OPINION: Why agitation against Citizenship Act will fizzle out soon

The Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) permits non-Muslim immigrants into India from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh to become Indian citizens if they have lived in India for at least five years, but it does not grant the same right to Muslim immigrants.

The justification for this distinction given by the Narendra Modi government is that non-Muslims were minorities in these Muslim-majority countries, and came to India to escape religious persecution, whereas Muslims who came into India from there could not be said to have come due to persecution, but were “economic refugees”, that is, they came for a better life.

This reasoning is partially correct. It is true that Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and other minorities are often persecuted in these Muslim-majority countries, for example, by forcible conversion and marriage of minor girls, misuse of blasphemy laws and Ordinance XX made by general Zia-ul-Haq. So the anti-CAA protesters should have clearly said that they are not against granting of citizenship to immigrants who came into India to escape religious persecution, but rather they support it and condemn persecution of minorities in the three aforementioned countries.

At the same time, the anti-CAA protesters should have said they oppose denial of citizenship to all Muslim immigrants because (1) some Muslim sects in Pakistan are often persecuted, for examples, Shias and Ahmadiyyas (see OPINION: Ahmadiyyas face a holocaust in Pakistan) and (2) economic refugees are a worldwide phenomenon, for example, about 11 million Mexicans are said to be living illegally in the US.

Many Muslims who came from Bangladesh into Assam after March 1971 (the cut-off date under the Assam Accord) have now been living in Assam for decades, some for over 40 years. They now have no roots in Bangladesh and the Bangladesh government has refused to take them back. Surely, they cannot be dumped into the Bay of Bengal. They, too, should be granted citizenship if they have lived in Assam for at least five years.

However, the anti-CAA protesters failed to clarify on this aspect, and appeared to have created an impression among many Hindus that this is only an agitation for Muslims.

Secularism has to be two-way traffic, it cannot be a one-way traffic. So it won’t do to condemn persecution of Muslims, but turn a Nelson’s eye to persecution of Hindus. Some Muslims shout themselves hoarse if Muslims are persecuted in Palestine, but they were quiet when much nearer home, Kashmiri Pandits were hounded out of their homes in Kashmir in the 1990s.

I remember when I was in my hometown of Allahabad, I went to a Muslim friend and said to him that I raise my voice whenever any atrocity is committed on Muslims, so he should also speak out against atrocities being committed on Kashmiri Pandits.

He asked what he could do, and I replied that he should write a short statement and I will get it published in the newspapers. However, he refused.

This is the problem with some Muslims. When I condemn atrocities on Muslims, they clap and cheer. But when I condemn atrocities by Muslims on Hindus, Christians or Sikhs, I am immediately branded as communal. When I say there is nothing wrong in eating beef, and that building Ram Mandir is only a gimmick, they applaud. But when I say that sharia, burqa and madrassas should be banned (for their own good), they abuse me.

For this very reason, many Hindus in India (and even abroad) are not supporting the anti-CAA agitation, and it will soon fizzle out.

Justice Markandey Katju retired from the Supreme Court in 2011

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author's and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK