lines, bus routes. All usually buzzing with human, and vehicular traffic but Sunday morning was an exception due to the  unofficial lockdown. 

Protest sites, even if they are symbolic and deserted, continue to be soft targets, and peaceful protestors remain vulnerable.

Related:

Anti-CAA-NPR-NRC protests may be suspended due to Corona Virus pandemic

Roshanbagh CAA protestors to turn focus from protest to Covid-19 public awareness

Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh to go on with only 5 protestors till March 31 due to Covid-19

The post Who could have hurled petrol bombs at Shaheen Bagh protest? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“With a heavy heart but great hope in our hearts, We temporarily suspend the ongoing 24hrs sit-in protest against #CAA_NRC_NPR at Gate No. 7, JMI and appeal to all protestors to kindly take the situation with utmost seriousness and save themselves and others from this fatal illness,”   stated a message shared in various WhatsApp groups by Jamia Coordination Committee members. The message was also posted on Twitter soon )

With a heavy heart but great hope in our hearts, we temporarily suspend the ongoing 24 hrs sit-in protest at Gate no. 7, JMI and appeal to all protestors to kindly take the situation with utmost seriousness and save themselves and others from this fatal illness: @Jamia_JCC pic.twitter.com/bLdsBVbP2B

— Jamia Coordination Committee (@Jamia_JCC) March 21, 2020

This is a bold, conscious step to help combat the spread of Covid-19 in Delhi. The other anti-CAA-NPR-NRC  protests in the city are also likely to suspend their sit-ins over the weekend. Efforts are on from all quarters to convince the women protesting peacefully at Shaheen Bagh protest to suspend the movement for the time being. “We must show them the visuals and tell them that even Mecca has emptied out. Suspending it for the moment is in the larger interest of our people,” said a volunteer who wished to remain anonymous.

According to sources at Shaheen Bagh, the protest will not shut down but four women will sit on dharna and continue their peaceful agitation for now.

And the organisers of the Shahi Eidgah, have decided to continue their  protest against CAA-NPR-NRC without gathering in public places. They say they are doing this , “as a safety measure to arrest the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic,” and in the name of humanity. 

“We are extremely concerned about the Covid-19 pandemic and fully recognise the unique challenges it poses for our country in particular. We care deeply about our neighbours, residents of our city, and the people of our country, as they, no doubt, care about us and our concerns about the serious consequences of CAA-NPR-NRC for marginalised groups and communities of India.” 

“We are fighting for the people. We will suspend our protests till March 31 in view of the steps needed to tackle the threat of CoronaVirus,” an organiser from the Azad Market protest had told Sabrang yesterday .

“This is a fatal virus and the protests are densely dense. Self isolation is the best prevention,” said another protester. 

“Our protests have never jeopardised anyone’s safety, and despite continued provocation, intimidation and motivated aggression we have never wavered from our path of truth and non-violence. All we ever wanted, at any point during our long protest, was to be heard by the government,” stated the organisers. They added that they will now take their movement online: “While the pandemic means that we will not be able to assemble in public spaces, we have decided to take our opposition to CAA-NPR-NRC online and mark our resistance with other means (posters and hashtags on social media).  We are not calling off our protest. We appeal to other Anti-CAA-NPR-NRC protests across the country to change to the mode of resistance that does not require public assembly. We will continue to talk about equality, liberty, solidarity and justice as the principles basic to the existence of the entire humanity.”

The Delhi government has now allowed only five people to assemble at a point, reducing it drastically from the earlier 20. 

Delhi will shut down this Sunday as a part of the civil curfew called by Prime Minister Modi. Apart from  Delhi Metro, even app-based taxi services may not be available, nor will autos or cycle rickshaws ply. The Delhi Metro will even regulate its services on Monday as an added precaution. 

