My tuppence worth on the CAA and NRC debates

I think every country should be able to document its citizens. It should also have a path for bonafide refugees to gain citizenship. I research the plight of refugees in the developed world and those living in refugee camps in the developing world and I know how bad it can be for them without proper documents. They can become easy victims of extortion by the police, racketeering by goons, and human trafficking. Even those with temporary status in a country can face such issues. Life in liminal legality is a life in limbo. Good that the Indian government decided to give citizenship to refugees who have spent a considerable number of years in India. But I fail to understand why the government chose religious persecution as the only credible basis for seeking refuge. Yes, the persecution and forceful conversion of non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh is well documented. Taslima Nasrin is in exile for revealing just that. But even some Muslim sects in these countries have experienced persecution. Women in particular are victims of persecution irrespective of their religious affiliation. Noted Pakistani Journalist and activists Tarek Fatah says, "I write as a Muslim whose ancestors were Hindu. My religion, Islam, is rooted in Judaism, while my Punjabi culture is tied to that of the Sikhs. Yet I am told by Islamists that without shedding this multifaceted heritage, if not outrightly rejecting it, I cannot be considered a true Muslim." So yes, there are Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh who may have experienced persecution in their homeland. Also, persecution can come in a number of other ways. Tamils in Srilanka were persecuted on linguistic grounds, not religious grounds. Of course, it is another issue that the Tamils took to terrorism to fight persecution. But my point is persecution comes in many forms. It is important not to consider religion as the only basis for persecution. That said, I really do not understand why people are reacting the way they are. Protests are welcome but violence is not. Moreover, protestors should offer credible alternatives to the status quo. If not, protests cannot be taken seriously. The current portrayal of the CAA by those opposing it is that it discriminates against Indian Muslims. It does not. Yes, it does discriminate against alien Muslim seeking refuge in India. But there is credible fear in the minds of the policy makers and any sensible Indian citizen that among those undocumented Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh who are seeking refuge, there might be bonafide refugees who needs to be protected but there might also be trouble makers. Remember, Kargil war was fought between the Indian army and the Pakistani army that disguised itself as mujahideen intruders. Kasab intruded into India from Paksitan. Had he lost his supply of amo at sea, it would have been hard to distinguish him from a bonafide refugee. In sum, while I think that anyone who has sought refuge in India for genuine reasons should be granted refuge and should be given a path towards full integration, we also need to find a sensible means to separate bonafide refugees from potential threats to our nation. 

The question is, how do we distinguish between trouble makers infiltrating our border (this is a major problem to our internal security) and genuine refugees escaping persecution. Countries like Tanzania and Kenya have prison like refugee camps for this purpose. I think granting citizenship to genuine refugees is important but we can’t do that by compromising our internal security. Unfortunately, our neighbours who systematically facilitate infiltration are Islamic nations that see India only as a Hindu nation. So the extra screening of Muslims from those countries is justified. It makes perfect geopolitical sense and it does matter to our internal security.

While we should be open to all kinds of refugees, there is no reason to see the Muslim clause in the CAA as discrimination against India’s Muslims. Clearly, Pakistan, a defined Muslim state is antagonistic towards India. Bangladesh is friendlier but there are radical Muslims there too. Radical Muslims from these countries propagate hatred towards India and see us as a Hindu state and a sworn enemy. They have on numerous known occasions infiltrated India to cause trouble. Several such infiltrators are roaming around in India. Should India start giving them asylum? Is identifying these trouble makers by their religion discrimination against Indian Muslims? I don’t think so. Same goes for Srilankan Hindus who joined LTTE and took arms against India on more than one occasion. Now that they have been defeated and are in exile in India. Should they now be granted citizenship? There is compassion and there is foolhardiness when dealing with the refugee situation. I prefer caution. 

That said, the thing that is hard to understand in terms of implementation is, if a person does not have any document to prove their citizenship, how will they prove their religion? Any trouble maker from across the border can fake their religion and their intentions. Implementing the CAA will be a nightmare. Anyway, there are far more important things that this government has to address, like the economy, safety of women, and infrastructure. The refugee situation in India is least of the concerns now. Time to take meaningful action on issues that matter.

Finally, to all those who are thinking that another party would have done a much better job at amending the CAA, I think you need to ask what would have been a better alternative. 

Even if the congress or any other party amended the law, they wouldn’t have any choice but to do likewise. It is important to find a way to treat persecuted people as persecuted people and grant them refugee status irrespective of their religion. But at this point it is not clear how it could be done.

 

Don't bash the bhakt...

Of late, I have seen a lot of criticism of Narendra Modi. I think that is a good sign of a healthy democracy. But the trouble is twofold. First, the criticisms often come across as personal attacks rather than as attacks on policy and intention. Second, the personal attack is not only on the PM but also on his supporters and sympathizers. I wouldn't be surprised if what gets Modi votes in the coming elections is not his policies, or his faithful bhakts, but all the anti-Modi and anti-bhakt slandering that is going around these days. When you brand every Modi sympathizer (even fence-sitters) as a bhakt, bash them, and question their wisdom and intellect, you won't get them to slant to your side of the fence, but you will end up encouraging them to jump over to the other side with even more conviction. Now that is the issue of playing it dirty in identity politics. If you ignore Modi and his sympathizers and focus on the real issues and the real alternatives, then, perhaps, Modi will be replaced. If Trumps ascend to the Whitehouse has taught us any lesson, it is that don't shame the supporters. Instead, it might be fruitful to condemn the candidate's policy choices and present viable alternatives, both in terms of candidates and policy prescriptions.