The United Nations human rights office voiced concern on Friday that India's new citizenship law is "fundamentally discriminatory in nature" by excluding Muslims and called for it to be reviewed.

Violent clashes erupted in Delhi between police and thousands of university students on Friday protesting the enactment of the new law.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has said the Citizenship Amendment Bill, approved by parliament on Wednesday, was meant to protect minorities from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"We are concerned that India’s new Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 is fundamentally discriminatory in nature," UN&nbsp;human rights spokesman Jeremy Laurence told a Geneva news briefing.

The new law does not extend the same protection to Muslim migrants as to six other religious minorities fleeing persecution.

"We understand the new law will be reviewed by the Supreme Court of India and hope it will consider carefully the compatibility of the law with India's international human rights obligations," Laurence said.

The United Nations human rights office voiced concern on Friday that India's new citizenship law is "fundamentally discriminatory in nature" by excluding Muslims and called for it to be reviewed.

The United Nations human rights office voiced concern on Friday that India's new citizenship law is "fundamentally discriminatory in nature" by excluding Muslims and called for it to be reviewed. Violent clashes erupted in Delhi between police and thousands of university students on Friday protesting the enactment of the new law. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has said the Citizenship Amendment Bill, approved by parliament on Wednesday, was meant to protect minorities from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. "We are concerned that India’s new Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 is fundamentally discriminatory in nature," UN human rights spokesman Jeremy Laurence told a Geneva news briefing. The new law does not extend the same protection to Muslim migrants as to six other religious minorities fleeing persecution. "We understand the new law will be reviewed by the Supreme Court of India and hope it will consider carefully the compatibility of the law with India's international human rights obligations," Laurence said.

New Indian citizenship law 'discriminatory': United Nations

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill.

Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant?

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance.

The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again.

India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities.

While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home.

The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant.&nbsp;

In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. &nbsp;

The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns.

Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India.

While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value.

With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how.

The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion.&nbsp;

Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so.&nbsp;

Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit.

Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'.

However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application

The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally.

However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others.

The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'.

In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney &amp; Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government.

However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. 
 
The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. 
 
In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” 
 
Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. 
 
Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. 
 
Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. 
 
In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention.

Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts.

The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries.

As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition.

Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines.

Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'.

Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. 
&nbsp;

(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law.

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill. Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance. The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again. India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities. While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home. The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant. In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns. Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India. While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value. With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how. The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion. Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so. Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit. Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'. However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally. However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others. The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'. In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney & Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government. However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention. Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts. The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries. As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition. Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines. Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'. Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Here's why Supreme Court is not likely to quash Citizenship Amendment Act

Amid the uproar in India's northeast region over the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/citizenship-amendment-bill-protests-continue-to-rage-in-assam-cm-appeals-for-peace-267894">Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019</a>, the curfew imposed in some of the areas have been lifted due to a halt in violence, officials said.&nbsp;

The police officials said that the curfew was relaxed in areas of Shillong on Friday for 12 hours as no "untoward incident" was reported in these regions. &nbsp;

"The curfew has been relaxed from 10 am to 10 pm in the areas under Sadar and Lumdiengjri police station limits," East Khasi Hills district deputy commissioner MW Nongbri said.&nbsp;

The commissioner, however, added that mobile internet and messaging services would remain suspended in these areas. The curfew in some areas of Shillong was imposed at 9 pm on Thursday.&nbsp;

Earlier, curfew was also relaxed for five hours till 1 pm in Assam's Dibrugarh, the epicentre of the protest. However, protests continued in Guwahati in Assam by the All Assam Students' Union (AASU).&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Assam: All Assam Students' Union (AASU) holds protest in Guwahati against <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CitizenshipAmendmentAct?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CitizenshipAmendmentAct</a>. <a href="https://t.co/B7xzpywyME">pic.twitter.com/B7xzpywyME</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1205395696662138880?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Assam CM Sarbanada Sonowal said that the government will not tolerate any act of violence and "strong action will be taken against anyone who is involved in vandalism”. The Assam chief minister also said that he was “committed to protect the rights of indigenous people” of Assam and urged parents to persuade their children to avoid joining violent demonstrators. &nbsp;

&nbsp;The mobile services in the state of Meghalaya also remained suspended. &nbsp;

President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/president-ram-nath-kovind-gives-nod-to-citizenship-amendment-bill-267991">Ram Nath Kovind</a>, late on Thursday, gave his assent to the Bill, signing it into law, despite the killing of two people in Guwahati and vandalism in northeastern states.&nbsp;

The Bill gives Indian citizenship to the people from Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities coming to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan till December 31, 2014, due to religious persecution.

On Friday, Congress party moved to the Supreme Court over the citizenship bill, claiming that the Act violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

(with inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Amid the uproar in India's northeast region over the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019, the curfew imposed in some of the areas have been lifted due to a halt in violence, officials said.

Amid the uproar in India's northeast region over the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019, the curfew imposed in some of the areas have been lifted due to a halt in violence, officials said. The police officials said that the curfew was relaxed in areas of Shillong on Friday for 12 hours as no "untoward incident" was reported in these regions. "The curfew has been relaxed from 10 am to 10 pm in the areas under Sadar and Lumdiengjri police station limits," East Khasi Hills district deputy commissioner MW Nongbri said. The commissioner, however, added that mobile internet and messaging services would remain suspended in these areas. The curfew in some areas of Shillong was imposed at 9 pm on Thursday. Earlier, curfew was also relaxed for five hours till 1 pm in Assam's Dibrugarh, the epicentre of the protest. However, protests continued in Guwahati in Assam by the All Assam Students' Union (AASU). Assam: All Assam Students' Union (AASU) holds protest in Guwahati against #CitizenshipAmendmentAct. pic.twitter.com/B7xzpywyME — ANI (@ANI) December 13, 2019 × Assam CM Sarbanada Sonowal said that the government will not tolerate any act of violence and "strong action will be taken against anyone who is involved in vandalism”. The Assam chief minister also said that he was “committed to protect the rights of indigenous people” of Assam and urged parents to persuade their children to avoid joining violent demonstrators. The mobile services in the state of Meghalaya also remained suspended. President Ram Nath Kovind, late on Thursday, gave his assent to the Bill, signing it into law, despite the killing of two people in Guwahati and vandalism in northeastern states. The Bill gives Indian citizenship to the people from Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities coming to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan till December 31, 2014, due to religious persecution. On Friday, Congress party moved to the Supreme Court over the citizenship bill, claiming that the Act violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. (with inputs from agencies)

Curfew lifted from few regions in India's Northeast as protests continue against Citizenship Bill

The Japanese Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/japan-prime-minister-shinzo-abe-might-cancel-india-trip-report-268002">Shinzo Abe's </a>visit to India has been postponed to a later date, the Indian foreign ministry confirmed on Friday.

As per sources, the visit was scheduled to be held in India's Northeast region, where massive protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Bill has led to unrest.&nbsp;

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MEA) Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar confirmed the postponement through a tweet, adding that a mutually convenient date would be decided in the future.&nbsp;

"With reference to the proposed visit of Japanese PM Shinzo Abe to India, both sides have decided to defer the visit to a mutually convenient date in the near future,"the MEA spokseperson said in a tweet.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
With reference to the proposed visit of Japanese PM <a href="https://twitter.com/AbeShinzo?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AbeShinzo</a> to India, both sides have decided to defer the visit to a mutually convenient date in the near future.
— Raveesh Kumar (@MEAIndia) <a href="https://twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/1205404342196424710?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Abe was scheduled to arrive in India on December 15 for the seond annual bilateral summit between India and Japan. It was also expected that Japanese PM will pay a visit to northeast's Imphal and thereby becoming first Japanese PM to visit the region.&nbsp;

The protests in the northeastern region, especially in Assam continue against the Bill that intends to give citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.&nbsp;

On Thursday, two people were killed in Assam's Guwahati, while in many states police and other vehicles were set on fire.&nbsp;

The citizenship bill provides Indian citizenship to the people from Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities coming from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan till December 31, 2014, to India due to religious persecution.

(with inputs from agencies)

&nbsp;

The Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to India has been postponed to a later date, the Indian foreign ministry confirmed on Friday. As per sources, the visit was scheduled to be held in India's Northeast region, where massive protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Bill has led to unrest.

The Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's visit to India has been postponed to a later date, the Indian foreign ministry confirmed on Friday. As per sources, the visit was scheduled to be held in India's Northeast region, where massive protests against Citizenship (Amendment) Bill has led to unrest. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MEA) Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar confirmed the postponement through a tweet, adding that a mutually convenient date would be decided in the future. "With reference to the proposed visit of Japanese PM Shinzo Abe to India, both sides have decided to defer the visit to a mutually convenient date in the near future,"the MEA spokseperson said in a tweet. With reference to the proposed visit of Japanese PM @AbeShinzo to India, both sides have decided to defer the visit to a mutually convenient date in the near future. — Raveesh Kumar (@MEAIndia) December 13, 2019 × Abe was scheduled to arrive in India on December 15 for the seond annual bilateral summit between India and Japan. It was also expected that Japanese PM will pay a visit to northeast's Imphal and thereby becoming first Japanese PM to visit the region. The protests in the northeastern region, especially in Assam continue against the Bill that intends to give citizenship to non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. On Thursday, two people were killed in Assam's Guwahati, while in many states police and other vehicles were set on fire. The citizenship bill provides Indian citizenship to the people from Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities coming from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan till December 31, 2014, to India due to religious persecution. (with inputs from agencies)

Japanese PM Shinzo Abe's visit to India postponed

As north-east India is currently on the boil following the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in Parliament, singer Papon on Thursday called off a music concert in Delhi saying that he will not be able to entertain his fans when his "home state Assam is burning, crying and under curfew."

The singer, who hails from Guwahati, took to Twitter and announced, "Dear Delhi. I am very sorry but I have decided not to do the concert tomorrow at 'imperfectoshor'&nbsp;as planned! My home state Assam is burning, crying, and under curfew! I won't be able to entertain you the way I should in my present state of mind."&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Dear Delhi. I am very sorry but I have decided not to do the concert tomorrow at ‘imperfectoshor’ as planned! My home state Assam is burning, crying and under curfew! I won’t be able to entertain you the way I should in my present state of mind!
— papon angaraag (@paponmusic) <a href="https://twitter.com/paponmusic/status/1205056267409997824?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The 44-year-old actor slammed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill and said, "It's painful to see the way Assam is burning! Humanity is suffering".

"Assam has been burdened with illegal immigration for decades! We don't deserve this! The diverse, complex mix of the Assamese culture &amp; people and their existence needs to be understood! We need to be heard properly," he added.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It’s painful to see the way Assam is burning!Humanity is suffering! Assam has been burdened with illegal immigration for decades!We don’t deserve this!The diverse, complex mix of the Assamese culture &amp; people and their existence needs to be understood!We need to be heard properly
— papon angaraag (@paponmusic) <a href="https://twitter.com/paponmusic/status/1205052491261337601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Extending his apologies to his fans who had booked his full-packed show for December 13 in Delhi, the singer said, "I know this is unfair on you as you had bought tickets and planned long ahead. I am sure the organizers will take care of that in some way and as promised I'll see you all on another day in the future! I hope you will understand."&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I know this is unfair on you as you had bought tickets and planned long ahead. I am sure the organizers will take care of that in someway and as promised I’ll see you all on another day in future! I hope you will understand! 🙏🏼
— papon angaraag (@paponmusic) <a href="https://twitter.com/paponmusic/status/1205056320975462401?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Earlier on Wednesday, actor Adil Hussain who also has an Assamese background expressed his displeasure towards the bill through Twitter. 
 
"When we were born, our families had cheered because our mothers had given birth to a Human &amp; not a squirrel! We were born a human FIRST. If we cannot retain, protect &amp; celebrate the PRIMARY identity than what's the USE of calling ourselves a Muslim, Hindu, Assamese or a Bengali?" the actor tweeted. 
 
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill which grants citizenship to the non-Muslims who arrived in India before December 31, 2014, smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday.

The bill was earlier approved by the Lok Sabha on Monday.

As north-east India is currently on the boil following the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in Parliament, singer Papon on Thursday called off a music concert in Delhi saying that he will not be able to entertain his fans when his "home state Assam is burning, crying and under curfew.

As north-east India is currently on the boil following the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in Parliament, singer Papon on Thursday called off a music concert in Delhi saying that he will not be able to entertain his fans when his "home state Assam is burning, crying and under curfew." The singer, who hails from Guwahati, took to Twitter and announced, "Dear Delhi. I am very sorry but I have decided not to do the concert tomorrow at 'imperfectoshor' as planned! My home state Assam is burning, crying, and under curfew! I won't be able to entertain you the way I should in my present state of mind." Dear Delhi. I am very sorry but I have decided not to do the concert tomorrow at ‘imperfectoshor’ as planned! My home state Assam is burning, crying and under curfew! I won’t be able to entertain you the way I should in my present state of mind! — papon angaraag (@paponmusic) December 12, 2019 × The 44-year-old actor slammed the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill and said, "It's painful to see the way Assam is burning! Humanity is suffering". "Assam has been burdened with illegal immigration for decades! We don't deserve this! The diverse, complex mix of the Assamese culture & people and their existence needs to be understood! We need to be heard properly," he added. It’s painful to see the way Assam is burning!Humanity is suffering! Assam has been burdened with illegal immigration for decades!We don’t deserve this!The diverse, complex mix of the Assamese culture & people and their existence needs to be understood!We need to be heard properly — papon angaraag (@paponmusic) December 12, 2019 × Extending his apologies to his fans who had booked his full-packed show for December 13 in Delhi, the singer said, "I know this is unfair on you as you had bought tickets and planned long ahead. I am sure the organizers will take care of that in some way and as promised I'll see you all on another day in the future! I hope you will understand." I know this is unfair on you as you had bought tickets and planned long ahead. I am sure the organizers will take care of that in someway and as promised I’ll see you all on another day in future! I hope you will understand! 🙏🏼 — papon angaraag (@paponmusic) December 12, 2019 × Earlier on Wednesday, actor Adil Hussain who also has an Assamese background expressed his displeasure towards the bill through Twitter. "When we were born, our families had cheered because our mothers had given birth to a Human & not a squirrel! We were born a human FIRST. If we cannot retain, protect & celebrate the PRIMARY identity than what's the USE of calling ourselves a Muslim, Hindu, Assamese or a Bengali?" the actor tweeted. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill which grants citizenship to the non-Muslims who arrived in India before December 31, 2014, smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. The bill was earlier approved by the Lok Sabha on Monday.

Singer Papon cancels Delhi concert over Citizenship (Amendment) Bill

By: Mallika Singh

After a heated nine hour-long debate, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajya-sabha-passes-citizenship-amendment-bill-267747">Citizenship Amendment Bill</a>, 2019 was passed in the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2019, with 125 votes to 105, as it was earlier introduced and passed in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament on December 9, 2019, by 311-80 votes. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Six hours of debate time had been originally allocated in the Upper House to the highly contentious Bill that seeks to grant Indian citizenship to undocumented religious minorities-namely Hindus, Sikh, Jain, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians from the neighbouring Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan who moved to the country before 
&nbsp;the date of December 31, 2014.&nbsp;

Besides the Bhartiya Janata Party, the Bill was supported by members of JD(U), SAD, AIADMK, BJD, TDP and YSR - Congress with Shiv Sena choosing to boycott voting.&nbsp;

The Bill is now set to become a law after it receives the formal assent of President Ram Nath Kovind.&nbsp;

The Bill seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 which regulates who may acquire Indian citizenship and on what grounds by adding provisions for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b) that they&nbsp;shall not be treated as illegal migrants. Illegal migrants are not eligible for Indian Citizenship.&nbsp;

Illegal migrants are defined as those foreigners who enter the country without valid travel documentation or who enter with valid documentation but exceed their permitted time period of stay. Implying that the mentioned communities will not be deported or imprisoned&nbsp;for being in India without valid documentation under The Foreigners Act, 1946 and The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920.

Under the provisions for procurement of citizenship by naturalisation, the BJP lead Indian government seeks to amend the requirement that the applicant must have resided in India "not less than five years" in place of "not less than eleven years" for the mentioned six religious communities from the three Muslim majority countries through Section 2(1) (b).&nbsp;

The Bill exempts certain areas of the North-East region of the country, including tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura as per the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

The Bill also seeks to amend provisions related to Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders, making it possible to cancel OCI registration of these persons in case of violation of any law notified by the Central Government.&nbsp;

The Citizenship Amendment Bill has been on the agenda for the BJP government since 2016 when it was first tabled the Bill in the Lower House of the Parliament on July 16. The Bill was then referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee on August 12, 2016.&nbsp;

The Committee had submitted its report on January 7, 2019, and the Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on January 8, 2019. However, the Bill could not be introduced in the Rajya Sabha before it adjourned sine die on February 13, 2019, causing the Bill to lapse.&nbsp;

According to Legislative Procedures regarding Lapsing of Bills “A Bill pending in Rajya Sabha which has not been passed by Lok Sabha does not lapse on the dissolution of Lok Sabha but a Bill which is passed by Lok Sabha and is pending in Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of Lok Sabha.”

The Bill has gathered high criticism from the national as well as the international community, the fundamental criticism being that it specifically targets Muslims, making the Bill in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which enshrines the Fundamental Right to equality.&nbsp;

The government, however, states that the constitutions of the three specific state religion countries do not protect the mentioned communities, leading them to face persecution on grounds of religion, which the Indian government wishes to safeguard them from by&nbsp;granting them immunity. &nbsp;

Claiming that some of them also have fears about such persecution in their day-to-day life where the right to practice, profess and propagate their religion has been obstructed and restricted. Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter and continued to stay in India despite inadequate documentation.&nbsp;

Leaders of various opposition parties voiced their discontent over the passage of the Bill in the Upper and Lower Houses, saying that it was against national interest.&nbsp;

Assam came to a standstill in an 11 hour statewide ‘bandh’ on Tuesday in protest against the Bill.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday assured the people of Assam that no one can take away their rights, unique identity and beautiful culture, amid protests in parts of the state against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019.