The post Jamia protests suspended, Eidgah goes online, Shaheen Bagh continues symbolically with four protestors appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The people protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), National Population Register (NPR) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) at the Mansoor Ali Park, Roshanbagh, Allahabad have issued a press statement stating that while it is unfortunate that no step has been taken by the Central government against the ‘inhuman’ Act and processes, the protestors are willing to stand by the Government to contain the Covid-19 pandemic and reduce the number of protestors in accordance with advisories issued.

The press note read, “It’s the time to remember our fundamental duties as enshrined in our Constitution of India under Article 51-A. We are giving way to our demand to withdraw the draconian law and processes till the situation of the pandemic is controlled.”

Expressing their displeasure with the government for not having taken any steps to repeal the CAA and stop the implementation of the NPR and NRC, the protestors said that though the conduct of the government in this regards is against humanity, they would still stand with the government and follow every advisory.

Following this, the number of protestors has been cut down at the site and the protestors have now taken a ‘duties over demands’ approach in wake of the pandemic. In their press note they have said that they would now move to conducting small sessions on sanitization and safety, especially at places where there is no TV or other gadget available to make the masses aware of the proper hygiene to stop the transmission of the coronavirus.

The protestors said that this public awareness work is being undertaken to protect “our nation” because the government alone could not control this widespread issue. They requested the city’s Chief Medical Officers (CMOs) to help them in their awareness endeavor and also urged the city administration to encourage people to stay away from rumours to stop the public from panicking.

The protestors said they also prayed for people and their families, even those who were involved in bringing about the CAA-NPR-NRC, that they don’t contract the deadly disease. They also thanked and asked for the safety of loved ones and especially doctors, health workers, farmers, etc. who were still fighting and braving this epidemic from the frontlines.

This news from Roshanbagh comes after Shaheen Bagh in Delhi and Mumbai Bagh decided to cap the number of protestors and install sanitization facilities at protest sites to ensure public safety amid the Covid-19 outbreak.
 

Related:

Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh to go on with only 5 protestors till March 31 due to Covid-19

Lives of the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in the times of Corona

Anti-CAA-NPR-NRC protests may be suspended due to Corona Virus pandemic

The post Roshanbagh CAA protestors to turn focus from protest to Covid-19 public awareness appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Students of the prestigious Jamia Millia Islamia university have been vocal and steadfast in protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) passed by the Narendra Modi-led Union government. In December 2019, a violent clash between the protestors marching against the CAA, and Delhi police erupted. Visuals of cops allegedly entering the campus, including the library and beating up students, damaging property went viral, and led to more protests. 

The protestors continued to sit outside the university gates and protest peacefully with talks, slogans, and poetry in the backdrop of bold graffiti which is now seen as revolutionary art. It only began to thin out in the last a few days as steps to combat the spread of Covid-19 are being enforced across Delhi.  

According to sources, even the women-led Shaheen Bagh protest which too is almost touching the 100-day mark, may also shut down by Sunday. “We are trying to meet those at the protest and educate them about the CoronaVirus pandemic, and make them understand the ways we can prevent it from spreading. We are trying to make them understand the need to suspend the protest for now,” said an activist who has been active in his support to the various protests. 

Across the city, anti-CAA-NPR-NRC protests at Jama Masjid, Azad Market, and Eidgah are also likely to shut down in a day or two. Organisers at all these protests have sent messages to those participating, and following the protests that they will suspend the protests for now. “We are fighting for the people. We will suspend our protests till March 31 in view of the steps needed to tackle the threat of CoronaVirus,” said an organiser from the Azad Market protest.

While the citizen-led protests across the city may shut down by Saturday, or Sunday, efforts are still on to convince Shaheen Bagh protest to shut down for now as well. “We must convince the elders there. The protest is against the government policy, it is not against people,” said a volunteer. 

“We do not want to endanger anybody’s health. It is in the best interest that the Shaheen Bagh protest, and others across the city are suspended for now. We can and must reconvene once the CoronaVirus threat is over. Maybe till March 31,” added another. 

Though any official confirmation is yet to be received from the protest sites, many who have been at the core of these protests since day one say, suspending them for now is the best option.  “That is what we hope for now,” said an anti-CAA protestor. 

