CAA and NRC: Two different ball games

Editorial, EOI, 2 February 2024 :The Citizenship Amendment Act by itself is a piece of legislation which should be welcomed provided it is not followed up by the compilation of a National Register of Citizens. The north-east, however, has its own dynamics because of which the CAA is not welcome to the region. 

The CAA is meant to confer citizenship on refugees of Indian origin from other countries who had to leave the countries of their residence to take shelter in India because of religious or political persecution. The privilege has been restricted to certain religious groups. 

The facility has not been extended to people belonging to one particular religious group. The objection to CAA of political parties like Trinamool Congress is on this ground, that the legal provision is discriminatory in nature.

Here one must distinguish between forced migrations caused by religious or political persecution of minorities in alien countries voluntary migrations because of economic reasons.

From Bangladesh for instance, people have migrated to West Bengal and different north-eastern states because of religious persecution, being the minority community there. On the other hand, there had also been large-scale migration in search of livelihood to India from Bangladesh, particularly in last two centuries. There is justification in the logic of the ruling BJP at the Centre that these two categories of migrations should not be clubbed in the same category. 

The north-east region is different, because of which the initial idea of introduction of the CAA had led to large-scale protests in states like Assam, Manipur and Nagaland. In these states, the issue is not only of migrants from Bangladesh for economic reasons taking over from the indigenous local population land and other means of livelihood. 

The apprehension that settlers will swamp the languages and distinctive cultures of this region had played an important role in the unrest that had taken place. To tackle this intractable issue, the Centre had to bring the whole of Manipur and the Dimapur area of Nagaland under the purview of the Inner Line Permit; so outsiders cannot settle in these areas permanently; nor can they purchase land and other immovable property. 

There is a demand that Sikkim, too, be brought under the purview of the ILP. Here, the apprehension is one of migrants from another neighbouring country diluting the privileges to which the ethnic Sikkimese people are entitled to under Article 371F of the Constitution. Of course, the documents necessary for a person to apply for citizenship under CAA must also be simplified to make the experiment practicable. 

NRC is a different ball game where people living in India, particularly those in states adjoining the international borders, will have to establish beyond doubt that they are genuine Indian citizens.

Otherwise, they run the risk of being tried in foreigners’ tribunals and incarcerated in detention centres before being deported. Here the difficulty lies in getting hold of myriad documents and evidence that are necessary to establish one’s citizenship. 

In Assam, for instance, when there was an attempt to prepare an NRC, a large number of people who were genuine Indian citizens had failed to prove their case and had to undergo harassment. 

To avoid a major human tragedy, the list of documents and evidence necessary must be simplified and the authorities responsible for preparing the list of citizens must also be free from bias. The cut-off date for preparing the register is also of important consequence