Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
Emblem of India.svg
Parliament of India
Long title
  • An Act further to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955.
CitationAct No. 47 of 2019
Enacted byLok Sabha
Passed10 December 2019 (2019-12-10)
Enacted byRajya Sabha
Passed11 December 2019 (2019-12-11)
Assented to12 December 2019 (2019-12-12)
Signed12 December 2019 (2019-12-12)
Signed byRam Nath Kovind,
President of India
Effective10 January 2020 (2020-01-10)[1][2]
Legislative history
Bill introduced in the Lok SabhaCitizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019
Bill citationBill No. 370 of 2019
Bill published on9 December 2019; 2 years ago (2019-12-09)
Introduced byAmit Shah,
Minister of Home Affairs
First reading9 December 2019 (2019-12-09)
Second reading10 December 2019 (2019-12-10)
Third reading11 December 2019 (2019-12-11)
Amends
Citizenship Act, 1955
Status: In force

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was passed by the Parliament of India on 11 December 2019. It amended the Citizenship Act, 1955 by providing a pathway to Indian citizenship for persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis or Christians, and arrived in India before the end of December 2014.[3][4] The law does not grant such eligibility to Muslims from these Muslim-majority countries.[5][6][7] The act was the first time that religion had been overtly used as a criterion for citizenship under Indian law and attracted global criticism.[7][a][b][c]

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Indian government,[8][9] had promised in previous election manifestos to offer Indian citizenship to members of persecuted religious minorities who had migrated from neighbouring countries.[10][11] Under the 2019 amendment, migrants who had entered India by 31 December 2014, and had suffered "religious persecution or fear of religious persecution" in their country of origin, were made eligible for citizenship.[4] The amendment also relaxed the residence requirement for naturalisation of these migrants from twelve years to six.[12] According to Intelligence Bureau records, there will be just over 30,000 immediate beneficiaries of the bill.[13][d]

The amendment has been criticized as discriminating on the basis of religion, particularly for excluding Muslims.[5][6] The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) called it "fundamentally discriminatory", adding that while India's "goal of protecting persecuted groups is welcome", this should be accomplished through a non-discriminatory "robust national asylum system".[17] Critics express concerns that the bill would be used, along with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), to render many Muslim citizens stateless, as they may be unable to meet stringent birth or identity proof requirements.[18][19] Commentators also question the exclusion of persecuted religious minorities from other regions such as Tibet, Sri Lanka and Myanmar.[18][20] The Indian government said that since Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh have Islam as their state religion, it is therefore "unlikely" that Muslims would "face religious persecution" there.[11][21] However, certain Muslim groups, such as Hazaras and Ahmadis, have historically faced persecution in these countries.[22][23][24]

The passage of the legislation caused large-scale protests in India.[25] Assam and other northeastern states witnessed violent demonstrations against the bill over fears that granting Indian citizenship to refugees and immigrants will cause a loss of their "political rights, culture and land rights" and motivate further migration from Bangladesh.[26][27][28] In other parts of India, protesters said that the bill discriminated against Muslims, and demanded that Indian citizenship be granted to Muslim refugees and immigrants as well.[29] Major protests against the Act were held at some universities in India. Students at Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Millia Islamia alleged brutal suppression by the police.[30] The protests have led to the deaths of several protesters, injuries to both protesters and police officers, damage to public and private property, the detention of hundreds of people, and suspensions of local internet mobile phone connectivity in certain areas.[31][32] Some states announced that they would not implement the Act. In response, the Union Home Ministry said that states lack the legal power to stop the implementation of the CAA.[33]

Background[]

Citizenship law[]

The Indian Constitution that was implemented in 1950 guaranteed citizenship to all of the country's residents at the commencement of the constitution, and made no distinction on the basis of religion.[34][35][36] The Indian government passed the Citizenship Act in 1955. The Act provided two means for foreigners to acquire Indian citizenship. People from "undivided India"[e] were given a means of registration after seven years of residency in India. Those from other countries were given a means of naturalisation after twelve years of residency in India.[38][39] Political developments in the 1980s, particularly those related to the violent Assam movement against all migrants from Bangladesh, triggered revisions to the Citizenship Act of 1955.[40][41][42] The Citizenship Act was first amended in 1985 after the Assam Accord was signed, wherein the Indian government of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi agreed to identify foreign citizens, remove them from the electoral rolls, and expel them from the country.[43][44][42][45]

The Citizenship Act was further amended in 1992, 2003, 2005 and 2015. In December 2003, the National Democratic Alliance government, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 with far-reaching revisions of the Citizenship Act. It added the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the Act, making them ineligible to apply for citizenship (by registration or naturalisation), and declaring their children also as illegal immigrants.[46][47] Illegal immigrants were defined as citizens of other countries who entered India without valid travel documents, or who remained in the country beyond the period permitted by their travel documents. They can be deported or imprisoned.[48]

The 2003 amendment also mandated the Government of India to create and maintain a National Register of Citizens. The bill was supported by the Indian National Congress, as well as the Left parties, such as the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI (M)).[49][50][f] During the parliamentary debate on the amendment, the leader of opposition, Manmohan Singh, stated that refugees belonging to minority communities in Bangladesh and other countries had faced persecution, and requested that the government's approach to granting them citizenship be made more liberal.[52][53][54] According to M.K. Venu, the formulation of the 2003 amendment discussed by Advani and Singh was based on the idea that Muslim groups in Pakistan and Afghanistan that had experienced persecution also needed to be treated with compassion.[54]

Immigrants and refugees[]

A very large number of illegal immigrants, the largest numbers of whom are from Bangladesh, live in India. The Task Force on Border Management quoted the figure of 15 million illegal migrants in 2001. In 2004, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government stated in Parliament that there were 12 million illegal Bangladeshi migrants in India.[55] The reasons for the scale of migration include a porous border, historical migration patterns, economic reasons, and cultural and linguistic ties.[56] Many illegal migrants from Bangladesh had eventually received the right to vote. According to Niraja Jayal, this enfranchisement was widely described as an attempt to win elections using the votes of the illegal migrants from Bangladesh.[43][57] Bangladeshi scholar Abul Barkat estimated that over 11 million Hindus have left Bangladesh for India between 1964 and 2013, at a rate of 230,612 annually.[58][59] The reasons were religious persecution and discrimination, especially at the hands of the post-independence military regimes.[59][60][61] An unknown number of Pakistani Hindu refugees also live in India. An estimated 5,000 refugees arrive per year, citing religious persecution and forced conversion.[62][63][64]

India is not a signatory to either the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol.[65][66] It does not have a national policy on refugees. All refugees are classed as "illegal migrants". While India has been willing to host refugees, its traditional position formulated by Jawaharlal Nehru is that such refugees must return to their home countries after the situation returns to normal.[67][68] According to the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, India hosts refugees in excess of 456,000,[69] with about 200,000 from "non-neighbouring" countries hosted via the UNHCR.[67][70][g] According to Shuvro Sarker, since the 1950s and particularly since the 1990s, the Indian governments under various political parties have studied and drafted laws for the naturalisation of refugees and asylum seekers. These drafts have struggled with issues relating to a mass influx of refugees, urban planning, cost of basic services, the obligations to protected tribes, and the impact on pre-existing regional poverty levels within India.[72]

Bharatiya Janata Party activities[]

The "detection, deletion and deportation" of illegal migrants has been on the agenda of the BJP since 1996.[73] In the 2016 assembly elections for the border state of Assam, the BJP leaders campaigned in the state promising voters that they would rid Assam of the Bangladeshis. Simultaneously, they also promised to protect Hindus who had fled religious persecution in Bangladesh.[74] According to commentators, in the context of an effort to identify and deport illegal immigrants, the proposal to grant citizenship took a new meaning. Illegal migrants could be granted citizenship if they were non-Muslim, on the grounds that they were refugees; only Muslims would be deported.[35]

In its manifesto for the 2014 Indian general election, the BJP promised to provide a "natural home" for persecuted Hindu refugees.[75] The year before the 2016 elections in Assam, the government legalised refugees belonging to religious minorities from Pakistan and Bangladesh, granting them long-term visas. Bangladeshi and Pakistani nationals belonging to "minority communities" were exempted from the requirements of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and the Foreigners Act, 1946.[76] Specifically mentioned were "Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Parsis and Buddhists," who had been "compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution". Eligibility for the exemption was made contingent on a migrant having arrived in India by 31 December 2014.[77]

