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.