"I want to assure my brothers and sisters of Assam that they have nothing to worry after the passing of #CAB. I want to assure them- no one can take away your rights, unique identity and beautiful culture. It will continue to flourish and grow," the Prime Minister tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I want to assure my brothers and sisters of Assam that they have nothing to worry after the passing of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/CAB?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#CAB</a>. 
 
I want to assure them- no one can take away your rights, unique identity and beautiful culture. It will continue to flourish and grow.
— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1204981291730341888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 12, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Opposition leader, Sonia Gandhi condemned the passage of the Bill calling it a “dark day in the Constitution of India,” with several other party leaders indicating that they might move to the Supreme Court for intervention.&nbsp;

The Indian Union Muslim League on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India questioning the legality of the passed Bill and demanding a stay on it.

By: Mallika Singh After a heated nine hour-long debate, the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 was passed in the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2019, with 125 votes to 105, as it was earlier introduced and passed in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament on December 9, 2019, by 311-80 votes.

By: Mallika Singh After a heated nine hour-long debate, the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 was passed in the Rajya Sabha on December 11, 2019, with 125 votes to 105, as it was earlier introduced and passed in the Lower House of the Indian Parliament on December 9, 2019, by 311-80 votes. Six hours of debate time had been originally allocated in the Upper House to the highly contentious Bill that seeks to grant Indian citizenship to undocumented religious minorities-namely Hindus, Sikh, Jain, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians from the neighbouring Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan who moved to the country before the date of December 31, 2014. Besides the Bhartiya Janata Party, the Bill was supported by members of JD(U), SAD, AIADMK, BJD, TDP and YSR - Congress with Shiv Sena choosing to boycott voting. The Bill is now set to become a law after it receives the formal assent of President Ram Nath Kovind. The Bill seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 which regulates who may acquire Indian citizenship and on what grounds by adding provisions for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community in section 2, in sub-section (1), in clause (b) that they shall not be treated as illegal migrants. Illegal migrants are not eligible for Indian Citizenship. Illegal migrants are defined as those foreigners who enter the country without valid travel documentation or who enter with valid documentation but exceed their permitted time period of stay. Implying that the mentioned communities will not be deported or imprisoned for being in India without valid documentation under The Foreigners Act, 1946 and The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. Under the provisions for procurement of citizenship by naturalisation, the BJP lead Indian government seeks to amend the requirement that the applicant must have resided in India "not less than five years" in place of "not less than eleven years" for the mentioned six religious communities from the three Muslim majority countries through Section 2(1) (b). The Bill exempts certain areas of the North-East region of the country, including tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Tripura as per the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The Bill also seeks to amend provisions related to Overseas Citizens of India (OCI) cardholders, making it possible to cancel OCI registration of these persons in case of violation of any law notified by the Central Government. The Citizenship Amendment Bill has been on the agenda for the BJP government since 2016 when it was first tabled the Bill in the Lower House of the Parliament on July 16. The Bill was then referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee on August 12, 2016. The Committee had submitted its report on January 7, 2019, and the Bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on January 8, 2019. However, the Bill could not be introduced in the Rajya Sabha before it adjourned sine die on February 13, 2019, causing the Bill to lapse. According to Legislative Procedures regarding Lapsing of Bills “A Bill pending in Rajya Sabha which has not been passed by Lok Sabha does not lapse on the dissolution of Lok Sabha but a Bill which is passed by Lok Sabha and is pending in Rajya Sabha lapses on the dissolution of Lok Sabha.” The Bill has gathered high criticism from the national as well as the international community, the fundamental criticism being that it specifically targets Muslims, making the Bill in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution which enshrines the Fundamental Right to equality. The government, however, states that the constitutions of the three specific state religion countries do not protect the mentioned communities, leading them to face persecution on grounds of religion, which the Indian government wishes to safeguard them from by granting them immunity. Claiming that some of them also have fears about such persecution in their day-to-day life where the right to practice, profess and propagate their religion has been obstructed and restricted. Many such persons have fled to India to seek shelter and continued to stay in India despite inadequate documentation. Leaders of various opposition parties voiced their discontent over the passage of the Bill in the Upper and Lower Houses, saying that it was against national interest. Assam came to a standstill in an 11 hour statewide ‘bandh’ on Tuesday in protest against the Bill. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday assured the people of Assam that no one can take away their rights, unique identity and beautiful culture, amid protests in parts of the state against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019. "I want to assure my brothers and sisters of Assam that they have nothing to worry after the passing of #CAB. I want to assure them- no one can take away your rights, unique identity and beautiful culture. It will continue to flourish and grow," the Prime Minister tweeted. I want to assure my brothers and sisters of Assam that they have nothing to worry after the passing of #CAB. I want to assure them- no one can take away your rights, unique identity and beautiful culture. It will continue to flourish and grow. — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) December 12, 2019 × Opposition leader, Sonia Gandhi condemned the passage of the Bill calling it a “dark day in the Constitution of India,” with several other party leaders indicating that they might move to the Supreme Court for intervention. The Indian Union Muslim League on Thursday filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India questioning the legality of the passed Bill and demanding a stay on it.

As Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019 is set to become law, what all is there to know about CAB?

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday will&nbsp;file a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

Four petitioners including Lok Sabha MPs Kunhalikutty PK, Navas Kani, ET Mohammed Basheer and Rajya Sabha MP Abdul Wahab of IUML will also speak to media after filing the plea.

Opposition parties and locals in northeastern states are staging protest against the passage of the CAB.

Indefinite curfew has been imposed in few districts of Assam in the wake of protests after the passage of the CAB in Rajya Sabha.

The CAB smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favour of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week.

The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday will file a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament.

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) on Thursday will file a writ petition in the Supreme Court against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which has been passed by both houses of Parliament. Four petitioners including Lok Sabha MPs Kunhalikutty PK, Navas Kani, ET Mohammed Basheer and Rajya Sabha MP Abdul Wahab of IUML will also speak to media after filing the plea. Opposition parties and locals in northeastern states are staging protest against the passage of the CAB. Indefinite curfew has been imposed in few districts of Assam in the wake of protests after the passage of the CAB in Rajya Sabha. The CAB smoothly sailed through Parliament after the Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favour of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week. The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

IUML to file plea in Supreme Court against Citizenship Amendment Bill

TMC Parliamentary Party Leader in Rajya Sabha <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/saradha-chit-fund-case-trinamool-congress-rajya-sabha-mp-derek-obrien-appears-before-cbi-241875">Derek O'Brien</a> on Thursday gave a Zero Hour notice in the Upper House over 'I&amp;B advisories to TV channels'.

On Wednesday, the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/cabinet-approves-withdrawal-of-jammu-and-kashmir-reservation-second-amendment-bill-266254"> Information and Broadcasting</a> (I&amp;B) Ministry issued advisories to all TV channels asking them to broadcast content strictly in adherence to the Programme and Advertising Codes as prescribed in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/zee-complains-to-ib-ministry-against-den-networks-seeks-cancellation-of-das-license-35204">Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act</a>, 1995.

"It is hereby reiterated that all TV channels are advised to be particularly cautious with regard to any content which is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order, or which promotes anti-national attitudes, or contains anything affecting the integrity of the nation and ensure that no such content is telecast which is violative of these codes," the advisory said.

The advisory came in the wake of protests in the North-East, particularly in Assam, over the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-votes-in-favour-of-introduction-of-citizenship-amendment-bill-267153">Citizenship Amendment Bill</a> which has been cleared by both the Houses of Parliament.

As many as 125 members of the Rajya Sabha voted in favour of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week.

The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

TMC Parliamentary Party Leader in Rajya Sabha Derek O'Brien on Thursday gave a Zero Hour notice in the Upper House over 'I&B advisories to TV channels'. On Wednesday, the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry issued advisories to all TV channels asking them to broadcast content strictly in adherence to the Programme and Advertising Codes as prescribed in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

TMC Parliamentary Party Leader in Rajya Sabha Derek O'Brien on Thursday gave a Zero Hour notice in the Upper House over 'I&B advisories to TV channels'. On Wednesday, the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry issued advisories to all TV channels asking them to broadcast content strictly in adherence to the Programme and Advertising Codes as prescribed in the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995. "It is hereby reiterated that all TV channels are advised to be particularly cautious with regard to any content which is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order, or which promotes anti-national attitudes, or contains anything affecting the integrity of the nation and ensure that no such content is telecast which is violative of these codes," the advisory said. The advisory came in the wake of protests in the North-East, particularly in Assam, over the Citizenship Amendment Bill which has been cleared by both the Houses of Parliament. As many as 125 members of the Rajya Sabha voted in favour of the Bill while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week. The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

Anti-Citizenship Amendment Bill  protests: Zero Hour notice in Rajya Sabha over 'Information and Broadcasting advisories to TV channels'

This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - December 12, 2019

In India Citizenship amendment bill passed in Rajya Sabha. 125 votes are in favour of the bill and 105 votes are in against of the bill.