The BJP government introduced a bill to amend the citizenship law in 2016, which would have made non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh eligible for Indian citizenship.[78][79] The bill stalled in parliament following widespread political opposition and protests in northeast India. Opponents of the bill in Assam and the northeastern states of India stated that any migration from Bangladesh "irrespective of religion" would cause "loss of political rights and culture of the indigenous people".[79][80] According to Niraja Jayal, while the BJP had promised to grant Indian citizenship to all Hindu migrants from Bangladesh in its election campaigns during the 2010s, the draft Amendment bill angered many in Assam, including its own political allies because they view the amendment as a violation of the Assam Accord.[81] That accord promised to identify and deport all illegal Bangladeshi migrants who entered the state after 1971, "regardless of their religious identity".[81] In 2018, as the draft of this Amendment was being discussed, numerous Assamese organisations petitioned and agitated against it. They fear that the Amendment will encourage more migration and diminish employment opportunities to the native residents in the state.[81]

In parallel to the drafting of an amendment to the 1955 Citizenship Act, the BJP government completed an effort to update the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in the state of Assam. The process for creating the NRC had been put in place by the Citizenship rules enacted in 2003, and had been implemented in Assam under Supreme Court supervision as a result of a 2014 Supreme Court ruling.[82] This was mandated under prior peace agreements in northeast, and the Assam Accord in particular.[83][84] The updated register was made public in August 2019; approximately 1.9 million residents were not on the list, and were in danger of losing their citizenship.[85] Many of those affected were Bengali Hindus, who constitute a major voter base for the BJP; according to commentators, the BJP withdrew its support for the Assam NRC towards its end for this reason.[86][87][h] On 19 November 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah, declared in the Rajya Sabha (the Upper House of the Indian parliament) that the National Register of Citizens would be implemented throughout the country.[90]

Legislative history[]

The BJP government first introduced a bill to amend the citizenship law in 2016, which would have made non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh eligible for Indian citizenship.[78][79] Although this bill was passed by the Lok Sabha, or lower house of Indian parliament, it stalled in the Rajya Sabha, following widespread political opposition and protests in northeast India.[79][80]

The BJP reiterated its commitment to amend the citizenship act in its 2019 election campaign. It stated that religious minorities such as Hindus and Sikhs are persecuted in neighbouring Muslim-majority countries, and promised to fast track a path to citizenship for non-Muslim refugees.[91][92] After the elections, the BJP government drafted a bill that addressed the concerns of its northeastern states. It excluded Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura, Meghalaya and Manipur, except for non-tribal cities exempted under pre-existing regulations. It also excluded tribal areas of Assam.[93] The Indian government, while proposing an Amendment, said, that its bill aims to grant quicker access to citizenship to those who have fled religious persecution in neighbouring countries and have taken refuge in India.[21][94][5]

The Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on 19 July 2016 as the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016. It was referred to the Joint parliamentary committee on 12 August 2016. The Committee submitted its report on 7 January 2019 to Parliament. The Bill was taken into consideration and passed by Lok Sabha on 8 January 2019. It was pending for consideration and passing by the Rajya Sabha. Consequent to dissolution of 16th Lok Sabha, this Bill has lapsed.[95]

After the formation of 17th Lok Sabha, the Union Cabinet cleared the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, on 4 December 2019 for introduction in the parliament.[79][96] The Bill was introduced in 17th Lok Sabha by the Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shah on 9 December 2019 and was passed on 10 December 2019,[97] with 311 MPs voting in favour and 80 against the Bill.[98][99][100]

The bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 11 December 2019 with 125 votes in favour and 105 votes against it.[101][102] Those voted in favour included Janata Dal (United), AIADMK, Biju Janata Dal, TDP and YSR Congress Party.[101][102]

After receiving assent from the President of India on 12 December 2019, the bill assumed the status of an act.[103] The act came into force on 10 January 2020.[1][104] The implementation of the CAA began on 20 December 2019, when Union Minister Mansukh Mandaviya gave citizenship certificates to seven refugees from Pakistan.[105]

The Amendments[]

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2019 amended the Citizenship Act, 1955, by inserting the following provisos in section 2, sub-section (1), after clause (b):[104]

Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014 and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the purposes of this Act;[104]

A new section 6B was inserted (in the section concerning naturalisation), with four clauses, the first of which stated:

(1) The Central Government or an authority specified by it in this behalf may, subject to such conditions, restrictions and manner as may be prescribed, on an application made in this behalf, grant a certificate of registration or certificate of naturalisation to a person referred to in the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 2.[104]

The "exempted" classes of persons were previously defined in the Foreigners (Amendment) Order, 2015 (issued under the Foreigners Act, 1946):[77]

3A. Exemption of certain class of foreigners. – (1) Persons belonging to minority communities in Bangladesh and Pakistan, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution and entered into India on or before 31 December 2014

(a) without valid documents including passport or other travel documents and who have been exempted under rule 4 from the provisions of rule 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950 [...]; or
(b) with valid documents including passport or other travel document and the validity of any of such documents has expired,

are hereby granted exemption from the application of provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the orders made thereunder in respect of their stay in India without such documents or after the expiry of those documents, as the case may be [...].[77]

The Rules had been further amended in 2016 by adding Afghanistan to the list of countries.[106]

Exemptions were granted to northeastern regions of India in the clause (4) of section 6B:

(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to tribal area of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura as included in the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution and the area covered under "The Inner Line" notified under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.[104]

Analysis[]

The Act has amended the Citizenship Act, 1955 to give eligibility for Indian citizenship to illegal migrants who are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, and who entered India on or before 31 December 2014. The Act does not mention Muslims.[107][108] According to Intelligence Bureau records, the immediate beneficiaries of the Amended Act will be 31,313 people, which include 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis.[16][109]

Under the act, one of the requirements for citizenship by naturalisation is that the applicant must have lived in India during the last 12 months, and for 11 of the previous 14 years. The bill relaxes this 11-year requirement to 5 years for persons belonging to the same six religions and three countries. The bill exempts the tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, and Tripura from its applicability. It also exempts the areas regulated through the Inner Line Permit, which include Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland.[110][111][112] The inclusion of Manipur in Inner Line Permit was also announced on 9 December 2019.[93]

The bill includes a new provision for cancellation of the registration of Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) if there are any violations of any law of India, whether they are petty misdemeanors or serious felonies, however it also adds the opportunity for the OCI holder to be heard before the verdict.[104][79]

Selectively addressing religious persecution[]

The Exemption section in the Amendment of the Act[106] does not give attention to the refugees from all the neighboring countries. Of all the countries in the border China, Bhutan, Nepal, Pakistan (in the North or North-West), and Bangladesh and Myanmar (in the East) and Sri Lanka (in the South), this Act mentions Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan only, that is the Muslim majority countries in the border only are being addressed by design in the Act.

Exclusion of persecuted Muslims[]

Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are not offered eligibility for citizenship under the new Act.[5][6][113] Critics have questioned the exclusion. The amendment limits itself to the Muslim-majority neighbours of India and takes no cognisance of the persecuted Muslims of those countries.[71] According to The Economist, if the Indian government was concerned about religious persecution, it should have included Ahmadiyyas – a Muslim sect who have been "viciously hounded in Pakistan as heretics", and the Hazaras – another Muslim sect who have been murdered by the Taliban in Afghanistan. They should be treated as minorities.[22] India's minister of minority affairs, Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi defended the exclusion of the Ahmadiyyas by saying that India does not consider them as non-Muslims.[114] A landmark 1970 judgement from the Kerala High Court deemed Ahmadiyyas to be Muslims by the Indian law.[115] Naqvi added that India has provided refuge to different persecuted sects at different times, and Ahmaddiyas will not be forgotten.[114]

Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh are Muslim-majority countries that have modified their constitutions in recent decades to declare Islam their official state religion. Therefore, according to the Indian government, Muslims in these Islamic countries are "unlikely to face religious persecution". The government says that Muslims cannot be "treated as persecuted minorities" in these Muslim-majority countries.[21][11] The BBC says that while these countries have provisions in their constitution guaranteeing non-Muslims rights, including the freedom to practice their religion, in practice non-Muslim populations have experienced discrimination and persecution.[21]

Exclusion of other persecuted communities[]

The Act does not include migrants from non-Muslim countries fleeing persecution to India, Rohingya Muslim refugees from Myanmar, Hindu refugees from Sri Lanka, and Buddhist refugees from Tibet, China.

