The concept of citizenship in India is going under a complex transformation, raising questions about equality and fairness. The paths to being Indian were first established in 1955 when the Citizenship Act came into force.
Who gets to be Indian?
The Citizenship Act of 1955 offered a clearer path to Indian citizenship based primarily on birthplace and lineage. One could claim citizenship if they were born in India, regardless of their parents’ citizenship status (jus soli meaning, birthright based on place of birth). Additionally, children born to at least one Indian parent automatically became citizens (jus sanguinis meaning, right of blood or citizenship by parentage). This established a more inclusive approach as it reflected upon India’s diverse population. Marrying an Indian citizen or being a minor child of Indian parents also opened doors to citizenship through registration. Naturalization offered another route, requiring permanent residency and fulfilling specific criteria and residing in India for a designated period usually for 5-11 years.
This raw framework of the Citizenship Act emphasized a more birthright-oriented approach, where nativity and familial ties played a significant role in determining who belonged to the Indian nation. However, the amendments, particularly the 2003 amendment and the Citizenship Act (CAA), 2019 introduced complexities and challenged the established notion of citizenship in India. Citizenship (Amendment) rules, 2024 introduced by the Modi government has also stirred up questions about equality and fairness.
The 2003 amendment to the Citizenship Act
The year 2003 marked a significant shift in India’s approach to citizenship with a series of amendments to the 1955 Act. These changes introduced a stricter definition of “illegal immigrants” and placed new limitations on acquiring citizenship by birth. This amendment marked a move away from a purely birthplace-based system (jus soli) and introduced elements of jus sanguinis (citizenship by parentage) with stricter requirements.
Another key aspect of the 2003 amendment was the introduction of a legal framework for the National Register of Indian Citizens (NRC). The NRC aimed to identify and document all bona-fide Indian citizens. However, the amendment also made it harder for children born in India to automatically acquire citizenship. Previously, birth in India sufficed. Now, if one parent is deemed an “illegal immigrant” under the new definition, the child would not be entitled to citizenship by birth. This change sparked concerns, particularly for children born to undocumented immigrants who had lived in India for years.
These amendments, while aiming to standardize citizenship processes and address national security concerns, also introduced complexities. The new definition of “illegal immigrants” and the limitations on birthright citizenship became central points of debate, raising questions regarding the potential impact on vulnerable communities.
image source-google
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019
In 2019, India’s citizenship landscape witnessed another significant shift with the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). This Act introduced a fast-track path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants belonging to specific religious minorities of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian community who came from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. They were exempted from being deported. CAA’s exclusion of Muslims sparked accusations of religious discrimination and raised questions about India’s secular identity. It sparked protests in India on the grounds that the CAA is anti-muslim and Hindu nationalist.
“For the first time in independent India’s history, a religious criterion was added to the country’s naturalization process,” a report by the Congressional Research Service noted.
However, critics of the CAA claimed that it blatantly discriminates against Muslims by excluding them from the fast-track process. This fuels concerns about violating India’s constitutional principle of equality for all religions. The CAA, when viewed alongside the ongoing NRC process, raises questions about potential statelessness for many Muslims who may not be able to prove their citizenship. It also led to legal challenges, with the Supreme Court ending up examining the CAA’s constitutionality.
The new CAA rules, 2024
In 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs introduced new rules to operationalize the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) of 2019. These regulations aim to establish a clear application process for those seeking citizenship under the CAA’s provisions.
A key aspect of the new rules is the online application system. This allows individuals from the designated religious minorities (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian) who entered India from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh before December 31, 2014, to submit their applications electronically. This move towards an online platform aims to streamline the process and improve accessibility.
The rules also specify the documentation required for applications which includes birth certificate, identity papers, tenancy records, and any educational certificates issued by the government authority of Afghanistan, Pakistan or Bangladesh showing that the applicant or the parents of the applicant had been a citizen of one of the three countries. However, the concerns remain about the ease of obtaining and verifying documents, especially for individuals who may have fled persecution with limited paperwork. Furthermore, the new rules mandate that applicants declare their intention to renounce their citizenship of origin upon receiving Indian citizenship. This raises questions about potential complexities and creates a sense of finality for those seeking refuge.
image source- google
Where do we stand now?
India’s journey towards defining who gets to be Indian is far from over. The complexities introduced by the amendments and the CAA have created a landscape of confusion and controversy. The 2024 rules offer a procedural framework for the CAA, but the concerns still linger. The core questions still remain unanswered, Will the CAA withstand legal scrutiny? How will the online application system function in practice? What are the long-term implications for those who may be rendered stateless?
The path forward requires a renewed commitment to the principles enshrined in India’s constitution – equality, secularism, and inclusivity. Addressing questions about the NRC process, ensuring a fair and transparent application system for the CAA, and fostering a national conversation that transcends religious divides are a few crucial steps for India to navigate the murky waters of citizenship and emerge with a framework that reflects the diverse and evolving population. The fight for a more inclusive and just approach to citizenship in India continues.