India: Citizenship amendment bill passed in Rajya Sabha

Protests in India's northeastern state Assam continued to rage on Thursday&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/citizenship-amendment-bill-avoidable-controversy-267862">Citizenship Amendment Bill</a>.&nbsp;

Assam's Guwahati city and Dibrugarh district have been placed under indefinite curfew till further orders. Mobile services have also been suspended for 48 hours starting from today.

One protestor was killed and three others were injured after police opened fire at the protestors.

According to reports, the police opened fire after the protesters hurled stones at the convoy of a foreign delegation.

As the protests continued to rage, Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal appealed people to maintain peace and calm.

"I appeal to the people to maintain peace and not get misled", the Chief Minister said.

Meanwhile, in view of the prevailing situation,&nbsp;four flights from Assam's Dibrugarh airport were cancelled; while all passenger train operations to Assam and Tripura have been suspended. Twelve&nbsp;companies of the railway protection force have also been moved to Assam.

The domestic Ranji trophy cricket matches scheduled to have been held in Assam and Tripura also stand suspended.

Earlier in the day addressing a rally at Jharkhand, Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-one-can-take-away-your-rights-unique-identity-prime-minister-assures-assam-on-citizenship-amendment-bill-267780">Narendra Modi assured the people of Assam</a> that there is nothing to worry about.

"I assure the people of Assam, especially the youth, that they should not worry. Nobody can snatch your rights, Your culture, language and tradition will be safeguarded by Clause 6 of Assam Accord," he said at a rally.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 sailed through the Parliament after Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday.

As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favour while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week.

The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

&nbsp;

Protests in India's northeastern state Assam continued to rage on Thursday Citizenship Amendment Bill. Assam's Guwahati city and Dibrugarh district have been placed under indefinite curfew till further orders.

Protests in India's northeastern state Assam continued to rage on Thursday Citizenship Amendment Bill. Assam's Guwahati city and Dibrugarh district have been placed under indefinite curfew till further orders. Mobile services have also been suspended for 48 hours starting from today. One protestor was killed and three others were injured after police opened fire at the protestors. According to reports, the police opened fire after the protesters hurled stones at the convoy of a foreign delegation. As the protests continued to rage, Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal appealed people to maintain peace and calm. "I appeal to the people to maintain peace and not get misled", the Chief Minister said. Meanwhile, in view of the prevailing situation, four flights from Assam's Dibrugarh airport were cancelled; while all passenger train operations to Assam and Tripura have been suspended. Twelve companies of the railway protection force have also been moved to Assam. The domestic Ranji trophy cricket matches scheduled to have been held in Assam and Tripura also stand suspended. Earlier in the day addressing a rally at Jharkhand, Prime Minister Narendra Modi assured the people of Assam that there is nothing to worry about. "I assure the people of Assam, especially the youth, that they should not worry. Nobody can snatch your rights, Your culture, language and tradition will be safeguarded by Clause 6 of Assam Accord," he said at a rally. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 sailed through the Parliament after Rajya Sabha passed it on Wednesday. As many as 125 members of the Upper House voted in favour while 105 MPs voted against the Bill, which was passed by Lok Sabha earlier this week. The Bill seeks to grant Indian citizenship to refugees from Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist and Zoroastrian communities fleeing religious persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh and who entered India on or before December 31, 2014.

Citizenship Amendment Bill: Protests continue to rage in Assam; CM appeals for peace

Amidst heated arguments and loud protests within the Parliament and violent street demonstrations in parts of India, particularly North East, the ruling coalition government in India led by the BJP has managed to push through the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in Parliament. It was passed in Rajya Sabha ( Upper House) on December 11, after being cleared by the Lok Sabha (Lower House) earlier. It now awaits the clerical formality of President’s consent to become tan Act.&nbsp;

The crux of the amendment is that the government of India can now grant Indian citizenship to such members of selected religious minorities from any of the three neighbouring countries namely Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who face/faced persecution in their respective countries. In this context, the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jains and Parsis have been identified as those minorities which would qualify to seek and get Indian citizenship. The Muslims have been consciously excluded from the list of eligible minorities. &nbsp;

The thrust of the opposition to the amendment is that it (the amendment) violates the Constitution of India in terms of equality ( Article 14 and Article 15) and is an onslaught on the concept of secularism enshrined in the Constitution as the proposed amendment is applicable on the basis of religion and further it excludes Muslims from the list of prospective beneficiaries. &nbsp;

During the debates within and outside Parliament, the ruling party has forcefully defended its decision by arguing that the “minority status” and the “persecution of minorities” is the guiding principle and that religion has nothing to do with it. Explaining as to why Muslims have been excluded, the ruling party has argued that the three neighbouring countries under reference are Islamic countries and therefore the question of persecution of Muslims by Muslims in Islamic countries is not relevant in the given context.&nbsp;

When asked as to why the Muslim minorities such as Shias and Ahmadis being persecuted by the Sunni-majority Muslims have been excluded, if the persecution is the criteria, the government’s counter-argument is that Shias and Ahmadis are sects of Islam, and therefore, issues pertaining to them must be resolved within the framework of Islam in Islamic countries. The government, however, doesn’t seem to have a suitable explanation as to why exclude the Rohingya Muslims minority who are being persecuted not by the Muslims but by the Buddhist majority in neighbouring Myanmar. &nbsp;

Addressing the apprehensions, particularly of the Muslim minorities within India, where the Muslims constitute close to 15 per cent of the population, the government has repeatedly assured that the amendment is designed to “grant” and Not “withdraw” citizenship and therefore they should have no reason to fear any impact of the amendment on their status. The government has gone further to reveal that more than five hundred Muslims have in the past been granted Indian Citizenship on case-by-case basis. &nbsp;

In the given context, the pertinent question is: Do we really need the amendment under reference?&nbsp;Authentic statistics and reports are available to establish that the non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh (mainly Hindus, Sikhs and Christians) are indeed under pressure and their population in those countries has declined considerably either on account of migration or due to forced conversions. A large number of them are said to be already present in India but are deprived of several benefits for not being legitimate citizens of India. The humanitarian dimension of the issue at hand is well established. &nbsp;

However, do we need to amend our Citizenship Act to address this humanitarian issue? There have been in the past several instances when India has accepted Refugees of Indian origin from other countries (eg, Uganda, Burma ) and granted them Indian citizenship. Several hundred thousand “Indian Tamils” (Those who were sent to Sri Lanka as labourers at Tea and Rubber plantations by the British in mid -19th century) were accepted in India and rehabilitated under bilateral India-Sri Lanka agreement. One may, therefore, ask as to why could we not continue with the past practice of case-by-case approach and take appropriate action as and when the situation arose.&nbsp;

In my opinion, a ready-to-implement instrument sanctioned by the Law of the Land is a far better arrangement than ad-hoc actions, decisions or solutions. However, the government, which has arguably adopted a selective approach both in the selection of countries and minorities could have possibly avoided controversy by not identifying the religious minorities in black and white. It should have served the purpose by simply stating that the minorities currently facing persecution in three neighbouring countries i.e. Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan or those who faced persecution in the past in those countries and are already in India are eligible to apply for Indian Citizenship and their application will be given due consideration after taking into account all aspects including national security while reserving its right to decline.

The government would have thus stated the obvious. The government in its wisdom has, however, decided to be unambiguous in conveying the message that Muslims persecuted by Muslims will not be covered by the amendment. In fact by excluding Myanmar and thus Rohingya Muslims, it has gone further to convey that the Muslims persecuted anywhere in the world will not be automatically eligible for applying for Indian Citizenship.&nbsp;

Even if the government has been guided by security considerations, which the presence in India in particular of the Rohingya Muslims could pose, the government has given an excuse to opposition to accuse it of taking yet another step in the direction of moving India towards Hindu Rashtra (Hindu State), ignoring the long history and tradition of religious, ethnic and linguistic pluralism in India where practically all world religions are represented and their followers have the freedom to practice and preach their respective religions.&nbsp;

The amendment implicitly accuses the three countries of atrocities against the minorities. The Afghan government is unlikely to react as the alleged atrocities are attributable to Taliban. In the case of Pakistan, it is immaterial as the relations cannot go worse than what they are now. However, by cancelling the scheduled visit of its foreign minister to India presumable to register its protest, Bangladesh has made its intention clear not to take the accusations of atrocities lying down, and in due course of time, India will have to take measures to repair the damage.&nbsp;

The government of India has suitably and justifiably snubbed those in the West who have criticised the Bill, describing it for instance as a “dangerous turn in the wrong direction” (US Federal Commission on International Religious Freedom statement). However, the battle at home remains inconclusive as violent protests in Assam defying curfew continue unabated on the one hand and on the other the Indian Union Muslim League ( IUML) has challenged (December 12) &nbsp;the Citizenship Amendment Bill in Supreme Court alleging that the Bill violates the fundamental Right to Equality of the Constitution of India, and needless to add that its outcome will be keenly awaited. &nbsp; 
 
&nbsp;(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Amidst heated arguments and loud protests within the Parliament and violent street demonstrations in parts of India, particularly North East, the ruling coalition government in India led by the BJP has managed to push through the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in Parliament.