The Act does not mention Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Tamils were allowed to settle as refugees in Tamil Nadu in 1980s and 1990s due to systemic violence from the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka. They include 29,500 "hill country Tamils" (Malaiha).[68][116]

The Act does not provide relief to Tibetan Buddhist refugees,[18] who came to India in the 1950s and 1960s due to the Chinese invasion of Tibet. Their status has been of refugees over the decades. According to a 1992 UNHCR report, the then Indian government stated that they remain refugees and do not have the right to acquire Indian nationality.[117]

The Act does not address Rohingya Muslim refugees from Myanmar. The Indian government has been deporting Rohingya refugees to Myanmar.[23][118]

Relationship to NRC[]

The National Register of Citizens is a registry of all legal citizens, whose construction and maintenance was mandated by the 2003 amendment of the Citizenship Act. As of January 2020, it has only been implemented for the state of Assam, but the BJP has promised its implementation for the whole of India in its 2019 election manifesto.[119] The NRC documents all the legal citizens so that the people who are left out can be recognized as illegal immigrants (often called "foreigners"). The experience with Assam NRC shows that many people were declared "foreigners" because their documents were deemed insufficient.[120]

In this context, there are concerns that the present amendment of the Citizenship Act provides a "shield" to the non-Muslims, who can claim that they were migrants who fled persecution from Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, while the Muslims do not have such a benefit.[121][122][123][124] Such a claim may be possible only for people in the border states who have some ethnic resemblance to the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh, but not to the people of interior states.[19][125] Muslim leaders have interpreted the CAA–NRC package in precisely these terms, viz., that the Muslims in the country would be targeted (by considering documents as insufficient) as potential foreigners, leaving out all non-Muslims.[19]

In an interview to India Today, Home Minister Amit Shah offered reassurance that no Indian citizen needs to worry. "We will make special provisions to ensure that no Indian citizen from minority communities is victimised in the NRC process." But the Indian Express said that the purpose of the NRC is precisely to identify the Indian citizens. So these references to "Indian citizens" remain unexplained.[19]

Reception[]

Citizenship Amendment Act protests in Calicut Kerala 2020 by Muslim Youth League (The Youth Wing of Indian Union Muslim League)
Locals protest against the CAB in New Delhi on 14 December 2019
Locals and Jamia Millia Islamia students protest against CAA/NRC in New Delhi on 15 December 2019

Protests[]

Main article: Citizenship Amendment Act protests

The passage of the Act triggered different types of protests and criticisms. Violent protests erupted in Assam, where the protesters maintained that the new provisions of this Act are against prior agreements such as the Assam Accord,[26][27] and that they would cause a "loss of political rights and culture". The India-Japan summit in Guwahati, which was supposed to be attended by Shinzō Abe was cancelled.[126][127] The UK, USA, France, Israel and Canada issued travel warnings for people visiting India's north-east region, telling their citizens to "exercise caution".[128][129][130]

In other parts of India, political and student activists protested that the law "marginalizes Muslims, is prejudicial against Muslims" and sought that Muslim migrants and refugees should also be granted Indian citizenship per its secular foundations.[28] The protesters demanded that the law should grant Indian citizenship to Muslim immigrants and refugees too.[29]

Protests against the bill were held in several metropolitan cities across India, including Kolkata,[128] Delhi,[131][132] Mumbai,[101] Bengaluru,[133] Hyderabad,[134] and Jaipur.[131] Rallies were also held in various Indian states of West Bengal, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Telangana, Bihar, Maharastra, Kerala and Karnataka.[128] 27 people were killed by police firing guns in the whole of India.[135][136]

Various cities around the world, including New York, Washington D. C.,[137] Melbourne,[138][139] Paris, Berlin,[140] Geneva, Barcelona, San Francisco, Tokyo, Helsinki,[141] and Amsterdam, witnessed protests against the Act and the police brutality faced by Indian protesters.[142][143]

Kerala human chain was formed by approximately 6 to 7 million people and extended for a distance of 700 kilometres

Students from various universities like Jamia Millia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University, Nadwa College, Jawaharlal Nehru University, IIT Kanpur, IIT Madras, Jadavpur University, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, IISc, Pondicherry University, and IIM Ahmedabad also held protest. More than 25 student associations from all over India joined protest. On 15 December, police forcefully entered the campus of Jamia Millia Islamia university, where protests were being held, and detained the students. Police used batons and tear gas on the students. More than a hundred students were injured and an equal number were detained. The police action was widely criticized, and resulted in protests across the country.[144][145][146]

Muslims all over India came out to protest the CAA–NRC package with a renewed assertion of their identity as Indians.[147] Muslim women started protest at Shaheen Bagh on 15 December 2019 start as an ongoing 24/7 sit-in peaceful protest.[148][149][150] The protesters at Shaheen Bagh have blocked a major highway[i] in New Delhi using non-violent resistance for more than 51 days now as of 5 February 2020.[151] On 24 February, violent clashes occurred during the North East Delhi riots in which seven people where killed and more than a hundred injured.[152] The death toll rose to 42 within 36 hours, with 250 people getting injured.[153]

Indian government response[]

On 16 December, after the protests entered the fifth day, Prime Minister Narendra Modi appealed for calm in a series of tweets saying "No Indian has anything to worry regarding this act. This act is only for those who have faced years of persecution outside and have no other place to go except India".[154][155] As CAA protests raised concerns on combined effects of CAA with NRC, the government has sought to downplay its narrative on NRC, with both the PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah stating that there has been no talk on pan-Indian NRC in their government for now, and neither the cabinet nor the legal department has discussed it.[156][19]

Considering Violence and damage to public properties during demonstration, on 19 December, police banned protests in several parts of India with the imposition of section 144 which prohibits the gathering of more than 4 individuals in a public space as being unlawful, namely, parts of the capital Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka, including Bangalore. Police in Chennai denied permission for marches, rallies or any other demonstration.[157][158] Internet services were shut down in several parts of Delhi. As a result of defining the ban, thousands of protesters were detained, including several opposition leaders and activists such as Ramachandra Guha, Sitaram Yechury, Yogendra Yadav, Umar Khalid, Sandeep Dikshit, Tehseen Poonawalla and D Raja.[159][160][161]

Rallies in support[]

See also: Citizenship Amendment Act protests § Pro-CAA demonstrations

Right-wing student groups such as those from the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad – a student wing of the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, held rallies in support of the amended Citizenship Act.[162][163] Rallies in support of the Amendment Act were led by BJP leaders in West Bengal, who alleged that the state government blocked them. They also accused the Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's party members of misinforming the state's residents about the new law.[164] Similarly, some 15,000 people joined a BJP-organised rally in support of the Act in Rajasthan.[165] On 20 December 2019, scores of people held demonstrations in Central Park, Connaught Place, New Delhi in support of the Act.[166][167] Hundreds of people gathered in Pune, forming a human chain, in support of CAA, on 22 December.[168][169] ABVP members held a rally in support of CAA and NRC in Kerala.[170] Hundreds of citizens were out on the streets in support of the citizenship law in Bangalore.[171] Jay Kholiya, ex-Member and Officer Bearer of ABVP Maharashtra had resigned from his office during these protests citing "Ideological Differences".[172] In Assam, ABVP's National Executive Moon Talukdar also had joined Anti-CAA Protests. He also announced that around 800 members would resign in opposition to the government's move to implement the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA).[173]

Refugees[]

Hindu refugee families in Assam, living since the 1960s in a refugee camp and who had been denied Indian citizenship so far, said that the Amendment had "kindled hope" at first. They added that the recent protests against the Act and demands for its cancellation have made them fearful of the future.[174] In New Delhi, about 600 refugees from Pakistan living in a camp consisting of tiny shanties celebrated the new law.[175] A delegation of Sikh refugees who had arrived from Afghanistan three decades ago thanked the Indian government for amending the citizenship law. They stated the Amended law would allow them to finally gain Indian citizenship and "join the mainstream".[176]

Some Rohingya Muslim refugees in India were not optimistic about the Amendment and feared they would be deported.[177][178] Other Rohingya refugees expressed gratitude at having been allowed to stay in India, but did not make any comments specific to the Act lest they provoke a backlash. They said that local police had asked them not to protest against the Act.[179]

More than 200 families have arrived in the Indian state of Punjab with all their belongings after the law was enacted.[180]

Political and legal challenge[]

The bill was opposed by the Indian National Congress, who said it would create communal tensions and polarise India.[181] The Chief Ministers of the Indian states of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal, Punjab, Kerala and Rajasthan and union territory of Puducherry – all led by non-BJP governments – said they will not implement the law.[182][183][128] According to the Union Home Ministry, states lack the legal power to stop the implementation of CAA. The Ministry stated that "the new legislation has been enacted under the Union List of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. The states have no power to reject it".[33] Modi stated on 21 December that the NRC had only been implemented in Assam to follow a directive from the Supreme Court of India, and that there had been no decision taken to implement it nation-wide.[184]

The Indian Union Muslim League petitioned the Supreme Court of India to declare the bill illegal.[185][186] The royal family of Tripura also filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the bill.[187] The first hearing by the Supreme Court of India on 60 petitions challenging the Act was on 18 December 2019. During the first hearing, the court declined to stay implementation of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.[185] On 22 January 2020, around 143 petitions, including several petitions filed after 18 December 2019 were heard. Court again declined the request for stay. Bench, presided over by Chief Justice of India SA Bobde indicated that the matter may be referred to a larger bench. a as the next date of hearing.[188][189] The next hearing was scheduled on 21 April 2020.[189]

Commentary and petitions[]

The foreign intelligence agency of India, R&AW, had expressed concern while deposing in front of the joint parliamentary committee, and had stated that the bill could be used by agents of the foreign intelligence agencies to infiltrate legally into India.[190] Former National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon called the incident a self inflicted goal that has isolated India from the International community.[191]

