On July 19, 2016, the
government introduced a Bill to amend certain provisions of the Citizenship
Act, 1955. The Bill has now been referred to the joint select committee of
Parliament. The object of the proposed Bill is to enable Hindus, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who have fled to India from Pakistan,
Afghanistan and Bangladesh without valid travel documents, or those whose valid
documents have expired in recent years, to acquire Indian citizenship by the
process of naturalisation. Under the Bill, such persons shall not be treated as
illegal immigrants for the purpose of the Citizenship Act. In another
amendment, the aggregate period of residential qualification for the process of
citizenship by naturalisation of such persons is proposed to be reduced from 11
years to six years. A large number of people who would otherwise be illegal
immigrants can now heave a sigh of relief if the Bill goes through as they
would be eligible to become citizens of the country.
Not inclusive enough
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, owes its genesis(origin,उतपत्ति) to the assurance given by the Prime Minister that Hindus from these three countries who have sought asylum in India would be conferred Indian citizenship. But since singling out Hindus alone could be discriminatory(unfair,भेदभावपूर्ण), the Bill has extended the right to acquire citizenship to other religious minorities living in the three countries.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, owes its genesis(origin,उतपत्ति) to the assurance given by the Prime Minister that Hindus from these three countries who have sought asylum in India would be conferred Indian citizenship. But since singling out Hindus alone could be discriminatory(unfair,भेदभावपूर्ण), the Bill has extended the right to acquire citizenship to other religious minorities living in the three countries.
Bill, when passed, would
be of immense(large,अत्यधिक) benefit to the Chakmas and Hajongs of
Bangladesh displaced because of the construction of the Kaptai Dam who have
been refugees for nearly 65 years. The Supreme Court in Committee for C.R. of
C.A.P. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh directed the Government
of India and Arunachal Pradesh to grant citizenship to eligible persons from these
communities and to protect their life and liberty and further prohibited
discrimination against them.
Though India has not
enacted a national refugee law, the three principles underlying India’s
treatment of refugees was spelt out in Parliament by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1959
with reference to Tibetan refugees. They include: refugees will be accorded a
humane welcome; the refugee issue is a bilateral issue; and the refugees should
return to their homeland once normalcy returns there.
The proposed Bill recognises
and protects the rights of refugees and represents a welcome change in India’s
refugee policy. But it would have been appropriate if the Bill had used the
term “persecuted(oppressed,सतायी) minorities” instead of listing out
non-Muslim minorities in three countries. To give an example, the Ahmadiyyas
are not considered Muslims in Pakistan and are subject to many acts of
discrimination. Other groups include members of the Rohingyas, who being
Muslims are subjected to discrimination in Myanmar and have fled to India. Such
a gesture would also have been in conformity with the spirit of religious and linguistic
rights of minorities guaranteed under our Constitution. Unfortunately the Bill
does not take note of the refugees in India from among the Muslim community who
have fled due to persecution and singles them out on the basis of religion,
thereby being discriminatory.
The
case of the Malaiha Tamils
Yet another disappointing feature of the Bill is that it does not provide citizenship to the people of Indian origin from Sri Lanka who fled to Tamil Nadu as refugees following the communal holocaust(destruction,विनाश) in July 1983. The Indian Tamils, or Malaiha (hill country) Tamils as they like to be called, are descendants(progeny,वंशज) of indentured workers who were taken by the British colonialists in the 19th and 20th centuries to provide the much-needed labour for the development of tea plantations. The British gave an assurance that the Indian workers would enjoy the same rights and privileges accorded to the Sinhalese and the Sri Lankan Tamils. But soon after independence, by a legislative enactment the Indian Tamils were discriminated and rendered(give,देना) stateless. In the protracted(long,दीर्घ) negotiations that took place between New Delhi and Colombo on the thorny issue of stateless people, Nehru maintained that except for those who voluntarily opted for Indian citizenship, the rest were the responsibility of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). Sri Lanka, on the other hand, argued that only those who fulfilled the strict qualifications prescribed for citizenship would be conferred citizenship, and the rest were India’s responsibility.