Delhi may have  a near total shut down this Sunday as Delhi Metro services too have been suspended that day in view of the “janata curfew” or voluntary civil curfew, called for by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. According to Delhi Health Department the city has 14 confirmed CoronaVirus cases so far. Cases have also been reported from Gurgaon, and Noida, where Section 144 has been n enforced till April 5.

Both these areas are a part of the National Capital Region (NCR). Meanwhile the protest at ‘Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh’ will go on with only five protestors till March 31 due to Covid-19. The organizers of the Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh said that keeping public safety paramount, the protest would go on symbolically until further orders.

Till a couple of days ago the women-protesting at Shaheen Bagh said they would take precautions but go on with the protest. In the tent the number of women has thinned down. There are fewer elderly women.  A hygiene protocol was in place and even for visitors, and the women sat in smaller groups, some on benches instead of the ground.

The Delhi government has ordered the closure of all malls, restaurants, and banned gatherings of more than 20 people. 

Related:

Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh to go on with only 5 protestors till March 31 due to Covid-19

“Does the Coronavirus ignore wedding parties, and attack only peaceful protests?”

Lives of the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’ in the times of Corona

The post Anti-CAA-NPR-NRC protests may be suspended due to Corona Virus pandemic appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Post the coronavirus outbreak, the Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh, an offshoot of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protest that began at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, has decided to continue their protest against the CAA, the National Population Register (NPR) and National Register of Citizens (NRC) albeit in smaller numbers as a precautionary measure.

Yesterday, the administration of the women-led protest, the Samvidhaan Bachao Sangharsh Samiti Bhiwandi, posted a statement on its official Twitter handle saying that the Thane district protest would continue, but the women wouldn’t gather in large numbers. It went on to say that there would be only five healthy women who would protest continuously against the CAA-NPR-NRC till March 31, 2020.

Requesting everyone to stay safe, they said that the decision was taken in the health of public health and the protest would be rescheduled as per earlier protocols later.

We Decided ShaheenBagh Thane District Protest will be continue but we won’t gather in large numbers, there will be only 5 healthy women who’ll protest Continuously against CAA-NRC-NPR till 31st March 2020. Later on protest wil be reschedule as per earlier protocols. pic.twitter.com/qbHktzvMmM

— Shaheen Bagh Bhiwandi (@ShaheenBaghBWD) March 19, 2020

The Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh movement has been going on for the past 48 days and the 24×7 protest would be made periodical from 5 PM to 9 PM every day to ensure the safety of the people.

24×7 protest agnst CAA, NRC & NPR at #ShaheenBaghBhiwandi will b made priodical, frm evning 5pm to 9pm, daily 2 avoid the spread of #coronavirus The motive behnd dis is 2 keep the pepl safe frm dis virus & also to continue the protest against the black law, in this crucial time. pic.twitter.com/1bIstaRPyS

— Shaheen Bagh Bhiwandi (@ShaheenBaghBWD) March 17, 2020

The organizers of the protest said that they respected government orders of closing schools, malls, madrasas, other congregations and avoiding crowded places and hence decided to postpone the 24×7 protest, but continue it in a symbolic manner until further orders on public safety by the government.

ABP Marathi  reported that the women at the Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh said that they would take precautionary measures like wearing masks at all times and maintain personal hygiene, which is already a part of their namaz routine. Though the protestors said they would continue the protest without the fear of the coronavirus, they would take ensure their own safety and make sure medical attention is at hand.

The government of Maharashtra invoked the Disaster Management Act here after the state reported the highest number of Covid-19 positive cases and the disease resulted in the death of one.

Related:

Mumbai local trains likely to be suspended after city’s first Covid-19 death

Haji Ali, Mahim Dargah close for devotees amid Covid-19 pandemic

Citizens pen five-point letter to Centre and State gov’t to tackle Covid-19

The post Bhiwandi Shaheen Bagh to go on with only 5 protestors till March 31 due to Covid-19 appeared first on SabrangIndia.