Harish Salve, former Solicitor General of India, said that the bill does not violate Article 14, Article 25 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.[192]

A group of prominent individuals and organisations from around 12 countries representing minorities of Bangladesh released a joint statement in which they described the Act as "humanitarian" provision through which India has "partially fulfilled" its obligations towards the minorities of Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.[193] The National Sikh Front – a group representing the Sikhs in Jammu and Kashmir, stated that it supports the Act because it will help the Sikh refugees in India who left Afghanistan.[194]

A petition opposing the bill was signed by more 1,000 Indian scientists and scholars.[195] The petition stated that "The use of religion as a criterion for citizenship in the proposed bill" was "inconsistent with the basic structure of the Constitution".[195] A similar number of Indian academicians and intellectuals released a statement in support of the legislation.[196] The petition stated that the act "fulfills the long-standing demand of providing refuge to persecuted religious minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan".[197]

Historian Neeti Nair commented that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens represent steps towards a "Hindu Rashtra" that should be "summarily dismissed both by the people and by the courts".[198] Similar views were also expressed by social activists such as Harsh Mander,[199] Indira Jaising.[200] and media houses National Herald and The Caravan.[201][202] The Japan Times termed the Act as "Modi's project to make a Hindu India".[203]

International reactions[]

  •  Afghanistan: Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai urged Government of India to treat all minorities equally. In an interview to The Hindu, he said, "We don't have persecuted minorities in Afghanistan." Mentioning the Afghanistan conflict, he said, "The whole country is persecuted. We have been in war and conflict for a long time. All religions in Afghanistan, Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs, which are our three main religions, have suffered."[204]
  •  Australia: Australian Greens MP David Shoebridge tabled motion in the Legislative Council, calling for serious attention to India's CAA, the Modi government's reaction to the democratic protests and to renegotiate trade agreements between Australia and India so that they include a human rights clause.[205]
  •  Bahrain: The Shura Council (the Council of Representatives) called on the Government of India to refrain from implementing the Act, taking the rights of the Muslims into account, and respecting the international principles.[206]
  •  Bangladesh: Bangladesh's Minister of Foreign Affairs, A. K. Abdul Momen said that this bill could weaken India's historic character as a secular nation and denied that minorities were facing religious persecution in his country.[207] In an interview to Gulf News, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said, "Within India, people are facing many problems" and expressed her concerns saying, "We don't understand why (the Indian government) did it. It was not necessary". However, she maintained her stance that the CAA and NRC are internal matters of India. She also said that Prime Minister Modi assured her of no reverse migration from India.[208]
  •  France: Ambassador of France to India, Emmanuel Lenain, said that France considers the legislation an internal matter of India and respects it.[209]
  •  Kuwait: Around 27 lawmakers in Kuwait expressed "deep concern" over "the abusive legislative and repressive security measures taken by the Indian government against Muslims". They asked the Kuwait Government to ‘exert diplomatic efforts’ and to approach the UN to address the situation.[210]
  •  Malaysia: The Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad, criticised the law and said it could "deprive some Muslims of their citizenship". India rejected the criticism and said the law does not "deprive any Indian of any faith of her or his citizenship".[211]
  •  Maldives: Maldives' Parliament Speaker and former president, Mohamed Nasheed, said that CAA is an internal issue of India and was democratically passed through both the houses of the Parliament.[212]
  •  Pakistan: Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan criticised the Act.[213] Pakistan's National Assembly passed a resolution labelling the Act as a "discriminatory law" and argued that it contravened "bilateral agreements and understandings between India and Pakistan, particularly those on security and rights of minorities in the respective countries".[214] This act was denounced by both the Hindu and Sikh communities of Pakistan. In particular, it was rejected by the Pakistan Hindu Council, a representative body of Hindus in the country. Many lawmakers were vocal in voicing their protest over this legislation. These included Lal Chand Malhi, member of the national assembly from Pakistan's ruling party Tehreek-e-Insaf, and , member of the provincial assembly of Sindh.[215]
  •  Russia: Deputy Russian Ambassador to India, Roman Babushkin, said that Russia considers the legislation an internal matter of India.[216]
  •  Sri Lanka: Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa termed the CAA as an internal matter of India. While answering a question about the non-inclusion of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, he said, "Sri Lankans can return anytime they want. Their houses are there. They can come back anytime they want. We have no objection. Recently, around 4,000 of them returned. It all depends on what they want."[217]
  •  United Kingdom : The outgoing British High Commissioner to India, Dominic Asquith, said that the UK expressed hope that the Indian government will address concerns of the people as its manifesto commitment is "sabka saath, sabka vikas, sabka vishvas" (with all, development for all, and trust of all)[218]
  •  United States: The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) called for sanctions[219] against Amit Shah and "other principal leadership" over passage of the Bill.[220][j] India's Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement in response, stating that the statement made by the USCIRF was "neither accurate nor warranted", and that neither the CAA nor the NRC sought to strip Indian citizens of citizenship.[222][223][224] The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs questioned the intent of the Bill and noted that "[a]ny religious test for citizenship undermines this most basic democratic tenet."[225] On 19 December, however, the United States Secretary of State said that the US respects Indian democracy since it has a "robust" internal debate on the Citizenship Act.[226] The President of the United States, Donald Trump, during his visit to India, declined to comment on the CAA and said that "it is up to India."[227]
Two city councils, in Seattle and Cambridge, passed resolutions asking India to repeal the Citizenship Amendment Act.[228]

Organisations[]

  •  European Union: Ambassador of the European Union to India, Ugo Astuto, said that he trusts that the outcome of the CAA discussion would be in line with the high standards set by the Indian constitution.[229]
  •  Organisation of Islamic Cooperation: OIC expressed their concern about present situation of CAA-NRC and urged the Government of India to ensure the safety of the Muslim minority and to follow obligation of Charter of the United Nations.[230]
  •  United Nations: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights criticised the Act and called it "fundamentally discriminatory in nature". It added, "Although India's broader naturalization laws remain in place, these amendments will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality."[231]
    • The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has filed an intervention in the Supreme Court of India on the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2020.[232]

See also[]

Sources[]

Notes[]

  1. ^ Sharma (2019), p. 523: "First, citizenship status biased towards religious identity is by no means a new idea.... A careful study of the policies and laws related to citizenship, adopted since independence substantiate the assertion that citizenship in India has always been based on an implicit belief that India is for Hindus."
  2. ^ Sen (2018), pp. 10–11: "Nehru’s response [to Patel's warning] made it clear that Muslim migrants from Pakistan could not join the ranks of refugees in India... Thus, despite broad public statements promising citizenship to all displaced persons from Pakistan, Hindu migrants alone counted as citizen-refugees in post-partition India."
  3. ^ Jayal (2019), pp. 34–35: "While some elements of religious difference had... been covertly smuggled in earlier, this bill seeks to do so overtly."
  4. ^ According to the Indian Intelligence Bureau figures given to the Joint Parliamentary Committee, 31,313 people were granted long-term visas using the criteria mentioned in the Act. They included 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis. They were expected to be the immediate beneficiaries of the Act.[14][15][16]
  5. ^ The Act defines "undivided India" as "India as defined in the Government of India Act, 1935, as originally enacted".[37] It included, in addition to India, the present day Pakistan and Bangladesh.
  6. ^ In 2012, the then CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat had written to Manmohan Singh, who was prime minister at the time, reminding him of his 2003 statement and urging him to make a suitable amendment in policy to allow "minority community refugees" easy citizenship.[51]
  7. ^ Indian government statistics in 2014 show 289,394 "stateless persons" in India. The majority were from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (about 100,000 each), followed by those from Tibet, Myanmar, Pakistan and Afghanistan.[71]
  8. ^ The excluded people of the Assam NRC were 0.5 million Bengali Hindus and 0.7 million Muslims, with the remainder made up of local people and Hindus from north India.[88][89]
  9. ^ Road No 13-A, Shaheen Bagh (GD Birla Marg) – Mathura Road – Kalindi Kunj – Shaheen Bagh stretch is a border point that connects New Delhi to Noida and Faridabad.
  10. ^ The USCIRF had earlier expressed its support for the Lautenberg-Specter Amendments, a US law that is considered similar to the CAA.[221]

References[]

