It is perhaps a first in independent India's political history. The protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019 has spread to almost every corner of the country, yet the reasons for the protest vary with the geography. Some are protesting because the CAA allegedly violates the secular identity of the country while others fear that it will endanger their linguistic and cultural identity. Yet others believe that while the CAA itself is innocuous, combined with the proposed nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC), an exercise that has run into controversy in Assam, it will become a tool to exclude the Muslim population of the country. That the Union government has been hit hard by this allegation is evident from the fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has publicly contradicted home minister Amit Shah's assertion that a nationwide NRC will be prepared by 2024.

So why has the country against the NRC, which has made even the Modi government do a volte face? How is it connected to the CAA? If implemented, what will be their implications for the aam aadmi, irrespective of religion or geography?

What is the CAA?

According to the CAA, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh and Parsi migrants who have entered India illegally-that is, without a visa-on or before December 31, 2014 from the Muslim-majority countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and have stayed in the country for five years, are eligible to apply for Indian citizenship.



Why is the provision extended only to people of six religions, and not Muslims, and why does it apply only to people coming from these three countries?

The Union government claims that people of these six faiths have faced persecution in these three Islamic countries, Muslims haven't. It is, therefore, India's moral obligation to provide them shelter.



So, is the provision open only to those who have been persecuted in the three countries?

No, the CAA itself does not mention the word 'persecution' anywhere, contrary to the BJP's assertion that the act covers only persecuted people. And since persecution is not the criterion, it does discriminate against illegal Muslim immigrants from these three countries.

MORE FROM INSIGHT | Citizenship Amendment Act: The anatomy of a protest

If the act is not only about people facing persecution, why are migrants from other countries -- such as Hindus from Sri Lanka -- not eligible to apply for citizenship under this act? Or Muslim (Rohingya) migrants from Myanmar?

The government says this is a time-bound provision to provide relief to immigrants who have suffered in Islamic countries because India got divided on religious lines. India has, from time to time, provided citizenship to immigrants of all religions from different countries. Sri Lankan Tamil Hindus, too, were given citizenship in the 1970s and 1980s. The Union government has openly said that the Rohingyas are a threat to national security. Even an Islamic country like Saudi Arabia has deported Rohingya migrants. The BJP's logic is that Hindu migrants have only India to fall back on while Muslim migrants have several Islamic countries to seek shelter in.

Is it not unconstitutional and against India's secular ethos to discriminate on religious lines?

Sixty-five writ petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the legal validity of the CAA. The apex court has asked the Union government to respond by the second week of January. Constitutional expert Subhash Kashyap says there are arguments both in favour of and against the act. "Article 14 says that all persons are entitled to equality, but there have been several Supreme Court judgments which say that reasonable classification can be applied to this principle of equality. Even all fundamental rights are subject to reasonable classification. Anyone can challenge the act in the apex court and the future of the act will depend on whether the Supreme Court accepts the classification made within this act as reasonable enough," he says.

MORE FROM INSIGHT | While Bengal was Burning

Why do we need this new provision? Don't we have enough provisions to offer citizenship to outsiders -- Adnan Sami, for example?

Yes, we do have, but they are applicable only to those who have entered India legally, that is, with a valid visa. Sami was in India legally. Illegal immigrants-who cross the border without any paperwork-can't apply for citizenship and, when caught, face prosecution. India is among the few countries in the world that has neither a national refugee protection framework nor an immigration policy. It is also not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, or its 1967 Protocol. India has also not ratified the 1954 UN Convention on Statelessness or the 1961 UN Convention on Reduction of Statelessness. It is under no obligation, therefore, to provide rights set out in the conventions to refugees. It takes decisions on granting long-term visas to refugees essentially on an ad hoc basis. It does have some laws that govern refugees, including the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939; Foreigners Act, 1946; and the Passport Act, 1967.

In India, while refugees from neighbouring countries (barring Myanmar) can seek protection directly from the government and are issued documentation by the Foreigner Regional Registration Officers (FRROs), non-neighbouring countries and Myanmar come under the UNHCR mandate that assesses each individual asylum claim and issues an ID card to those recognised as refugees after seeking biometric data for registration, followed by a comprehensive interview by a UNHCR officer. The whole process takes anywhere between six months and a year. The government currently allows refugees, including Rohingya, with UNHCR IDs to apply for a "long-term visa", which the government issues on a case by case basis. However, this doesn't make them Indian citizens.

Why is Assam protesting against the CAA?

Though this legislation covers refugees from three countries, the indigenous people of Assam fear it will primarily benefit illegal Bengali Hindu migrants from Bangladesh who have settled in large numbers across the state. The Assamese fear that if citizenship is granted to Bangla-speaking Hindu immigrants from Bangladesh, they will outnumber Assamese-speaking people in the state. They cite the example of Tripura, where Bengali-speaking Hindu migrants from Bangladesh now dominate political power, pushing the original tribal population to the margins. Unlike in the rest of India, where people are questioning the exclusion of Muslims, the Assamese don't want immigrants of any religion, whether Hindu or Muslim.

