CAA and Citizenship Determination: An ‘Assamese’ Exception
27 Dec, 2019 · 5641
Niharika Das contextualises the implications of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, for the Indian state of Assam
The
Citizenship
Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA), which came into force on 12 December 2019, amends
the Citizenship Act, 1955, to state that “any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh,
Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or
Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014
and who has been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of
sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or
from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule
or order made thereunder, shall not be treated as illegal migrant for the
purposes of this Act.”
The
CAA’s implications for the state of Assam are different compared to the rest of
India due to the National
Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise, and the context of the Assam
Accord (1985). A majority of those opposing the CAA in Assam have argued
that it threatens the identity and culture of the Assamese people. This is tied
to an ethno-nationalistic sentiment in the state, which is different from the wider
Hindu-Muslim binary that dominates debates on the CAA in the rest of the
country.
Why is Assam's Case Different?
Under the CAA, the cut-off date for persons belonging
to the six abovementioned communities claiming citizenship in India is 31
December 2014. This date clashes with the NRC deadline (as implemented in
Assam) of 24 March 1971, rendering the entire NRC exercise in the state meaningless.
Those previously identified as illegal migrants in Assam can now apply for
citizenship under the CAA. This defeats the purpose of the NRC, i.e. to detect and
deport illegal migrants from Bangladesh. It also creates fertile grounds for
forgery by those excluded
from Assam’s NRC list to seek citizenship by claiming to be from the relevant
countries.
The
CAA violates certain provisions of the Assam Accord. The addition to Section
2(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 negates or
dilutes the provision under Clause 5 of the Accord, which requires any person
entering Assam between 1 January 1966 and 24 March 1971 to register themselves
under the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939. The amendment to the Third
Schedule also dilutes Section 6A of the 1955 Act (which is derived
from the Assam Accord) which clearly states that any persons who had migrated
to Assam between 1966 and 1971 were eligible to become citizens of India either
immediately or after a period of ten years. However, the CAA 2019 reduces this
period from ten to five years.
The CAA also clashes with Clause 6 of the Assam Accord, which states
that “Constitutional, legislative and administrative safeguards, as may be
appropriate, shall be provided to protect, preserve and promote the cultural,
social, linguistic identity and heritage of the Assamese people.” The Indian
government denied any violation and set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee
(JPC) to look into the proper implementation of Clause 6. This Committee
proposed a categorisation of Assamese into three groups: indigenous tribal;
indigenous Assamese speaking people; and other indigenous people of Assam.
However, it did not clarify the parameters determining the categorisation, causing further confusion.
Lack of clarity on the definition of the third proposed category (‘other
indigenous people of Assam’) has implications especially for the Bengali,
Nepali, and Hindi speaking populations who have been resident in Assam for
generations. To arrive at an accurate definition, representatives from each of
the over 30 ethnic groups in Assam must be consulted—not merely the majority
groups. The JPC was dissolved within six weeks of its formation, which resulted
in the setting up a High Level Committee. The High Level Committee, too, lacked diversity and
representation, with only one Muslim and no women among its members. CAA 2019 creates
further confusion by not defining the term
‘Assamese people’ clearly. The lack of a clear and legal
definition for the terms ‘Assamese people’, ‘indigenous people’, and ‘local
identity’ aggravates the issue of a thorough implementation of Clause 6 of the
Assam Accord.
Looking Ahead
The 2014 Supreme Court order to conduct an NRC in Assam for the
identification and deportation of illegal migrants from Bangladesh was received
with widespread jubilation in the state. However, this sentiment began to erode
after the final (Assam) NRC list was released
in September 2019. Many expressed concerns that the list’s figure of 1.9
million was much lower than what they believed was the actual number of
undocumented immigrants in Assam.
With the CAA regularising illegal Hindu migrants excluded from Assam’s NRC
list and enabling them to claim Indian citizenship, the fear of Assamese identity
and culture being under attack has come to the forefront again. The dominant
Assamese speaking population in the Brahmaputra Valley believe that they will
be reduced to a minority in their homeland. Given how this ethno-nationalism is
structured around linguistics, land, and a common homeland, there are concerns
that the regularisation of illegal Hindu Bangladeshi migrants will further fuel
an insider-outsider narrative, which, if left unchecked, will have negative
consequences for social stability and law and order.
Niharika Das is a Research Intern with IPCS' South East Asia Research Programme
(SEARP).