  1. ^ a b "MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NOTIFICATION S.O. 172(E)" (PDF). The Gazette of India. 10 January 2020. Retrieved 10 January 2020.
  2. ^ "Citizenship Amendment Act comes into effect from today as MHA issues notification". The Indian Express. 10 January 2020.
  3. ^ Citizenship Amendment Bill: India's new 'anti-Muslim' law explained, BBC News, 11 December 2019.
  4. ^ a b "Parliament passes the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019". pib.gov.in. Retrieved 18 December 2019.
  5. ^ a b c d Regan, Helen; Gupta, Swati; Khan, Omar. "India passes controversial citizenship bill that excludes Muslims". CNN. The government, ruled by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said the bill seeks to protect religious minorities who fled persecution in their home countries.
  6. ^ a b c Gringlas, Sam. "India Passes Controversial Citizenship Bill That Would Exclude Muslims". NPR.
  7. ^ a b Slater, Joanna (18 December 2019). "Why protests are erupting over India's new citizenship law". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 18 December 2019. Retrieved 18 December 2019.
  8. ^ "India's New Year Eve — the night of resolution or revolution?". TRT World. 1 January 2020. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
  9. ^ "From CAA to Art 370 Abrogation: 5 of Modi govt's boldest moves". Free Press Journal. 20 December 2020. Retrieved 2 January 2020.
  10. ^ Sankalpit Bharat Sashakt Bharat Archived 10 November 2019 at the Wayback Machine, BJP Sankalp Patra Lock Sabha 2019 (Manifesto, 2019)
  11. ^ a b c Kaur Sandhu, Kamaljit; Singh, Mausami (9 December 2019). "Citizenship Amendment Bill has public endorsement, was part of manifesto: Amit Shah". India Today. The Citizenship Amendment Bill ... was required to give protection to people who are forced to live in pathetic human condition while rejecting the argument that a Muslim may suffer religious persecution in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan saying that a Muslim is unlikely to face religious persecution in an Islamic country
  12. ^ "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019" (PDF). PRS India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 December 2019. Retrieved 11 December 2019.: "For these groups of persons, the 11 years’ requirement will be reduced to five years." This is in addition to twelve-month residency immediately preceding the citizenship application.
  13. ^ Saha, Abhishek (20 January 2019). "Explained: Why Assam, Northeast are angry". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 11 December 2019.
  14. ^ "How many immigrants will benefit from Citizenship Act? 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, two Buddhists and two Parsis, says Intelligence Bureau". Firstpost.
  15. ^ Tripathi, Rahul (17 December 2019). "Citizenship Amendment Act decoded: What it holds for India". The Economic Times.
  16. ^ a b Intelligence Bureau to tap RAW to verify citizenship claims, The Telegraph, 9 January 2019.
  17. ^ Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Archived 19 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, Jeremy Laurence, United Nations High Commission for Refugees, Geneva (13 December 2019)
  18. ^ a b c Chaudhry, Suparna (13 December 2019). "India's new law may leave millions of Muslims without citizenship". The Washington Post.
  19. ^ a b c d e Vishwanath, Apurva; Sheriff, Kaunain (25 December 2019). "Explained: What NRC+CAA means to you". The Indian Express.
  20. ^ Gettleman, Jeffrey; Raj, Suhasini (11 December 2019). "Indian Parliament Passes Divisive Citizenship Bill, Moving It Closer to Law". The New York Times. Retrieved 18 December 2019.
  21. ^ a b c d "Is India's claim about minorities true?". 12 December 2019. [The Indian government states:] 'The constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific state religion. As a result, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on grounds of religion in those countries.'
  22. ^ a b "India's bill purporting to help refugees really seeks to hurt Muslims, India's bill purporting to help refugees really seeks to hurt Muslims". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 24 December 2019.
  23. ^ a b "What Does India's New Citizenship Law Mean?". The New York Times. 13 December 2019. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 19 December 2019.
  24. ^ "Is India's claim about minorities true?". 12 December 2019.
  25. ^ Samuel, Sigal (12 December 2019). "India just redefined its citizenship criteria to exclude Muslims". Vox.
  26. ^ a b Saha, Abhishek (20 January 2019). "Explained: Why Assam, Northeast are angry". The Indian Express.
  27. ^ a b Choudhury, Ratnadip (21 December 2019). ""Want Peace, Not Migrants": Thousands Of Women Protest Citizenship Act Across Assam". NDTV.com.
  28. ^ a b Gollom, Mark (17 December 2019). "Why India's controversial citizenship law has sparked violent protests". CBC News.
  29. ^ a b Pokharel, Krishna (17 December 2019). "India Citizenship Protests Spread to Muslim Area of Capital". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 23 December 2019.
  30. ^ Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (17 December 2019). "India protests: students condemn 'barbaric' police". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.
  31. ^ Nath, Hemanta Kumar (12 November 2019). "1,000 detained as anti-Citizenship Amendment Bill protests intensify in Assam".
  32. ^ Dutta, Prabhash (19 December 2019). "Violent protests against Citizenship Amendment Act: Who will pay for damages?". India Today.
  33. ^ a b "Sporadic protests in MP against CAA". Outlook. 19 December 2019.
  34. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (August 2019). "A De Facto Ethnic Democracy". In Chatterji, Angana P.; Hansen, Thomas Blom; Jaffrelot, Christophe (eds.). Majoritarian State: How Hindu Nationalism Is Changing India. Oxford University Press. pp. 41–67. ISBN 978-0-19-007817-1. Archived from the original on 17 December 2019. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
  35. ^ a b Thakur, Apurva (31 March 2018), "Why the Citizenship Amendment Bill Goes Against the Basic Tenets of the Constitution", EPW Engage, 53 (13), pp. 7–8, archived from the original on 18 December 2019
  36. ^ Roy 2010, pp. 33–34.
  37. ^ Universal's The Citizenship Act, 1955 (2004), p. 13, item 2(1)(h).
  38. ^ Roy 2010, pp. 37–38.
  39. ^ Universal's The Citizenship Act, 1955 (2004): See p. 15, clause 5 for "seven years"; see p. 27, The Third Schedule for "eleven years" followed by "twelve months".
  40. ^ Niraja Gopal Jayal (2019), Reconfiguring Citizenship in Contemporary India, Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(1), pp. 34–36 (context: 33–50), doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1555874, Quote: "From the 1980s onwards, the legal and constitutional conception of the Indian citizen started to undergo a subtle transformation, through amendments to the Citizenship Act, in response to political developments. The latest in a series of such amendments is the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, introduced in parliament in July 2016 and passed in the lower house of India's parliament in January 2019. [...] The present amendment consolidates a trend that began with the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 1985, which amended the provisions pertaining to naturalisation. This gave legal expression to the Assam Accord between the Rajiv Gandhi government and the Assamese students’ organisations that had led the agitation against the enfranchisement of migrants from Bangladesh in Assam. [...] The 1985 amendment to the Citizenship Act that followed the Accord introduced a new section titled ‘Special Provisions as to Citizenship of Persons Covered by the Assam Accord’. Seeking to allay anxieties about migrants who had come in from Bangladesh [...]"
  41. ^ Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty (2019). Assam: The Accord, The Discord. Penguin. pp. 1–14, Chapters: Introduction, 2, 9, 10. ISBN 978-93-5305-622-3.
  42. ^ a b Sharma (2019), p. 522
  43. ^ a b Niraja Gopal Jayal (2019), Reconfiguring Citizenship in Contemporary India, Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(1), pp. 34–36 (context: 33–50), doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1555874, Quote: "The Accord was entered into in 1985, after the agitation led to the Nellie massacre during the election of 1983. The enfranchisement of the migrants was widely attributed to the Congress. The common perception was that all Bangladeshi immigrants were Muslims, and the Congress Party was seen as the prime beneficiary of their votes. The Accord put in place measures for the detection of foreigners and their deletion from the state’s electoral rolls. [...] "As Kamal Sadiq’s book showed, ‘illegal’ migrants were more likely to be in possession of ‘documentary citizenship’—papers like ration cards and voter cards—certifying their citizenship, while natives and their descendants might well have no documentation at all"
  44. ^ Mihika Poddar (2018), The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: international law on religion-based discrimination and naturalisation law, Indian Law Review, 2(1), 108–118, doi:10.1080/24730580.2018.1512290