MORE FROM INSIGHT | What led to the SAD's U-turn on the inclusion of Muslims in CAA?

How is the CAA connected to the NRC?

The two have no connection. The NRC is a count of legitimate Indian citizens. Barring the state of Assam, this exercise has never been done anywhere in the country. Union home minister Amit Shah has said he will frame a nationwide NRC by 2024 to detect illegal migrants. On December 22, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said his government had never said anything about an NRC except in Assam.



Will the proposed NRC be like the one prepared in Assam?

No. The Assam NRC has a different historical context. The first NRC in Assam was prepared in 1951, owing to widespread allegations of massive, unabated illegal immigration from Bangladesh. The first NRC was published by recording the particulars of all the persons enumerated in that year's census. The 1951 NRC found that nearly 1.5 million illegal immigrants-one-sixth of Assam's population-lived in the state. However, there is no account of what happened to those illegal immigrants. Three decades later, at the end of a six-year-long agitation in Assam against illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, the Union government and student leaders signed the Assam Accord in 1985. As part of the accord, the 1951 NRC would be updated. That's why people residing in Assam were asked to provide documents showing their connection to those whose names appeared in the 1951 NRC. Because the Assam Accord accepted any illegal migrant entering the state before March 25, 1971, as a legal Indian, documents showing connection to anyone whose name featured in the voter lists between 1951 and 1971 were also accepted as proof of citizenship.



What will be the basis of the proposed nationwide NRC?

The Union home ministry had framed the rules for a nationwide NRC in 2003, following an amendment to the Citizenship Act, 1955. These rules categorically state that the central government shall, for the purpose of the NRC, carry out a house-to-house enumeration for collection of specified particulars relating to each family and individual residing in a local area, including the citizenship status. So, unlike what many are claiming, people will not be asked to submit documents related to their grandparents. Just like people present their identity cards or any other document for registering their names in the voter list or getting an Aadhaar card, similar documents will need to be provided for the NRC.

Any document related to date and place of birth will suffice as proof of citizenship. However, the decision on what documents will be acceptable is still pending. They are likely to include voter ID cards, passports, the Aadhaar card, driving licences, insurance papers, birth certificates, school-leaving certificates, documents relating to land or home or other government-issued documents. If a person is illiterate and does not have the relevant documents, the authorities will allow them to bring a witness. Other evidence and community verification will also be allowed.



Is the NRC an exercise to exclude Muslims?

No. Even in Assam, of the 1.9 million people excluded from the NRC, 1.3 million are Hindu and from indigenous tribes, as unofficial sources confirm. That also explains why the BJP has rejected the NRC in Assam. A scrutiny of the 2003 guidelines for a nationwide NRC reveals that there is no provision that can exclude a legal Muslim citizen from the NRC.



But the CAA does exclude Muslims.

The CAA excludes Muslim immigrants who have entered India illegally, not legal Indian Muslim citizens.



However, since the CAA will provide citizenship to non-Muslim illegal immigrants from three countries, only Muslim immigrants will be left out when the NRC is rolled out. Is it not a clever way for the RSS-BJP to realise their dream of a Hindu Rashtra?

Partly true. The CAA will provide citizenship to illegal non-Muslim migrants from three countries and who have entered India before December 31, 2014. An honest NRC should exclude illegal migrants of all religions. That, however, will depend on the intent of the government and a framework that is flawless, a huge challenge for Amit Shah. There is nothing wrong per se with the exercise of detecting illegal migrants-irrespective of their religion-but to discriminate on the basis of religion is against India's secular ethos, especially when the CAA does not specify that it will cover people who have faced religious persecution.



Do we really need an NRC?

On paper, there is nothing wrong with counting the legal citizenry of the country. But if it becomes a basis for discrimination or put to other uses, then it is certainly problematic. Besides, it will be an enormous exercise given the size of our population and other complexities. This was evident in Assam, where even genuine Indian citizens got excluded and many illegal migrants allegedly, got included. Before the government embarks on this exercise, it also needs to put in place a policy on stateless people. India does not have one yet, and keeping illegal migrants in detention centres is something the country can ill afford.

Read | Anti-CAA protests: Why political parties are hiding behind students

Read | Protest against CAA: Where do political parties stand?

Read | Protests against CAA intensify across country: How Indian newspapers covered the stir

Read | Gujarat CAA protesters corner policemen, rain stones as locals rescue struggling cops

Watch | Anti-CAA protests: Who is inciting mob and creating unrest?