Amidst heated arguments and loud protests within the Parliament and violent street demonstrations in parts of India, particularly North East, the ruling coalition government in India led by the BJP has managed to push through the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Bill in Parliament. It was passed in Rajya Sabha ( Upper House) on December 11, after being cleared by the Lok Sabha (Lower House) earlier. It now awaits the clerical formality of President’s consent to become tan Act. The crux of the amendment is that the government of India can now grant Indian citizenship to such members of selected religious minorities from any of the three neighbouring countries namely Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who face/faced persecution in their respective countries. In this context, the Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jains and Parsis have been identified as those minorities which would qualify to seek and get Indian citizenship. The Muslims have been consciously excluded from the list of eligible minorities. The thrust of the opposition to the amendment is that it (the amendment) violates the Constitution of India in terms of equality ( Article 14 and Article 15) and is an onslaught on the concept of secularism enshrined in the Constitution as the proposed amendment is applicable on the basis of religion and further it excludes Muslims from the list of prospective beneficiaries. During the debates within and outside Parliament, the ruling party has forcefully defended its decision by arguing that the “minority status” and the “persecution of minorities” is the guiding principle and that religion has nothing to do with it. Explaining as to why Muslims have been excluded, the ruling party has argued that the three neighbouring countries under reference are Islamic countries and therefore the question of persecution of Muslims by Muslims in Islamic countries is not relevant in the given context. When asked as to why the Muslim minorities such as Shias and Ahmadis being persecuted by the Sunni-majority Muslims have been excluded, if the persecution is the criteria, the government’s counter-argument is that Shias and Ahmadis are sects of Islam, and therefore, issues pertaining to them must be resolved within the framework of Islam in Islamic countries. The government, however, doesn’t seem to have a suitable explanation as to why exclude the Rohingya Muslims minority who are being persecuted not by the Muslims but by the Buddhist majority in neighbouring Myanmar. Addressing the apprehensions, particularly of the Muslim minorities within India, where the Muslims constitute close to 15 per cent of the population, the government has repeatedly assured that the amendment is designed to “grant” and Not “withdraw” citizenship and therefore they should have no reason to fear any impact of the amendment on their status. The government has gone further to reveal that more than five hundred Muslims have in the past been granted Indian Citizenship on case-by-case basis. In the given context, the pertinent question is: Do we really need the amendment under reference? Authentic statistics and reports are available to establish that the non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh (mainly Hindus, Sikhs and Christians) are indeed under pressure and their population in those countries has declined considerably either on account of migration or due to forced conversions. A large number of them are said to be already present in India but are deprived of several benefits for not being legitimate citizens of India. The humanitarian dimension of the issue at hand is well established. However, do we need to amend our Citizenship Act to address this humanitarian issue? There have been in the past several instances when India has accepted Refugees of Indian origin from other countries (eg, Uganda, Burma ) and granted them Indian citizenship. Several hundred thousand “Indian Tamils” (Those who were sent to Sri Lanka as labourers at Tea and Rubber plantations by the British in mid -19th century) were accepted in India and rehabilitated under bilateral India-Sri Lanka agreement. One may, therefore, ask as to why could we not continue with the past practice of case-by-case approach and take appropriate action as and when the situation arose. In my opinion, a ready-to-implement instrument sanctioned by the Law of the Land is a far better arrangement than ad-hoc actions, decisions or solutions. However, the government, which has arguably adopted a selective approach both in the selection of countries and minorities could have possibly avoided controversy by not identifying the religious minorities in black and white. It should have served the purpose by simply stating that the minorities currently facing persecution in three neighbouring countries i.e. Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan or those who faced persecution in the past in those countries and are already in India are eligible to apply for Indian Citizenship and their application will be given due consideration after taking into account all aspects including national security while reserving its right to decline. The government would have thus stated the obvious. The government in its wisdom has, however, decided to be unambiguous in conveying the message that Muslims persecuted by Muslims will not be covered by the amendment. In fact by excluding Myanmar and thus Rohingya Muslims, it has gone further to convey that the Muslims persecuted anywhere in the world will not be automatically eligible for applying for Indian Citizenship. Even if the government has been guided by security considerations, which the presence in India in particular of the Rohingya Muslims could pose, the government has given an excuse to opposition to accuse it of taking yet another step in the direction of moving India towards Hindu Rashtra (Hindu State), ignoring the long history and tradition of religious, ethnic and linguistic pluralism in India where practically all world religions are represented and their followers have the freedom to practice and preach their respective religions. The amendment implicitly accuses the three countries of atrocities against the minorities. The Afghan government is unlikely to react as the alleged atrocities are attributable to Taliban. In the case of Pakistan, it is immaterial as the relations cannot go worse than what they are now. However, by cancelling the scheduled visit of its foreign minister to India presumable to register its protest, Bangladesh has made its intention clear not to take the accusations of atrocities lying down, and in due course of time, India will have to take measures to repair the damage. The government of India has suitably and justifiably snubbed those in the West who have criticised the Bill, describing it for instance as a “dangerous turn in the wrong direction” (US Federal Commission on International Religious Freedom statement). However, the battle at home remains inconclusive as violent protests in Assam defying curfew continue unabated on the one hand and on the other the Indian Union Muslim League ( IUML) has challenged (December 12) the Citizenship Amendment Bill in Supreme Court alleging that the Bill violates the fundamental Right to Equality of the Constitution of India, and needless to add that its outcome will be keenly awaited. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Citizenship Amendment Bill: Avoidable controversy?

USCIRF Statement On C.A.B Is Soaked In Controversy.

Gravitas: Citizenship Amendment Bill: USCIRF pitches sanctions against Shah

Does Citizenship Amendment Bill Violate Article 14 Of the Indian Constitution? #WION Edit

WION Edit: Why is Citizenship Amendment Bill controversial?

Understanding The Citizenship Amendment Bill & Its Ramifications.

Gravitas: Citizenship Amendment Bill: All you need to know

The Maldives has said that it respects India and other neighbouring countries "domestic processes", in response to a question on the citizenship amendment bill.&nbsp;

Speaking exclusively to WION, Maldives Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid who is on an India visit backed the Indo-Pacific concept, lauded India's development and also talked about climate impact on his country.

WION: What is the main focus of your visit?

Abdulla Shahid: My visit this time is to co-chair the Maldives-India joint commission. This Joint Commission was supposed to meet every two&nbsp;years, but could not and last time it happened was in 2015. Since President Solih came in office, both the Indian and Maldives leadership have had several meetings. We saw PM Modi attending President Solih's inauguration and then one month after President Solih visited India. This September both met and every time they meet, an ambitious agenda set and it is for us officials to make sure it happens and is delivered. Dr Jaishankar and I will sit with our ministries and will set agenda for next 2 years. The joint commission will review, what has been done during the last one year and set agenda for the next 2 years.&nbsp;

WION: How do you see India's development assistance?

Abdulla Shahid: India is today and has always been one of the closest development partners we have had. Always, good to sit with Indian leadership and discuss future work and number of projects are underway. Last week we saw both leaders announcing the project and in the next few months, we will see the groundbreaking of several projects. That is how the development work is going on.&nbsp;

WION: You have become the member of IORA—Indian Ocean Rim Association, what role do you&nbsp;see in the group?

Abdulla Shahid: Indian Ocean Rim Association hasn't been at its best until the Maldives became its member. The Maldives lies in the heart of the Indian ocean, and without the heart, the association will not be complete and it is good to be in the association. We thank the member countries especially India for the leadership it has played to get the Maldives into the association. For the Maldives, Indian ocean is life and for the Indian ocean stability and peace and security is essential. We will play a crucial role in the association and will be talking about securing of Indian ocean maritime zones and freedom of movement and challenging the elements that destabilize the ocean.

WION​​​​​​​: How do you see the Indo-Pacific concept?

Abdulla Shahid: We back Indo-Pacific strategy. I met Secretary Pompeo in Washington and discussed the Indo-pacific strategy with him. We firmly believe that It is essential for peace and security of Indian ocean and it maintains freedom of navigation for all and it should not be controlled by certain countries and limited to certain countries and that is the role we will play.

WION​​​​​​​: How are you&nbsp;balancing tourism versus environmental concerns?&nbsp;

Abdulla Shahid: We have had, since 1972, a very useful tourism brand so much so that we can say Maldives tourism is one of the world-class tourism industry. We are proud of what we have achieved in such a short period in maintaining the environmental standards we have obtained. we not only talk about the environment, but we practice protection of the environment. Today, not only climate change is going to impact countries like ours who entirely depend on the ocean, but single-use plastic which is being dumped into the ocean, it is suffocating and killing the ocean. We have to address the issue, happy that India is also on the same page on this issue.

WION​​​​​​​: How do you see the current domestic discourse on citizenship Amendment bill in India?&nbsp;

Abdulla Shahid: What we, able to have with India and our neighbouring countries is, respect to its domestic processes. Indian parliament, as I have always said, has its right, granted by the people of this country and constitution on appropriate laws. It is not for the Maldives to comment on such an issue.

The Maldives has said that it respects India and other neighbouring countries "domestic processes", in response to a question on the citizenship amendment bill. Speaking exclusively to WION, Maldives Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid who is on an India visit backed the Indo-Pacific concept, lauded India's development and also talked about climate impact on his country.

The Maldives has said that it respects India and other neighbouring countries "domestic processes", in response to a question on the citizenship amendment bill. Speaking exclusively to WION, Maldives Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid who is on an India visit backed the Indo-Pacific concept, lauded India's development and also talked about climate impact on his country. WION: What is the main focus of your visit? Abdulla Shahid: My visit this time is to co-chair the Maldives-India joint commission. This Joint Commission was supposed to meet every two years, but could not and last time it happened was in 2015. Since President Solih came in office, both the Indian and Maldives leadership have had several meetings. We saw PM Modi attending President Solih's inauguration and then one month after President Solih visited India. This September both met and every time they meet, an ambitious agenda set and it is for us officials to make sure it happens and is delivered. Dr Jaishankar and I will sit with our ministries and will set agenda for next 2 years. The joint commission will review, what has been done during the last one year and set agenda for the next 2 years. WION: How do you see India's development assistance? Abdulla Shahid: India is today and has always been one of the closest development partners we have had. Always, good to sit with Indian leadership and discuss future work and number of projects are underway. Last week we saw both leaders announcing the project and in the next few months, we will see the groundbreaking of several projects. That is how the development work is going on. WION: You have become the member of IORA—Indian Ocean Rim Association, what role do you see in the group? Abdulla Shahid: Indian Ocean Rim Association hasn't been at its best until the Maldives became its member. The Maldives lies in the heart of the Indian ocean, and without the heart, the association will not be complete and it is good to be in the association. We thank the member countries especially India for the leadership it has played to get the Maldives into the association. For the Maldives, Indian ocean is life and for the Indian ocean stability and peace and security is essential. We will play a crucial role in the association and will be talking about securing of Indian ocean maritime zones and freedom of movement and challenging the elements that destabilize the ocean. WION: How do you see the Indo-Pacific concept? Abdulla Shahid: We back Indo-Pacific strategy. I met Secretary Pompeo in Washington and discussed the Indo-pacific strategy with him. We firmly believe that It is essential for peace and security of Indian ocean and it maintains freedom of navigation for all and it should not be controlled by certain countries and limited to certain countries and that is the role we will play. WION: How are you balancing tourism versus environmental concerns? Abdulla Shahid: We have had, since 1972, a very useful tourism brand so much so that we can say Maldives tourism is one of the world-class tourism industry. We are proud of what we have achieved in such a short period in maintaining the environmental standards we have obtained. we not only talk about the environment, but we practice protection of the environment. Today, not only climate change is going to impact countries like ours who entirely depend on the ocean, but single-use plastic which is being dumped into the ocean, it is suffocating and killing the ocean. We have to address the issue, happy that India is also on the same page on this issue. WION: How do you see the current domestic discourse on citizenship Amendment bill in India? Abdulla Shahid: What we, able to have with India and our neighbouring countries is, respect to its domestic processes. Indian parliament, as I have always said, has its right, granted by the people of this country and constitution on appropriate laws. It is not for the Maldives to comment on such an issue.

Maldives refuses to comment on Citizenship Amendment Bill, says respects India's domestic processes

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) raised concerns on the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) that was passed by the Lok Sabha on Tuesday midnight. Meanwhile, the Government sources to WION said that the body's views hold no relevance and their observations are totally unfounded.

WION Dispatch: US Commission opposes Citizenship Amendment Bill

Dozens of protests broke out across northeastern India on Tuesday (December 10), after the lower house of Indian parliament passed the controversial religion-based Citizenship (Amendment) Bill late at night.

Protests erupt across northeastern India over religion-based citizenship bill

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Tuesday took to Twitter to condemn the passing of contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019, which seeks to give Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, saying that it "violates all norms of international human rights law" with Islamabad.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan on Tuesday took to Twitter to condemn the passing of contentious Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019, which seeks to give Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, saying that it "violates all norms of international human rights law" with Islamabad. Khan in a tweet said: "We strongly condemn Indian Lok Sabha citizenship legislation which violates all norms of international human rights law and bilateral agreements with Pakistan. "It is part of the RSS `Hindu Rashtra` design of expansionism propagated by the fascist Modi govt." We strongly condemn Indian Lok Sabha citizenship legislation which violates all norms of int human rights law & bilateral agreements with Pak. It is part of the RSS "Hindu Rashtra" design of expansionism propagated by the fascist Modi Govt. https://t.co/XkRdBiSp3G — Imran Khan (@ImranKhanPTI) December 10, 2019 × Khan`s remarks come after the draft legislation was passed in the Lok Sabha on Monday midnight after the division of votes with 311 in its favour and 80 against it. The Bill would face its final hurdle in the Rajya Sabha on Tuesday before becoming a law.

Imran condemns passing of India's Citizenship (Amendment) Bill

To protest against the passage of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/lok-sabha-votes-in-favour-of-introduction-of-citizenship-amendment-bill-267153">Citizenship (Amendment) Bill</a>, many districts in Assam on Monday observed a 12 hour-shutdown and demonstrations were held in the several cities of the state.

Dirugarh, Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal's constituency also participated in the shutdown.

All shops, markets remain closed and only a few people were seen out on the roads. Some protesters burnt rubber tyres but were soon detained by the police.

In Golaghat, some locals protested half-naked against the bill. Later, police resorted to lathi-charge in order to disperse the crowd.

Security forces have been deployed in many areas to keep the situation under control and avoid any untoward situation.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Union Home Minister Amit Shah today introduced the bill in Lok Sabha.

The Citizenship Amend Bill, 2019 was introduced after a division with 293 members voting in favour of the bill and 82 against it.

Through this bill, Indian citizenship will be provided to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities, who have come from the three countries to India till December 31, 2014, to put an end to them being treated as illegal immigrants in the country.

The Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha during the first term of the Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/saarc-needs-greater-collaboration-to-act-against-terrorism-pm-narendra-modi-266951">Narendra Modi</a> government in the Centre.

To protest against the passage of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, many districts in Assam on Monday observed a 12 hour-shutdown and demonstrations were held in the several cities of the state.

To protest against the passage of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, many districts in Assam on Monday observed a 12 hour-shutdown and demonstrations were held in the several cities of the state. Dirugarh, Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal's constituency also participated in the shutdown. All shops, markets remain closed and only a few people were seen out on the roads. Some protesters burnt rubber tyres but were soon detained by the police. In Golaghat, some locals protested half-naked against the bill. Later, police resorted to lathi-charge in order to disperse the crowd. Security forces have been deployed in many areas to keep the situation under control and avoid any untoward situation. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Union Home Minister Amit Shah today introduced the bill in Lok Sabha. The Citizenship Amend Bill, 2019 was introduced after a division with 293 members voting in favour of the bill and 82 against it. Through this bill, Indian citizenship will be provided to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities, who have come from the three countries to India till December 31, 2014, to put an end to them being treated as illegal immigrants in the country. The Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha during the first term of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi government in the Centre.

Shutdown, protests in Assam against Citizenship Amendment Bill

Lok Sabha on Monday voted in favour of the introduction of Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). The bill received 293 'Ayes' in favour of introduction of the bill against 82 'Noes'.

Lok Sabha on Monday voted in favour of the introduction of Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB). The bill received 293 'Ayes' in favour of introduction of the bill against 82 'Noes'. Earlier Union Home Minister Amit Shah tabled the contentious bill in the Lok Sabha and said that in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians, Parsis and Jains have been discriminated against and this will give these persecuted people citizenship. The allegation that this bill will take away rights of Muslims is wrong, he added. Lok Sabha: 293 'Ayes' in favour of introduction of #CitizenshipAmendmentBill and 82 'Noes' against the Bill's introduction, in Lok Sabha pic.twitter.com/z1SbYJbvcz — ANI (@ANI) December 9, 2019 × ''If Congress had not done partition on the basis of religion after independence, we would have not needed this Bill. Congress did partition on the basis of religion,'' Shah further said. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha. If passed by Parliament, it will amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 introducing exceptional provisions for acquiring citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Lok Sabha votes in favour of introduction of Citizenship Amendment Bill 

Union Home Minister Amit Shah said in Lok Sabha on Monday said the name of the Muslim community is nowhere mentioned in the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019.

