The Citizen Amendment Act - The Different Voices

Any One: Hey there. What is this Citizenship Bill mess? Objectively, why use religion as a criteria and not use religious persecution as the sole criteria? Using the latter would have achieved the same goal without appearing to be discriminatory. [I accept that the] Hindus fled Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh facing religious persecution [and that something should be done for them. But] I am a bit puzzled by the structure of the citizenship bill as it appears to be reinforcing the narrative that BJP is fundamentally anti Muslim. May be I am missing something. Shia Muslims, who were kicked out of POK, should also be considered as a wronged minority.

Other One: Well, not you but everyone is missing the main point. Very few people know the following:

There were more than 11 million Hindus in East Bengal during partition, more than double [the number of] Sikhs and Hindus in West Punjab [in what became part of Pakistan]. Almost 100% [non-Muslims] from Pakistan-Punjab moved to India and a very similar number of Muslims from India moved to Pakistan. But in Bengal, the numbers were totally different. Only seven lakh Muslims from India moved to Bangladesh. But the 11 million [the number of Hindus in east Bengal] is a huge number that can’t shift in a day. Even by 1950 only a small part had trickled into India.

And then Nehru, in his zeal to be a secularist, did a deal with Pakistan to take back Bengali Hindus into East Pakistan with the assurance that they would be safe. So practically, millions of Hindus who had entered India were kicked out of India, and the person who protested most, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, died mysteriously in Kashmir very soon. So all the Hindus who kept on trickling into India ever since and were marked illegal are actually the ones who were kicked out of India by Nehru [in the 1950s], and their descendants. So technically, they can’t be called illegal, as India had the moral obligation to give them refuge after 1947, which they never did. So this bill is predominantly to finally give those Bengali Hindus, and of course now their descendants too, from Bangladesh a legal status which India should have given in [the aftermath of] 1947. Somehow BJP is shying away from saying the truth and that’s another problem.

The bill is not also for all the Hindus who are being persecuted elsewhere, like [the] Sri Lankan Tamils. Whoever [among them] has moved to India has been anyway given refuge and those numbers are minuscule compared to the millions Bengali Hindus. The Shias from POK, The Kalasha people from the Hindukush, the Hazaras, the Baloch, the Ahmadis, all are [no doubt] persecuted in Pakistan but that’s a totally different story than the Bengali Hindus, because they [unlike the others] were evicted out of India when they had entered first, and [now] they can’t be compared to any other persecuted people anywhere else.

As for the marginalized non-minorities of Pakistan and POK, India would be more than happy to give them asylum but they must come legally. India already has given a lot of asylum to a lot of such people. The entire Tibetans have been given asylum and they are not considered illegal. Why can’t others also take the same route?

Any One: I see, but BJP is not communicating this fact clearly – that the bill is trying to rectify a historical error / injustice by the Indian Government. This is coming across as [if] I am going to provide citizenship to only Hindu refugees, which comes across as narrow minded and perhaps against the spirit of secularism.

Other One: Well it’s not that they didn’t tell all these, but these were lost in [the] narrative.

Any One: OK, why not provide citizenship to all refugees who were persecuted based on religion – that would have been a very clean approach.

Other One: I can [say] that [a significant part of the] Muslims from Bangladesh, who entered [lately] were actually lured by Mamata and the previous CPM [governments in West Bengal] to change the demographics of Bengal. Why should they all be given citizenship? Is there any reason for that? [As for the other persecuted Muslims in the neighboring countries], they can take asylum – see the Tibetans. Was there any problem for that? The Sri Lankan Tamils. So what’s the problem in that route?

Any One: Yes, Muslims who crossed from Bangladesh for economic reasons [should] not be eligible.

Other One: So, you are also saying the same thing but in a different way. That’s what [the amendment] is also saying. [By the way, I don’t think that] the Ahmadis, Shias and the others infiltrate into India. They seek asylum and India have been [also] giving [them the same]. The Baloch leader – now he is in Switzerland – [has been offered Indian citizenship]. Many Shias from POK, who came to India, are staying peacefully.

Any One: I am saying that refugees who came to India fearing religious persecution should be granted citizenship [and] illegal immigrants who came for economic reasons will not have any rights. That solves the infiltration problem, but does not single out Muslims as not eligible. Why put religion as a criterion when it could be used to create a divisive narrative?

Other One: That’s effectively saying [persecuted] Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, isn’t it? I would like to see a single Shia or Ahmadi or Hazara anywhere in India who has entered illegally [or has been sent back]. They don’t, like the Tibetans. They always take asylum.

Any One: It still does not justify the framing [of] the bill as granting citizenship based on one’s religion – to me when I read the summary, the bill does not state partition or the historical wrongs – rather it comes across as an explicit attempt to exclude Muslims. Why is a minority Muslim-sect refugee not welcomed into India if he or she has been living illegally? To me the bill conveniently excludes this fact.

Other One: Yes, they should be given asylum like the Tibetans... And many have already got, even Lankan Tamils. But I fail to understand why are Indian Muslims feeling it’s a threat to them?

Any One: Well, this to Indian Muslims can appear as the government discriminating against them. It also creates an element of fear – tomorrow someone can question a Muslim whether he or she is an Indian or not. Having lived in USA as a minority I can empathize why Muslims may feel scared. My personal experience with an Indian Muslim (a very dear childhood family friend) and an Indian Christian (a highly educated colleague) has been quite stark. There is a strong mistrust of the government, there is a feeling of fundamental insecurity. Imagine an Indian Muslim, liberal and educated saying, “It is safer for me and my family in Trump’s America than India.” He eventually emigrated to US, even though his wife was very hesitant.

