"Although the law's proponents have attempted to frame it as a neutral policy – aimed at protecting the rights of persecuted religious minorities from India's neighbouring countries – we join countless scholars, human rights activists, and other experts in India and around the world in sounding the alarm about its discriminatory nature and implications."
US-based non-profit Hindus for Human Rights is among the many organisations abroad that have condemned the "discriminatory" nature of the recently notified Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in India. Questioning the timing of the law, which comes weeks before the Lok Sabha elections, they alleged the implementation of the CAA is in line with "a concerted attempt to restrict voting rights (that) may disenfranchise millions of Indian Muslim voters."
On the other end of the spectrum are those who hailed the law as a "win for human rights."
For the uninitiated, the CAA, which was passed by the Indian Parliament in 2019, aims to grant citizenship to migrants from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, and Parsi communities who faced "religious persecution" in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. One of the many communities left out of the Act are Muslims – which is the main area of concern for its critics, resulting in the polarising views within India and abroad.
'Beacon of Hope for Persecuted Minorities'
"We welcome the long overdue CAA notification by the Indian government as a win for human rights for some of the most persecuted minorities," Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA) board member Pushpita Prasad told The Quint.
CoHNA, which describes itself as a grassroots advocacy group representing the Hindu community across North America, says that the Act merely fast-tracks Indian citizenship for religious minorities and has no impact on existing Indian citizens of any faith.
"Citizenship would allow these refugees to get access to basic facilities like jobs and education and to begin the process of rebuilding their lives in India versus living in limbo as stateless refugees. This is why we are seeing scenes of jubilation in refugee camps across India," she said.
Following the passage of the CAA by the Indian Parliament in December 2019, the city councils of Seattle, Albany, St Paul, Hamtramck, Cambridge, San Francisco, and Alameda County passed resolutions against the Act and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the purpose of which was to identify and deport "illegal immigrants."
In India as well, the legislative assemblies of West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Telangana passed resolutions against the CAA.
Meanwhile, CoHNA said that it had run an education and advocacy campaign in 2020 to counter the criticism being levelled against the citizenship act. "This included educating the Indian American and Hindu community, meetings with lawmakers and schools," said Nikunj Trivedi, president of COHNA.
Speaking in a similar vein, the Hindu American foundation (HAF) – a non-profit advocacy group with links to Vishwa Hindu Parishad America – said that the the Act is "long overdue and necessary" and mirrors the Lautenberg Amendment in the US.
Lautenberg Amendment vs CAA
The Lautenberg Amendment, which was introduced in the US in 1990, sets a lower requirement of evidence to provide refugee status to "persecuted" religious minorities like Jews and Christians from Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and countries of the former Soviet Union.
However, the one difference between the CAA and the Lautenberg Amendment is that in the case of the latter, there is no limit on the number of communities that can be included under its ambit if they satisfy the required criteria.
The Lautenberg Amendment's text states that it "may include other groups of refugee applicants for which such standard profiles would be appropriate." In 2004, for instance, an Amendment was enacted to include certain Iranian religious minorities, including Jews, Zoroastrians, Armenian and Assyrian Christians, Sabaean-Mandaeans etc.
The CAA, on the other hand, limits the number of communities who are eligible to gain citizenship only to six: Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Parsis, and that too, only from three countries: Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
"I'm proud to see both the oldest and largest secular democracies in the world – the US and India – be a beacon of hope by extending a pathway to freedom and a new life to those who have suffered gross human rights violations simply because of their religion," Mat McDermott, senior director of communications at the HAF, told The Quint.
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Sunday, 17 March, too, had cited the Lautenberg Amendment in the US and the 2004 amendment which expanded its scope.
Earlier, on Friday, 15 March, US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti had said while speaking at the India Today Conclave that the US cannot give up on the principles of religious freedom. He made this statement in response to a question regarding the CAA.
Rebutting Garcetti, Jaishankar said on the same platform that the statements made by the US on the CAA seem to "ignore" the historical context of Partition.
"I have principles too, and one of my principles is an obligation to people who were let down at the time of Partition," Jaishankar said. "If you are saying you are picking some faiths and no other faiths, I will give you many examples from across the world," he added, citing the Lautenberg Amendment.
Meanwhile, rebutting US State Department Spokesperson Matthew Miller, who said the US was "closely monitoring how this act will be implemented" – and that "respect for religious freedom and equal treatment under the law for all communities are fundamental democratic principles," Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal had said Miller's statement amounted to "interference" in India's internal affairs.
'Sinister Framework To Strip Muslims of Citizenship'
Meanwhile, groups like the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) allege that the Act is in "complete violation" of the Indian Constitution and international law.
"This law has a clear discriminatory intent, designed with the explicit purpose of targeting Indian Muslims in conjunction with the proposed nationwide NRC," IAMC president Mohammed Jawad told The Quint.
"Both CAA and NRC form a sinister framework intended to systematically strip millions of Muslims of their citizenship, rendering them stateless in their own homeland, and seal their lives to the dehumanising conditions of detention camps."Mohammed Jawad, IAMC President
More than 19 lakh applicants were left out of the NRC exercise undertaken in Assam in 2019. Over 1,000 of those who were declared 'foreigners' were shifted to detention centres across Assam, sparking concerns by civil society groups and rights bodies about the living conditions of such camps.
Sharing the IAMC's views is human rights group Amnesty International – which says that the Act represents a "blow" to the principles of equality and religious non-discrimination.
"The CAA is a bigoted law that legitimises discrimination on the basis of religion and should never have been enacted in the first place. Its operationalisation is a poor reflection on the Indian authorities as they fail to listen to a multitude of voices critical of the CAA – from people across the country, civil society, international human rights organisations and the United Nations," said Amnesty International India chair Aakar Patel in a statement, which the rights body shared with The Quint.
Patel further alleges that not only is the CAA discriminatory towards Muslims, but also against several other groups in South Asia like Sri Lankan Tamils, Bhutanese, Hazaras, Shias, Ahmadiyyas, and the Rohingya who "face exclusion without justification by the discriminatory 2019 amendment."
"These groups too have suffered due to their religious identities and seek refuge in India, the largest country in the neighbourhood," the statement further reads.
Meanwhile, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) did not outrightly hail or dismiss the CAA but said that the Act was "a mixed bag."
"In the UNHCR's perspective, the Act presents both opportunities and challenges: providing solutions for particular groups of people who may be in need of international protection but leaves out others in similar circumstances due to limited eligibility criteria," UNHCR Regional Spokesperson Babar Baloch told The Quint, sharing the perspective of his colleagues from Geneva, where the UN agency is headquartered.
He further said that refugees and stateless persons may also face additional challenges in providing required documentation to benefit from the legislation.
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)