Yet another disappointing feature of the Bill is that it does not provide citizenship to the people of Indian origin from Sri Lanka who fled to Tamil Nadu as refugees following the communal holocaust(destruction,विनाश) in July 1983. The Indian Tamils, or Malaiha (hill country) Tamils as they like to be called, are descendants(progeny,वंशज) of indentured workers who were taken by the British colonialists in the 19th and 20th centuries to provide the much-needed labour for the development of tea plantations. The British gave an assurance that the Indian workers would enjoy the same rights and privileges accorded to the Sinhalese and the Sri Lankan Tamils. But soon after independence, by a legislative enactment the Indian Tamils were discriminated and rendered(give,देना) stateless. In the protracted(long,दीर्घ) negotiations that took place between New Delhi and Colombo on the thorny issue of stateless people, Nehru maintained that except for those who voluntarily opted for Indian citizenship, the rest were the responsibility of Sri Lanka (then Ceylon). Sri Lanka, on the other hand, argued that only those who fulfilled the strict qualifications prescribed for citizenship would be conferred citizenship, and the rest were India’s responsibility.
Nehru’s principled stance
was abandoned(rejected,त्यागना) by Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi
when they entered into two agreements with Colombo in 1964 and 1974,
respectively. New Delhi agreed to take back 6,00,000 people of Indian origin
with their natural increase as Indian citizens, while Sri Lanka agreed to give
citizenship to 3,75,000 with their natural increase. The wishes of the Indian
Tamils in Sri Lanka were not ascertained(make sure,निर्धारित). To the ruling elite(specialist,विशिष्ट) in Colombo and New Delhi the people of
Indian origin became an embarrassing set of statistics. Important national
leaders — C. Rajagopalachari, K. Kamaraj, V.K. Krishna Menon, P. Ramamurthy and
C.N. Annadurai — opposed the agreement as inhuman, but their views were brushed
aside by the Central government in order to befriend the Government of Sri
Lanka.
The ethnic fratricide in
1977, 1981 and 1983, which affected the plantation areas, convinced many people
of Indian origin that they could not live amicably(friendly.सोहार्दपूर्ण) with the Sinhalese. They
never subscribed to the demand for a separate state of Tamil Eelam; in fact,
the hill country was relatively tranquil(calm,शांत) during the protracted
ethnic conflict. Even then, they were subjected to vicious(cruel,निर्दयी) attacks by some lumpen sections of the Sinhalese
population. They sold all their belongings, came to India as refugees, with the
hope of acquiring Indian citizenship and permanently settling down here.
A
point of no return
According to informed sources, there are nearly 30,000 Malaiha Tamils in the refugee camps scattered throughout Tamil Nadu. They have absolutely no moorings in Sri Lanka. Their children have intermarried with the local people and are well integrated into Tamil society. The young have availed of educational facilities, but are unable to get jobs commensurate to their qualifications because they are not Indian citizens. The refugees in Kottapattu camp, near Tiruchi, with whom we interacted, told us: “Come what may, we will not go back to Sri Lanka.”
According to informed sources, there are nearly 30,000 Malaiha Tamils in the refugee camps scattered throughout Tamil Nadu. They have absolutely no moorings in Sri Lanka. Their children have intermarried with the local people and are well integrated into Tamil society. The young have availed of educational facilities, but are unable to get jobs commensurate to their qualifications because they are not Indian citizens. The refugees in Kottapattu camp, near Tiruchi, with whom we interacted, told us: “Come what may, we will not go back to Sri Lanka.”
All these refugees
qualify for Indian citizenship by registration under Article 5 of the
Citizenship Act of 1955. However their plea for citizenship has been negated citing(mentioning,उल्लेख) a Central government circular that Sri
Lankan refugees are not entitled for Indian citizenship. In a communication
dated November 21, 2007 to the Special Commissioner for Rehabilitation, the
Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu mentioned that there are strict
instructions from the Government of India “not to entertain applications of Sri
Lankan refugees for the grant of Indian citizenship”. We submit, in the light
of recent developments, the above-mentioned circular of the Central government
must be immediately withdrawn.
The tragedy of the
Malaiha Tamils, a majority of whom are Dalits, must be underlined.
Immigrants, even those
who are termed illegal, are entitled to equal protection before the law and the
various rights that flow from Article 21. This was stressed by the Supreme
Court in National Human Rights Commission v. State
of Arunachal Pradesh while addressing the rights of Chakma
refugees. If such immigrants are granted citizenship, the natural progression
would mean that they enjoy the benefits of rights guaranteed under Article 19
besides others such as access to the public distribution system, right to participate
in the political process, right to secure employment and other rights all of
which currently are inaccessible to them. The Bill recognises this in its
objects and reasons by referring to the denial of opportunities and advantages
to such persons. The Bill therefore should not restrict itself to minorities
from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh but should include refugees from
persecuted minorities of all denominations who have made India their home.
No comments:
Post a Comment