  45. ^ Hazarika, Sanjoy (13 December 2019), "Assam and the CAB", CNBC–TV18: "In the 1980s, the Congress Party faced the brunt of the ‘anti-foreigner’ movement with confrontation and violence erupting in the state till a 1985 accord with the government of then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi appeared to assuage the situation. Foreign nationals would be detected and expelled as per provisions of law after 1971, it said, and the people of the state would be provided preferential treatment and constitutional safeguards to protect their identity."
  46. ^ Roy 2010, p. 138.
  47. ^ Universal's The Citizenship Act, 2003 (2004), p. 2.
  48. ^ "Citizenship Amendment Bill: India's new 'anti-Muslim' law explained". BBC News. 11 December 2019.
  49. ^ Dual Citizenship Bill passed in Rajya Sabha, The Hindu, 19 December 2003.
  50. ^ Neena Vyas, Anita Joshua, Dual citizenship Bill passed, The Hindu, 23 December 2003.
  51. ^ By Listing Religions, Modi's CAA Broke Atal-Manmohan-Left Concord on Persecuted Minorities, The Wire, 29 December 2019.
  52. ^ Parliamentary Debates Official Report, Volume 200, Number 13, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Government of India, 18 December 2003, page 383, Quote: "After the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh, have faced persecution, and it is our moral obligation that if circumstances force people, these unfortunate people, to seek refuge in our country, our approach to granting citizenship to these unfortunate persons should be more liberal. I sincerely hope that the hon. Deputy Prime Minister will bear this in mind in charting out the future course of action with regard to the Citizenship Act."
  53. ^ BJP digs up Manmohan speech seeking citizenship for persecuted refugees, The Times of India, 20 December 2019;
    A tale of two demands, The Hindu (10 December 2019);
    Historical Promises, The Pioneer (24 December 2019)
  54. ^ a b M. K. Venu, By Listing Religions, Modi's CAA Broke Atal-Manmohan-Left Concord on Persecuted Minorities, The Wire, 29 December 2019.
  55. ^ Das, Pushpita (2016), Illegal Migration From Bangladesh: Deportation, Border Fences and Work Permits (PDF), Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, pp. 26–27, ISBN 978-93-82169-69-7
  56. ^ Ranjan 2019, p. 4.
  57. ^ Shamshad, Rizwana (2017). Bangladeshi Migrants in India: Foreigners, Refugees, or Infiltrators?. Oxford University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-0-19-909159-1., Quote: "The electoral rolls prepared for the election found that the number of voters had increased significantly. There were complaints against the sudden inclusion of 70,000 foreigners in the voter list."
  58. ^ "No Hindus will be left in Bangladesh after 30 years: professor". The Hindu. 22 November 2016 – via www.thehindu.com.
  59. ^ a b ‘No Hindus will be left after 30 years’, Dhaka Tribune, 20 November 2016.
  60. ^ Himadri Chatterjee, Why Scheduled Caste Refugees of Bengal Are Resisting CAA and NRC, The Wire, 31 December 2019.
  61. ^ Gillan (2007), p. 85: Quoting Ranabir Sammadar: "Not only are the Muslim peasants depeasantized, pauperized and lumpenized on their arrival in India, the Hindu peasantry of Bangladesh is cynically and most systematically robbed of land on communal considerations in the villages of Bangladesh and the peasants are thus forced to flee."
  62. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (2015), The Pakistan Paradox: Instability and Resilience, Oxford University Press, pp. 331–333, ISBN 978-0-19-061330-3
  63. ^ Why Pakistani Hindus leave their homes for India, BBC News, 28 October 2015.
  64. ^ Shreyasee Raj, Safe But Betrayed: Pakistani Hindu Refugees in India, The Diplomat, 22 January 2019.
  65. ^ Sarker 2017, pp. 21–22.
  66. ^ US Department of State (1991). World Refugee Report. The Bureau for Refugee Programs, US Government. pp. 42–43.
  67. ^ a b Ahmad, Nafees (12 September 2017). "The Status of Refugees in India". Fair Observer.
  68. ^ a b Suryanarayan, V.; Ramaseshan, Geeta (25 August 2016). "Citizenship without bias". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X.
  69. ^ "A question of fair play". The Statesman. 10 October 2016.
  70. ^ India Archived 19 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, UNHCR Global Appeal, 2011.
  71. ^ a b "Explained: What is Citizenship Amendment Act?". The Indian Express. 19 December 2019.
  72. ^ Sarker 2017, pp. 55–67, 192–198.
  73. ^ Gupta 2019, pp. 2–3.
  74. ^ Roy 2019, p. 28.
  75. ^ "BJP offer of 'natural home' for Hindu refugees triggers debate". Hindustan Times. 9 April 2014.
  76. ^ Exemptions to minority community nationals from Bangladesh and Pakistan in regularization of their entry and stay in India Archived 16 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, Ministry of Home Affairs, 7 September 2015.
  77. ^ a b c The Gazette of India, Issue 553 of 2015 Archived 16 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, 8 September 2015.
  78. ^ a b "Lok Sabha passes Citizenship Bill amid protests, seeks to give citizenship to non-Muslims from 3 countries". India Today. Retrieved 26 January 2019.
  79. ^ a b c d e f "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019. Highlights, Issues and Summary". PRS Legislative Research. 9 December 2019.
  80. ^ a b "Explained: Why Assam, Northeast are angry". The Indian Express. 20 January 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
  81. ^ a b c Niraja Gopal Jayal (2019), Reconfiguring Citizenship in Contemporary India, Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(1), p. 37 (context: 33–50), doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1555874
  82. ^ Roy 2019, p. 29.
  83. ^ Accord between AASU, AAGSP and the Central Government on the Foreign National Issue Archived 21 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, Assam Accord, United Nations Archives (15 August 1985)
  84. ^ Gupta 2019.
  85. ^ Chanakya (7 December 2019). "The CAB-NRC package is flawed and dangerous". Hindustan Times.
  86. ^ Assam NRC: What next for 1.9 million 'stateless' Indians?, BBC News, 31 August 2019.
  87. ^ "Citizenship Amendment Bill: 'Anti-Muslim' law challenged in India court". BBC. 12 December 2019. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
  88. ^ ‘Five lakh Bengali Hindu NRC rejects will get citizenship, The Times of India, 11 December 2019.
  89. ^ Sanjoy Hazarika, Assam's Tangled Web of Citizenship and the Importance of a Consensus, The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy, 18 October 2019.
  90. ^ "Amit Shah: NRC to apply nationwide, no person of any religion should worry". India Today. 20 November 2019. Retrieved 22 December 2019.
  91. ^ BJP manifesto 2019: Top 10 promises for next 5 years, India Today (18 April 2019), Quote: "We are committed to the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Bill for the protection of individuals of religious minority communities from neighbouring countries escaping persecution. [...] We reiterate our commitment to protect the linguistic, cultural and social identity of the people of Northeast. Hindus, Jains, Buddhists and Sikhs escaping persecution from India’s neighbouring countries will be given citizenship in India."
  92. ^ India’s Government Considers a ‘Muslim Ban’ Archived 23 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Wall Street Journal, Sadanand Dhume (18 April 2019)
  93. ^ a b Jain, Bharti (10 December 2019). "Bringing ILP for Manipur, 3 NE states will be out of CAB". The Times of India.
  94. ^ "India's new citizenship law outrages Muslims". The Economist. 12 December 2019. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on 23 December 2019. When Amit Shah, India’s home minister, proposed his bill in parliament on December 9th, he framed it as an act of mercy. Henceforth, he promised, people who have fled persecution in neighbouring countries and taken refuge in India would be granted quicker access to citizenship.
  95. ^ "Explained: Why the Citizenship Amendment Bill is dead, for now". The Indian Express. 13 February 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2019.
  96. ^ "Controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Bill to Be Tabled in Lok Sabha on Monday". The Wire. Retrieved 8 December 2019.
  97. ^ "Citizenship Bill gets Lok Sabha nod, Rajya Sabha test next". Hindustan Times. 9 December 2019.
  98. ^ "Citizenship Bill has smooth sail in Lok Sabha, will Amit Shah clear Rajya Sabha test?". India Today. Ist. 10 December 2019.
  99. ^ "Citizenship (Amendment) Bill: Federal US commission seeks sanctions against home minister Amit Shah". The Times of India. 10 December 2019.
  100. ^ Das, Shaswati (9 December 2019). "Amit Shah to table Citizenship Amendment Bill in Lok Sabha today". Livemint.
  101. ^ a b c Nath, Damini; Singh, Vijaita (11 December 2019). "After a heated debate, Rajya Sabha clears Citizenship (Amendment) Bill". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X.
  102. ^ a b "CAB set to be law as RS passes it 125–105, indefinite curfew and Army in Guwahati". The Times of India. 12 December 2019.
  103. ^ "Citizenship (Amendment) Bill gets President's assent, becomes act". Press Trust of India. 13 December 2019 – via The Economic Times.
  104. ^ a b c d e f "The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019" (PDF). The Gazette of India. 12 December 2019.
  105. ^ "Union Minister gives citizenship papers to Pak refugees". Outlook India. 21 December 2019. Retrieved 21 December 2019.
  106. ^ a b The Gazette of India, Issue 495 of 2016 Archived 4 August 2016 at the Wayback Machine, 18 July 2016
  107. ^ Nair, Sobhana K. (23 November 2019). "NRC is anti-Indian citizen". The Hindu.
  108. ^ Nair, Sobhana K. (5 December 2019). "Opposition to reach out to people about 'pitfalls' of Citizenship Amendment Bill". The Hindu.
  109. ^ "Citizenship Act will benefit only 31,313, not lakhs". Deccan Herald. 15 December 2019.
  110. ^ "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 – Bill Summary". PRS Legislative Research.
  111. ^ Saha, Abhishek (9 December 2019). "Explained: Where the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill does not apply". The Indian Express.
  112. ^ "What is the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016?". India Today. Retrieved 26 January 2019.
  113. ^ "India's Parliament passes contentious citizenship bill excluding Muslims". Japan Times. 12 December 2019. ISSN 0447-5763.
  114. ^ a b Katiyar, Prerna (4 January 2020). "In India, Ahmadis are Muslims: Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi". The Economic Times. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
  115. ^ Chaudhury, Dipanjan Roy (19 June 2019). "Ahmadis in Pakistan face persecution, flee to Nepal". The Economic Times. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
  116. ^ V. Suryanarayan; SAAG (16 November 2019). "Plea To Render Justice For Malaiha (Hill Country) Tamil Refugees From Sri Lanka – OpEd". Eurasia Review.
  117. ^ Refugees, United Nations High Commissioner for. "Refworld | India: 1) Legal status of Tibetan refugees; 2) Rights of Tibetans to Indian nationality". Refworld.
  118. ^ "India: Citizenship Bill Discriminates Against Muslims". Human Rights Watch. 11 December 2019.
  119. ^ Reality check: Before PM Modi’s distancing from pan-India NRC, there was Amit Shah’s underlining, The Indian Express, 23 December 2019.
  120. ^ Rohini Mohan, Inside India’s Sham Trials That Could Strip Millions of Citizenship, VICE News, 29 July 2019.
  121. ^ Ravi Agrawal, Kathryn Salam, India Is Betraying Its Founding Fathers, Foreign Policy, 17 December 2019. "But with the new citizenship act, Hindus can potentially claim they are immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan and gain a route to citizenship. Muslims, on the other hand, could be at risk of being declared foreigners if they can’t produce documentation."
  122. ^ Apurva Vishwanath, M. Kaunain Sheriff, Explained: What NRC+CAA means to you, The Indian Express, 25 December 2019. "[Amit Shah] said in Parliament that no documents will be asked of those who apply for citizenship under the new law, giving a possible exit route to some of the Hindus potentially excluded from the NRC.... the CAA shield is not available to [the Muslims]. If a Muslim cannot meet the eligibility criteria for NRC... she will lose citizenship when the NRC is published without her name"
  123. ^ Kaushik Deka, Everything you wanted to know about the CAA and NRC, India Today, 23 December 2019. "... since the CAA will provide citizenship to non-Muslim illegal immigrants from three countries, only Muslim immigrants will be left out when the NRC is rolled out. "
  124. ^ Shylashri Shankar, How Democratic Processes Damage Citizenship Rights, OPEN Magazine, 16 December 2019. "For a non-Muslim who may have lived in India for centuries but who doesn’t have a birth certificate, all is not lost. He or she can argue that they have no place to go or that they have fled these neighbouring countries to escape persecution (and have left their documents behind). But a document-less Muslim cannot make such an argument because the CAA does not include Muslim minorities."
  125. ^ Shoaib Daniyal, Four myths about the Citizenship Bill – from fighting religious persecution to helping NRC-excluded, Scroll.in, 8 December 2019.
  126. ^ Bhattacharjee, Kallol (13 December 2019). "India-Japan Guwahati summit cancelled in view of protests". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X.
  127. ^ "India protests spread over 'anti-Muslim' law". Saudi Gazette. 13 December 2019.
  128. ^ a b c d "India protesters block roads over citizenship law". BBC. 14 December 2019.
  129. ^ "Travel Alert for U.S. Citizens: Protests in Northeastern States". U.S. Embassy & Consulates in India. 13 December 2019. Retrieved 14 December 2019.
  130. ^ "Anti-Citizenship Act protests: U.S., U.K., France, Israel issue travel advisories". The Hindu. 14 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X.
  131. ^ a b Kumar Nath, Hemanta Kumar; Mishra, Ashutosh (11 December 2019). "Shutdown in Northeast, furore across nation as Citizenship Amendment Bill set for Rajya Sabha test today". India Today.
  132. ^ Ravi, Sidharth (11 December 2019). "Protests against CAB spill on to Delhi streets". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X.
  133. ^ "Bengaluru: Citizens protest against Citizenship Amendment Bill". Deccan Chronicle. 9 December 2019.
  134. ^ Moin, Ather (11 December 2019). "CAB triggers protests in Hyderabad". Deccan Chronicle.
  135. ^ "Internet banned in India's Uttar Pradesh amid anger over killings". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 30 December 2019.
  136. ^ "These Are the 25 People Killed During Anti-Citizenship Amendment Act Protests". The Wire. Retrieved 29 December 2019.
  137. ^ "Indian-Americans protest against CAA, NRC in front of Gandhi statue in Washington". The Hindu. 23 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 24 December 2019.
  138. ^ "'A billion people on trial': Indian anti-CAA protestors get support from academicians in Melbourne". SBS Your Language. Retrieved 3 September 2020.
  139. ^ "Indo-Australian academics gather in Melbourne to express solidarity with anti-CAA protestors in India". National Herald. 29 January 2020. Retrieved 3 September 2020.
  140. ^ "Anti-CAA Protests Go Global: Chants of 'Azaadi' Echo In Berlin". The Quint. 24 December 2019. Retrieved 25 December 2019.
  141. ^ "Indians in Finland raise slogans, read Preamble at anti-CAA protest in Helsinki". The News Minute. 22 December 2019. Retrieved 5 January 2020.
  142. ^ "Citizenship Act: Indian diaspora organises protests at several universities in US, UK, France". The Scroll. 20 December 2019. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  143. ^ "CAA Protests: Indian Students Worldwide Raise Voices in Solidarity". The Wire. 23 December 2019. Retrieved 28 December 2019.
  144. ^ "India citizenship law protests spread across campuses". Reuters. 16 December 2019. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
  145. ^ "Demonstration was not held in campus, locals too participated in it: Jamia Millia Islamia". The Times of India.
  146. ^ "Anti-CAA protest not held in campus, says Jamia admin". India Today. 15 December 2019.
  147. ^ Hilal Ahmed, Who represents India’s Muslims? Thanks to CAA protests, we now know the answer, The Print, 17 January 2020.
  148. ^ "Shaheen Bagh: The women occupying Delhi street against citizenship law – 'I don't want to die proving I am Indian'". BBC. 4 January 2020. Archived from the original on 8 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  149. ^ Bakshi, Asmita (2 January 2020). "Portraits of resilience: the new year in Shaheen Bagh". Livemint. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  150. ^ "Shaheen Bagh residents brave the cold as anti-CAA stir enters Day 15". The Hindu. 29 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  151. ^ "Organiser 'Calls Off' Shaheen Bagh Anti-CAA Protest, Locals Continue Dharna". The Wire. 2 January 2020. Archived from the original on 13 January 2020. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
  152. ^ "7 Dead In Delhi Clashes; Government Rules Out Calling Army, Say Sources". NDTV.com. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  153. ^ Death Toll, Delhi Riots 2020 (29 February 2020). "Death toll rises upto 42 in Delhi Riots". The Economic Times.
  154. ^ "India PM plea for calm as citizenship unrest rages". BBC. 16 December 2019.
  155. ^ Modi, Narendra (16 December 2019). "I want to unequivocally assure my fellow Indians that CAA does not affect any citizen of India of any religion. No Indian has anything to worry regarding this Act. This Act is only for those who have faced years of persecution outside and have no other place to go except India". @narendramodi. Archived from the original on 16 December 2019. Retrieved 16 December 2019.[non-primary source needed]
  156. ^ "PM Narendra Modi was right, no talk on pan-Indian NRC for now: Amit Shah". Business Standard. 25 December 2019. Retrieved 29 December 2019.
  157. ^ "India police ban protests against citizenship law". 19 December 2019.
  158. ^ "Section 144 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973". indiankanoon.org. Archived from the original on 18 September 2019. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
  159. ^ "Hundreds detained in India over citizenship protest". 19 December 2019.
  160. ^ "Anti-CAA Protests Live Updates: 19 Delhi Metro stations shut; scores detained in multiple cities". Business Today.
  161. ^ "CAA protest LIVE: 18 Delhi metro stations shut, protestors defy Section 144". Business Standard.
  162. ^ ABVP, BJP members take out pro-Citizenship Act march in Pune, Business Standard (19 December 2019)
  163. ^ BHU Students hold rally in support of CAA and NRC, United News of India (17 December 2019)
  164. ^ BJP takes out rallies in West Bengal in support of citizenship Law, The Times of India (17 December 2019)
  165. ^ BJP holds rally supporting CAA in Jaipur, Outlook India (20 December 2019)
  166. ^ "Demonstration in support of CAA". The Hindu. 21 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X.