"Nowhere in the Bill Muslim community is named even once. You cannot distort and present it in the House," said <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/amit-shah-to-move-the-special-protection-group-amendment-bill-2019-today-in-rajya-sabha-265825">Amit Shah</a> after tabling the Bill, while replying to a member from Opposition Bench who alleged that the Bill is discriminatory against the community.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/citizenship-amendment-bill-secularism-unfinished-business-in-india-266260">The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019</a> seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.

Also Watch:&nbsp;Citizenship Amendment Bill tabled in Lok Sabha

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-citizenship-amendment-bill-tabled-in-lok-sabha-267132/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Through this bill, Indian citizenship will be provided to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities, who have come from the three countries to India till December 31, 2014, to put an end to them being treated as illegal immigrants in the country.&nbsp;

The Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha during the first term of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi government in the Centre.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah said in Lok Sabha on Monday said the name of the Muslim community is nowhere mentioned in the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019. "Nowhere in the Bill Muslim community is named even once.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah said in Lok Sabha on Monday said the name of the Muslim community is nowhere mentioned in the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019. "Nowhere in the Bill Muslim community is named even once. You cannot distort and present it in the House," said Amit Shah after tabling the Bill, while replying to a member from Opposition Bench who alleged that the Bill is discriminatory against the community. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Also Watch: Citizenship Amendment Bill tabled in Lok Sabha × Through this bill, Indian citizenship will be provided to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities, who have come from the three countries to India till December 31, 2014, to put an end to them being treated as illegal immigrants in the country. The Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha during the first term of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi government in the Centre.

Muslim community not named in CAB even once: Amit Shah

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) national secretary PK Kunhalikutty has given Adjournment Motion Notice in the Lok Sabha opposing introduction of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB), 2019.

Speaking to ANI, IUML leader ET Mohammed Basheer said, "As far as IUML is concerned like other opposition parties, we will oppose this bill in the parliament, outside the parliament and through the judicial process. In three ways we will oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional."

"Article 14 of the Constitution says equality before the law but this bill violates that. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits all kinds of discrimination based on religion, caste, creed, sex or birth of place but this bill violates this aspect of Article 15 also. Secularism is the soul of the Constitution, the bill violates that also," the IMUL MP said.

"So we have decided to fight it. We have a dialogue with all the like-minded parties. If the bill is passed in the Lok Sabha and in the Rajya Sabha as well, then we will move the Supreme Court," he added.

Also Watch:&nbsp;Citizenship Amendment Bill tabled in Lok Sabha

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-citizenship-amendment-bill-tabled-in-lok-sabha-267132/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/citizenship-amendment-bill-tabled-in-lok-sabha-267128">The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill</a>, that seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, is all set to be introduced in Lok Sabha on Monday by Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Through this bill, Indian citizenship will be provided to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities, who have come from the three countries to India till December 31, 2014, facing religious persecution and put an end to them being treated as illegal immigrants in the country.&nbsp;

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) national secretary PK Kunhalikutty has given Adjournment Motion Notice in the Lok Sabha opposing introduction of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB), 2019.

Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) national secretary PK Kunhalikutty has given Adjournment Motion Notice in the Lok Sabha opposing introduction of Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB), 2019. Speaking to ANI, IUML leader ET Mohammed Basheer said, "As far as IUML is concerned like other opposition parties, we will oppose this bill in the parliament, outside the parliament and through the judicial process. In three ways we will oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional." "Article 14 of the Constitution says equality before the law but this bill violates that. Article 15 of the Constitution prohibits all kinds of discrimination based on religion, caste, creed, sex or birth of place but this bill violates this aspect of Article 15 also. Secularism is the soul of the Constitution, the bill violates that also," the IMUL MP said. "So we have decided to fight it. We have a dialogue with all the like-minded parties. If the bill is passed in the Lok Sabha and in the Rajya Sabha as well, then we will move the Supreme Court," he added. Also Watch: Citizenship Amendment Bill tabled in Lok Sabha × The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, that seeks to grant Indian citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, is all set to be introduced in Lok Sabha on Monday by Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Through this bill, Indian citizenship will be provided to the members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities, who have come from the three countries to India till December 31, 2014, facing religious persecution and put an end to them being treated as illegal immigrants in the country.

IUML gives adjournment motion notice in Lok Sabha on Citizenship Amendment Bill

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday tabled the contentious Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) in Lok Sabha. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha.

Union Home Minister Amit Shah on Monday tabled the contentious Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) in Lok Sabha. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Thursday issued a three-line whip to its members in Lok Sabha asking them to be present in the House from December 9 till 12. Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Lok Sabha, to Opposition on #CitizenshipAmendmentBill2019 : I will answer all questions on the Bill. Tab House se walkout mat karna. https://t.co/x6fZwdN3Li pic.twitter.com/qYi72NonZl — ANI (@ANI) December 9, 2019 × If passed by Parliament, it will amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 introducing exceptional provisions for acquiring citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Citizenship Amendment Bill tabled in Lok Sabha 

In India, Citizenship Amendment Bill tabled in Lok Sabha. Home Minister Amit Shah seeks to get majority votes.

INDIA: Citizenship Amendment Bill tabled in Lok Sabha

The contentious Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) will be introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Lok Sabha on Monday.

The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Thursday issued a three-line whip to its members in Lok Sabha asking them to be present in the House from December 9 till 12.

On the other hand, the Congress parliamentary strategy group is slated to meet at the residence of party chief Sonia Gandhi today to deliberate the party's stance on the Citizenship Amendment Bill.

If passed by Parliament, it will amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 introducing exceptional provisions for acquiring citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The contentious Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) will be introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Lok Sabha on Monday. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha.

The contentious Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) will be introduced by Union Home Minister Amit Shah in Lok Sabha on Monday. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Thursday issued a three-line whip to its members in Lok Sabha asking them to be present in the House from December 9 till 12. On the other hand, the Congress parliamentary strategy group is slated to meet at the residence of party chief Sonia Gandhi today to deliberate the party's stance on the Citizenship Amendment Bill. If passed by Parliament, it will amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 introducing exceptional provisions for acquiring citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Citizenship Amendment Bill to be introduced in Lok Sabha by Amit Shah on Monday

Ram Madhav, BJP, National General Secretary speaks to WION exclusively during the WION World Order event in the Indian capital New Delhi.

Ram Madhav speaks exclusively to WION on Citizenship Amendment Bill

The Citizenship Amendment Bill and Personal Data Protection Bill are likely to be taken up for passage in the Lok Sabha next week.

The government announced on Friday that the two Bills are on its agenda for the remaining period of the winter session of parliament, which concludes on December 13.

Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, Arjun Ram Meghwal, informed the Lok Sabha of the agenda for the remaining period of winter session.

The Citizenship Amendment Bill and Personal Data Protection Bill will be first introduced in Parliament and then taken up for consideration and passage.

The other bills on the agenda include The Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and The International Financial Services Centres Authority Bill, 2019.

This Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha.

If and when passed by Parliament, it will amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 introducing exceptional provisions for acquiring citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Citizenship Amendment Bill and Personal Data Protection Bill are likely to be taken up for passage in the Lok Sabha next week. The government announced on Friday that the two Bills are on its agenda for the remaining period of the winter session of parliament, which concludes on December 13.

The Citizenship Amendment Bill and Personal Data Protection Bill are likely to be taken up for passage in the Lok Sabha next week. The government announced on Friday that the two Bills are on its agenda for the remaining period of the winter session of parliament, which concludes on December 13. Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, Arjun Ram Meghwal, informed the Lok Sabha of the agenda for the remaining period of winter session. The Citizenship Amendment Bill and Personal Data Protection Bill will be first introduced in Parliament and then taken up for consideration and passage. The other bills on the agenda include The Arms (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and The International Financial Services Centres Authority Bill, 2019. This Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed by the Lower House of the Parliament earlier this year but lapsed with the term of the previous Lok Sabha. If and when passed by Parliament, it will amend the Citizenship Act of 1955 introducing exceptional provisions for acquiring citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Lok Sabha may take up Citizenship Amendment Bill next week

The Citizenship Amendment Bill cannot be seen in isolation of current political developments. In the true sense of the word, it reflects a battle of ideology. One side of the spectrum lies between BJP-RSS, and on the other, Congress and other regional parties.&nbsp;

I’m not going to hold any one party on a pedestal but the decision to allow non-Muslim refugees from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan will definitely create a different template for the country. BJP’s idea of nation is derived from culture and that too from ancient India. BJP gives primacy to cultural nationalism. Even before BJP's inception, RSS and erstwhile Jan Sangh focused on India as a place for those who believed that India is a motherland. It is a mix modern concept of the nation with civilization. It is for this reason that Akhand Bharat’s picture still dawns the offices of RSS. RSS leaders continue to refer to India as a young country but an old nation.&nbsp;

The current bill from the perspective of RSS finishes the unresolved business of partition and presents&nbsp;India as a country where Hindus can take refugee without question. The bill also includes five other religions including Christianity. The bill strengthens the argument of cultural nationalism as the cornerstone of Indian nationalism. The issue may be new but it is essentially an old debate.