Other One: Anyway I’m always fond of arguments and spending time in making my point with facts and figures and also listening to others. That’s important. Well, that mistrust is there on both sides. Majority Hindus never trusted Congress and there are reasons for that. Many Hindus, who were not allowed to enter India after partition from the East Pakistan due to the ill-conceived Nehru-Liyaquat Pact, and whose families partially had moved to India [earlier], finally relocated to the US because they didn’t trust the Congress. This is a major problem I agree – people can’t trust the government. And for that, government and people both have to be open hear each other and not take a moral high ground that “I’m secular” and “you’re communal”. That’s what is happening for a long time.

Any One: Agree, I think we need a civil debate. However, I am deeply disappointed by BJP [that] they are squandering a historic mandate and implementing policies that is not really helping the country. To me, issues like pollution in major cities is so critical to solve, [and] issues like CAB are becoming a major distraction.

Other One: Ya, I agree... they could have done much better.

Any One: Not saying that CAB should be ignored but the timing and the messaging was so poorly planned.

Other One: This was, I think, mainly to fulfil their election commitment – all these were there in their manifesto and they are implementing everything in a year. [But I] agree [that] the narrative was wrong. [It] created a totally different type of problem in [the] NE.

Any One: I did not know about the whole conflict between the Bengali Hindus and the Assamese. Deep down, I think a lot of Assamese and Oriya people feel that Bengalis look down upon them.

Other One: Not Hindus, but both the Bengali Hindus and Muslims. It has been there for very long and their demographics were changed very badly by the Bengalis even before the partition. Because the Hindus were denied entry into India legally, huge chunks [of them] went and entered into Assam [after the partition], assuming less backlash, [further altering the demographics of the NE].

Any One: Examining the letter of the law is one thing, but we must also pay attention to its intent. The rhetoric [often] sounds like Nazism to me. How do you view it?

Other One: Yes, it is, and the rhetoric is also not positive. I don’t like it. But it’s the Frankenstein created by the same people who are now opposing him. Why do you think people like me support BJP? And there are many – we are not insensitive, communal or fascist from any angle. We strongly feel we need someone who would at least give some attention to the plight of the Hindus too. I know it’s like playing with fire but something has to be done. The only Muslim majority state in India [Kashmir] has persecuted all the minorities. Pakistan and Bangladesh have also done similar things but there’s not even any acknowledgement from anyone that the Hindus are indeed persecuted [at the hands of the Muslims]. People want to always forget the past whenever it’s a wrong done to the Hindus – so why not forget Palestine? It’s even older than Kashmir or Bangladesh. People like me don’t seek revenge – we just want some acknowledgement, at least, and [some] respectable solution to the plight [of the persecuted Hindus] without being dragged into politics and comparison, and some sympathy from others who shed so much tears for Palestine and the Sunni Muslim – I repeat Sunni because no one bothers for the Shias, no one has ever raised any voice for anyone in the POK or Iran.

How many people came to support Taslima Nasrin? Show me a single article from Arundhati Roy, Barkha Dutt or Girish Karnad supporting her openly. You may say that it’s their right to choose where to raise voice, but that also makes people like us suspicious of their intention or agenda. When I speak about persecution I always talk about the Shias. But the absolute silence from the same liberal side about POK again makes me suspicious. And if I am suspicious think about someone who’s relatively less read? When Javed Akhtar says that he can’t come to the Bangalore Lit Fest because Vikram Sampath [the founder of the fest] didn’t support Award Wapsi, I really doubt the seriousness of the entire movement they are launching.

Any One: I definitely support Taslima Nasrin, and I think she has widespread support from the left leaning Bengali middle classes. Not sure about Ram Guha etc., maybe it's because she writes in Bengali. I don't know anything about writers in other languages, and came to learn about Perumal Murugan and his work only a few years ago.

Other One: Taslima is not restricted to Bengal and no one has to read Bengali to know her. Come on. She’s known to everyone and all her books are available in English also. You can’t deny that people like Arundhati Roy and Girsh Karnad would never ever condemn Muslims. She even went ahead and condemned the US for the 9-11 attacks. And this is something that makes the entire movement led by them and their sympathizers very suspicious even to me. On top of that, I now see people citing numbers to say that the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan has increased from 1.6 to 1.8% or something like that and [that] the myth about they being persecuted is fake propaganda. What would you say to that?

Any One: I think when you have to get your political message across to a wide section, you have to take extreme stances, else no one will notice. Of course people will quietly support the good things that the BJP has done, like Swachh Bharat, or the insolvency code (never understood why they don't take more credit for that). I think Amit Shah is doing the same thing – taking the extreme stance for political gain. In the end, all these writers you referred to are political, and no one denies that. The thing is, I am unable to extract any humanity based message from Amit Shah, which I am able to get from you. From him I only get hate. His tone and rhetoric are so aggressive, even you are able to see why people label him fascist.

Other One: People try to justify why the Muslims are becoming terrorist and they don’t condemn their persecution of minorities... why? Can you please explain? There’s a huge one sided propaganda and narrative that has created today’s problem. So again, we come to the beginning – that people should listen to the other side also. I dislike Shah for what he says. Modi is decisive and could have done lot more and I still hope he delivers on the economy too rather than the jumla. But at least, one big side sees them as their savior from the onslaught of the “other side” in everything.