  167. ^ "Protest in Delhi Today: People gather at Delhi's Central Park, raise slogans in support of CAA". The Times of India. 20 December 2019.
  168. ^ "Human chain in support of CAA, NRC formed in Pune even as protests against Act grow". Hindustan Times. 22 December 2019.
  169. ^ "Citizenship Act: Hundreds of people form pro-CAA human chain in Pune". Business Standard India. PTI. 22 December 2019.CS1 maint: others (link)
  170. ^ "ABVP members hold rally in support of CAA, NRC in Kerala". Business Standard. ANI. 10 January 2020.CS1 maint: others (link)
  171. ^ "CAA supporters, protesters have town hall". The Times of India. PTI. 22 December 2019.CS1 maint: others (link)
  172. ^ "When Your Inner Voice Starts Hating the Outer You, or Why I Resigned from ABVP".
  173. ^ "Assam: ABVP National Executive Joins Protest Against Citizenship Amendment Act – INSIDENE".
  174. ^ "Swing between hope & despair". The Telegraph. Kolkota. 13 December 2019.
  175. ^ Dutta, Taniya (14 December 2019). "Pakistani Hindu migrants celebrate Indian citizenship promise while Muslims protest". The National.
  176. ^ "Citizenship law will be implemented, so will be NRC: Nadda after meeting refugees from Afghanistan". India Today. 19 December 2019.
  177. ^ "As India eases citizenship path for Hindus, Rohingya Muslims fear expulsion". Reuters. 15 November 2018.
  178. ^ "Rohingya wary of future after CAA, don't want to return to Myanmar". The Hindu. 22 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X.
  179. ^ "Police Warn Rohingya Muslims To Stay Silent As CAA Protests Roil India". HuffPost India. 18 December 2019.
  180. ^ Rana, Yudhvir (31 January 2020). "Hindus from Pak 'visiting' Punjab worry agencies". The Times of India.
  181. ^ "What you should know about India's 'anti-Muslim' citizenship bill". Al Jazeera. 9 December 2019.
  182. ^ Varma, Anuja and Gyan (14 December 2019). "President gives assent to CAB, 5 states refuse to implement it". livemint.com.
  183. ^ Nath, Hemanta Kumar (20 December 2019). "Cong govts in Punjab, MP, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Puducherry won't implement CAA: Harish Rawat". India Today.
  184. ^ "PM Modi counters what Amit Shah, BJP manifesto say on bringing all-India NRC". India Today. 22 December 2019. Retrieved 23 December 2019.
  185. ^ a b "CAA Challenge: SC lists matter on 18 December". One Law Street. 15 March 2020. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  186. ^ "'Anti-Muslim' citizenship law challenged in India court". BBC. 12 December 2019. Retrieved 17 December 2019.
  187. ^ "'Anti-Muslim' citizenship law challenged in India court". BBC. 12 December 2019.
  188. ^ Bagriya, Ashok (18 December 2019). "Supreme Court refuses stay on Citizenship Amendment Act, issues notice to Centre". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 18 December 2019.
  189. ^ a b "CAA: SC awaits Center's response; Plea for Constitution Bench reference". One Law Street. 17 January 2020. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  190. ^ "CAB Could Be Misused By Foreign Agents to Infiltrate India, RAW Had Said". The Wire. 9 December 2019. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
  191. ^ "India will face international isolation because of NRC-CAA: Shiv Shankar Menon". The Hindu. 3 January 2020. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
  192. ^ "Harish Salve says CAB is pro-minorities, does not violate Article 14,15 or 21". The Free Press Journal. 11 December 2019.
  193. ^ Press Trust of India (27 December 2019). "CAA is a humanitarian act: expat Bangladesh minorities". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X.
  194. ^ "National Sikh Front backs Citizenship Act". Outlook India..
  195. ^ a b "India will become unconstitutional ethnocracy: Over 1,000 scholars, scientists seek withdrawal of Citizenship Bill". India Today. 10 December 2019.
  196. ^ "1,000 academics come out in support of CAA". The Times of India. 22 December 2019.
  197. ^ "Academics, intellects issue joint statement supporting CAA". Outlook India. 21 December 2019.
  198. ^ Mudur, G.S. "'CAA-NRC a road to Hindu Rashtra' Author Neeti Nair is currently exploring the challenges to secularism in India". The Telegraph (TE). TE. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
  199. ^ Sanjiv, Deepthi. "CAA an attempt to convert India into Hindu Rashtra: Activist in Mangaluru rally". Times of India (TOI). TOI. Retrieved 2 November 2020.
  200. ^ "CAA first step towards Hindu rashtra, says Indira Jaising at AIPC's secular march". Onmanorama. Onmanorama. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
  201. ^ Agrawal, Purushottam (26 January 2020). "How close is the Republic to the nightmare of a Hindu Rashtra ?". National Herald (NH). NH. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
  202. ^ Verma, Maansi. "India has long granted citizenship to refugees; CAA is just a step towards a Hindu Rashtra". The Caravan. Caravan. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
  203. ^ Thakur, Ramesh (13 January 2020). "Modi's project to make a Hindu India". The Japan Times. Japan Times. Retrieved 5 November 2020.
  204. ^ Haider, Suhasini (19 January 2020). "Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai urges India to treat all minorities including Muslims equally". The Hindu. Retrieved 20 January 2020.
  205. ^ "Australia: Greens MP Tables Motion Against CAA, Calls for Review of Trade Links With India". The Wire. Retrieved 3 September 2020.
  206. ^ editorial (3 January 2020). "Bahrain Urges India to Refrain from CAA Implementation". Gulf Insider. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
  207. ^ "Citizenship Amendment Bill could weaken India's secular character, says Bangladesh's Foreign Minister". National Herald. 12 December 2019.
  208. ^ Bhattacharjee, Kallol (19 January 2020). "India's new citizenship law unnecessary, says Sheikh Hasina". The Hindu. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  209. ^ "CAB: India's key ally France calls CAA country's internal matter". The Financial Express. 16 December 2019.
  210. ^ "Kuwaiti MPs express 'deep concern' over situation of Muslims in India, China". Gulf Business. 26 December 2019. Retrieved 23 February 2020.
  211. ^ "'People dying': Malaysia's Mahathir slams India's citizenship law", Al Jazeera
  212. ^ ANI (14 December 2019). "CAA is internal issue of India: Maldives Speaker Mohamed Nasheed". Business Standard India.
  213. ^ "Imran Khan blasts Citizenship Amendment Bill, says it violates bilateral agreements". India Today. 10 December 2019.
  214. ^ "NA condemns India over controversial citizenship act", Dawn, 17 December 2019.
  215. ^ Web Desk. "Pakistani Hindus say citizenship law is divisive". The Week. Retrieved 21 March 2020.
  216. ^ Chaudhury, Dipanjan Roy (23 December 2019). "India's Citizenship Amendment Act is a domestic matter: Russia". The Economic Times.
  217. ^ Mohan, Geeta (9 February 2020). "Sri Lankan PM Rajapaksa reaches Delhi, says CAA internal matter of India". India Today. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
  218. ^ 30 Jan, PTI |; 2020; Ist, 20:49. "Hope Indian govt will address concerns on CAA: UK | India News". The Times of India. Retrieved 27 February 2020.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  219. ^ "USCIRF Raises Serious Concerns and Eyes Sanctions Recommendations for Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in India, Which Passed Lower House Today". United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. 9 December 2019. Archived from the original on 10 December 2019. Retrieved 10 December 2019.
  220. ^ "Federal US commission seeks sanctions against Amit Shah if CAB passed in Parliament". India Today. 10 December 2019.
  221. ^ "CAA has corollary in US' Lautenberg Amendment". The Economic Times. 18 January 2020.
  222. ^ "USCIRF statement on CAB 'neither accurate nor warranted': MEA". The Times of India. 10 December 2019.
  223. ^ "It has no locus standi: MEA on USCIRF's citizenship bill statement". The Economic Times. 10 December 2019.
  224. ^ "US Commission Statement On Citizenship Bill Not "Accurate": Government". NDTV.com.
  225. ^ Raj, Yashwant; H. Laskar, Rezaul (11 December 2019). "US panel for sanctions over Citizenship Amendment Bill, India says it is biased". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 17 December 2019.
  226. ^ "India has robust domestic debate, says Pompeo on citizenship law". The Hindu. 19 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X.
  227. ^ "Don't want to say anything on CAA, it is up to India: Donald Trump". The Economic Times. 25 February 2020. Retrieved 4 March 2020.
  228. ^ Ali, Mohammad. "Another US city passes resolution against India's citizenship law". Aljazeera. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  229. ^ "EU to India: Hope CAB Is in Line with High Standards of Indian Constitution". The Wire.
  230. ^ "OIC expresses concern over CAA; says 'closely' following developments". The Economic Times. 23 December 2019. Retrieved 31 December 2019.
  231. ^ "New citizenship law in India 'fundamentally discriminatory': UN human rights office". UN News. United Nations. 13 December 2019. Archived from the original on 17 December 2019. Retrieved 17 December 2019.
  232. ^ "UN High Commissioner for Human Rights files intervention application in Supreme Court against CAA". The Hindu. Retrieved 21 March 2020.

Bibliography[]

Further reading[]

External links[]

Retrieved from ""