The idea of secularism remains unfinished business in India. Immediately after independence, India’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru developed great reservation on Congress leaders participating in the reconstruction of Somnath temple in Gujarat. Despite his resistance, Congress leaders like Sardal Patel and K M Munshi went ahead and organised funds for its renovation. This debate of the relationship of state with religion did not stem from Jawahar and Patel. It basically stemmed from the pool of leaders who played an important part in framing the Constitution. There was no consensus on the words like secularism and socialism in the Constituent Assembly. 
 
It is for this reason that in the original Constitution, secularism and socialism as words do not exist in the Indian preamble.&nbsp;

Former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, without debate or consultation, added secularism and socialism in the preamble of the Indian Constitution. She thought that the addition would end the debate on the character of the nation. It did not. The act itself was undemocratic. The words exist in the Constitution but lack consensus in the society. It is for this reason that debate continues to fester and gets reflected in multiple legislations and social-political actions of various parties. It was for this reason the word pseudo-secularism was born in the 1980s. &nbsp;

As mentioned, despite the insertion of the two words secular and socialism, social consensus does not exist in society. India continues to be deeply religious in nature with state actively using symbols of Sanatan Dharma in statecraft and economy-wise we are closer to capitalism than the socialism of Soviet Russia. We today have a capitalist economy with a huge welfare budget.

Even in the absence of the word secular and socialism, the Indian state under the original Constitution took care of minorities. CAB reflects a different political argument. It argues that since partition took place on the basis of religion, the Hindu self-expression cannot be sacrificed as the alter of the western concept of secularism.&nbsp;

Constitutions across the world reflect long-lasting principles of Liberal politics apart from unique social and political origins. They are also a dossier on social and political consensus. Islamic states across the world are the sole exception in this case. In Islamic states, the will of majority becomes a rule for the minority both in social action and through law. The best case in example is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The amendment of the Citizenship Bill is part and parcel of the unfinished agenda of what Indian state should be.

It is for this reason, Citizenship Bill should not be seen from the prism of electoral politics. It should be seen from the prism of what defines nationhood. Whether you agree or disagree, RSS has a strong world view which is being implemented through the present government.&nbsp;

The abrogation of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir is one such example. The Indian Constitution is unlikely to be changed substantially. What eventually may happen is that the primacy of Hinduism in public life will become a reality. The first act of consolidation took place after the Ayodhya verdict where Hindu sentiments on what constitutes geographical sacredness were acknowledged by the Court.

CAB will be second such event if passed by the Parliament. India will not become a Hindu Rashtra with this amendment, but it will definitely change the rules of the game.&nbsp;

The nation will come closer to the cultural idea of India as the motherland of all Hindus.&nbsp;

Lastly, those in Opposition are also failing to realise how liberal democracies failed to address the issue of immigration and change in power equation which is also central to the idea of NRC and CAB. If implemented fully, it will test the ability of Opposition to take on BJP nationally as the idea of Hinduism as one religion and not an amalgamation of sub-nationalism is growing stronger by the day.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Citizenship Amendment Bill cannot be seen in isolation of current political developments. In the true sense of the word, it reflects a battle of ideology. One side of the spectrum lies between BJP-RSS, and on the other, Congress and other regional parties.

The Citizenship Amendment Bill cannot be seen in isolation of current political developments. In the true sense of the word, it reflects a battle of ideology. One side of the spectrum lies between BJP-RSS, and on the other, Congress and other regional parties. I’m not going to hold any one party on a pedestal but the decision to allow non-Muslim refugees from Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan will definitely create a different template for the country. BJP’s idea of nation is derived from culture and that too from ancient India. BJP gives primacy to cultural nationalism. Even before BJP's inception, RSS and erstwhile Jan Sangh focused on India as a place for those who believed that India is a motherland. It is a mix modern concept of the nation with civilization. It is for this reason that Akhand Bharat’s picture still dawns the offices of RSS. RSS leaders continue to refer to India as a young country but an old nation. The current bill from the perspective of RSS finishes the unresolved business of partition and presents India as a country where Hindus can take refugee without question. The bill also includes five other religions including Christianity. The bill strengthens the argument of cultural nationalism as the cornerstone of Indian nationalism. The issue may be new but it is essentially an old debate. The idea of secularism remains unfinished business in India. Immediately after independence, India’s first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru developed great reservation on Congress leaders participating in the reconstruction of Somnath temple in Gujarat. Despite his resistance, Congress leaders like Sardal Patel and K M Munshi went ahead and organised funds for its renovation. This debate of the relationship of state with religion did not stem from Jawahar and Patel. It basically stemmed from the pool of leaders who played an important part in framing the Constitution. There was no consensus on the words like secularism and socialism in the Constituent Assembly. It is for this reason that in the original Constitution, secularism and socialism as words do not exist in the Indian preamble. Former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, without debate or consultation, added secularism and socialism in the preamble of the Indian Constitution. She thought that the addition would end the debate on the character of the nation. It did not. The act itself was undemocratic. The words exist in the Constitution but lack consensus in the society. It is for this reason that debate continues to fester and gets reflected in multiple legislations and social-political actions of various parties. It was for this reason the word pseudo-secularism was born in the 1980s. As mentioned, despite the insertion of the two words secular and socialism, social consensus does not exist in society. India continues to be deeply religious in nature with state actively using symbols of Sanatan Dharma in statecraft and economy-wise we are closer to capitalism than the socialism of Soviet Russia. We today have a capitalist economy with a huge welfare budget. Even in the absence of the word secular and socialism, the Indian state under the original Constitution took care of minorities. CAB reflects a different political argument. It argues that since partition took place on the basis of religion, the Hindu self-expression cannot be sacrificed as the alter of the western concept of secularism. Constitutions across the world reflect long-lasting principles of Liberal politics apart from unique social and political origins. They are also a dossier on social and political consensus. Islamic states across the world are the sole exception in this case. In Islamic states, the will of majority becomes a rule for the minority both in social action and through law. The best case in example is Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The amendment of the Citizenship Bill is part and parcel of the unfinished agenda of what Indian state should be. It is for this reason, Citizenship Bill should not be seen from the prism of electoral politics. It should be seen from the prism of what defines nationhood. Whether you agree or disagree, RSS has a strong world view which is being implemented through the present government. The abrogation of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir is one such example. The Indian Constitution is unlikely to be changed substantially. What eventually may happen is that the primacy of Hinduism in public life will become a reality. The first act of consolidation took place after the Ayodhya verdict where Hindu sentiments on what constitutes geographical sacredness were acknowledged by the Court. CAB will be second such event if passed by the Parliament. India will not become a Hindu Rashtra with this amendment, but it will definitely change the rules of the game. The nation will come closer to the cultural idea of India as the motherland of all Hindus. Lastly, those in Opposition are also failing to realise how liberal democracies failed to address the issue of immigration and change in power equation which is also central to the idea of NRC and CAB. If implemented fully, it will test the ability of Opposition to take on BJP nationally as the idea of Hinduism as one religion and not an amalgamation of sub-nationalism is growing stronger by the day. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Citizenship Amendment Bill: Secularism, unfinished business in India

The Union Cabinet on Wednesday cleared the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which will now be tabled in Parliament next week.&nbsp;

The bill seeks to provide Indian nationality to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists fleeing persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, said sources.

The Bill, which amends the Citizenship Act, 1955 to make illegal migrants in select categories eligible for citizenship, has been attacked by the opposition on the grounds that it is at odds with the Constitution.

If passed, the bill will apply to all States and Union Territories of the country and the beneficiaries of Citizenship Amendment Bill will be able to reside in any state of the country.

The bill was originally introduced in 2016 and was later sent to the JPC. It was passed by the&nbsp;Lok Sabha on January 8 this year. However, it was not tabled in the Rajya Sabha and had later lapsed.

Several organisations&nbsp;have also expressed reservations against the bill. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Union Cabinet on Wednesday cleared the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which will now be tabled in Parliament next week. The bill seeks to provide Indian nationality to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists fleeing persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, said sources.

The Union Cabinet on Wednesday cleared the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which will now be tabled in Parliament next week. The bill seeks to provide Indian nationality to Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains and Buddhists fleeing persecution from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, said sources. The Bill, which amends the Citizenship Act, 1955 to make illegal migrants in select categories eligible for citizenship, has been attacked by the opposition on the grounds that it is at odds with the Constitution. If passed, the bill will apply to all States and Union Territories of the country and the beneficiaries of Citizenship Amendment Bill will be able to reside in any state of the country. The bill was originally introduced in 2016 and was later sent to the JPC. It was passed by the Lok Sabha on January 8 this year. However, it was not tabled in the Rajya Sabha and had later lapsed. Several organisations have also expressed reservations against the bill. (With inputs from agencies)

Union Cabinet clears Citizenship Amendment Bill 2019