The CAA is the talking point in clubs, tea stalls and barber shops in areas like Jadavpur, Garia, Tollygunge, Behala and Dumdum in Kolkata, where a large number of families are from erstwhile East Pakistan. In spite of the reassurances of supporters, the apprehensions are palpable in these conversations. After the announcement of the CAA’s rules, a young man from Calcutta took his own life, and his father blamed the tremendous mental trauma and agony that he suffered out of fear of not being able to provide all the required documents as shown in the media and in the government notification. The need to specify the date of entry to India in the application form, which they do not remember or have no proof in support of; filing an affidavit declaring citizenship at birth, etc., is worrying for them. “The moment I formally apply for Indian citizenship, it will be an acknowledgement that I am not an Indian citizen. That is a huge risk,” said one of them, echoing the apprehensiveness amongst all.

OVERVIEW
The CAA claims to provide a path to Indian citizenship for illegal immigrants belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian minority communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan who entered India before 31 December 2014. Based on the Act, 51 months later, the Citizenship Amendment Rule (CAR 2024) was notified on 11 March 2024. The Act excludes Muslims, as they are not minorities in those three countries. Supporters of the CAA argue that the law is a humanitarian gesture towards persecuted minorities in neighbouring countries. This argument, however, does not hold when we notice that another neighbour, Myanmar, which was part of British India like Pakistan and Bangladesh, is kept out of its purview. There are thousands of Indo-Aryan ethnic Muslim minorities (Rohingyas) who are fleeing that country as a result of religious persecution. Why, then, does the CAA not show any humanitarian gesture towards them? The Act is religio-centric and does not claim sympathy for persecuted Indian origins. This is borne out by the fact that it does not take into account the Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, which was also a part of the British Empire in India. The fact that it is Hindu-centric is apparent from the fact that it does not provide relief to Tibetan Buddhist refugees.

RELATIONSHIP WITH NPR AND NRC:
At the outset, it must be noted that CAA does not stand alone. This legislation, coupled with the proposed National Population Register (NPR) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), has been the subject of intense scrutiny due to its potential implications for citizenship, identity, and inclusivity. The NPR is a register of usual residents of the country, while the NRC aims to identify undocumented immigrants residing in India. The government has claimed that NPR is a benign exercise for census purposes, but critics fear it could serve as a precursor to the NRC, potentially leading to the disenfranchisement of marginalised communities, particularly Muslims
In my opinion, the legislation has the potential to undermine India’s secular foundation by eroding the principles of equality before the law. Citizenship should not be granted based on religious affiliation but rather on humanitarian grounds or principles of equality before the law.

COMPARISON WITH SIMILAR ACTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES:
To better understand the implications of the CAA, it is crucial to compare it with similar legislation in other countries. One such example is the United States Refugee Act of 1980, which provides asylum to individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Unlike the CAA, U.S. legislation does not prioritise refugees based on religion but rather focuses on persecution irrespective of religious affiliation. Israel’s Law of Return grants citizenship to Jews and their relatives, emphasising ethno-religious identity as a basis for citizenship. It grants citizenship to Jews from anywhere in the world, unlike the CAA, reflecting its status as a Jewish state. The law discriminates against native Palestinian Arabs. Myanmar’s Citizenship Law discriminates against Rohingya Muslims, rendering them stateless and subject to persecution. Malaysia’s Bumiputera policy privileges ethnic Malays in various aspects of citizenship and socio-economic opportunities, disadvantaging minority ethnic groups. Over the decades, it has led to a deepening of economic inequality, leading even Bumiputra beneficiaries to question the policy that experts say is in dire need of reforms. In contrast, countries like Canada and Australia have refugee and asylum policies that prioritise humanitarian considerations over religious or ethnic identity. These countries assess asylum claims based on a well-founded fear of persecution, regardless of the applicant’s religious background.

CONCLUSION:
India’s CAA-NPR-NRC framework represents a complex interplay of religious identity, migration politics, and constitutional principles. The proponents argue that the CAA is for the protection of persecuted minorities. Any non-Muslim from one of the three countries can get enrolled as an Indian citizen through this Act. They do not have to declare or prove that they were persecuted. The new application Forms IIA to VIIIA of the CAR 2024 confirms this. But the question is, how reasonable and practicable is it to expect 135 crore people to produce valid birth certificates? Is it reasonable to expect economically backward people, living in temporary houses and effectively illiterate, to obtain, preserve and produce birth certificates and other alternate documents required to satisfy officials? The shortcomings of the CAA are apparent and undesirable, emphasising the need for a more inclusive and humanitarian approach to citizenship and asylum. Addressing the drawbacks of the CAA requires a concerted effort to uphold constitutional values, promote social harmony, and safeguard the rights of all individuals, irrespective of their religious or ethnic background.

Sumeru Roy Chaudhury is an architect, political analyst and researcher. Chandra Kumar Bose is a socio-political activist and commentator.