DIGNITY. The principle of human security means also accepting the fact that no human is a single story or has only one main identity but that all of us have a right to life, freedom and security as individuals. Therefore, public institutions as governments must always be implementing universal values like freedom and equality. Especially when it comes to migration and movement.
Last week the Indian federal government, run by the right-wing nationalist BJP-party, decided to introduce a new bill under the name of Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) after it passed in both lower and upper houses of the parliament. The new Bill is partly an update of the 1955 citizenship law with regards to aspects such as legal and illegal migration, refugee status and naturalisation policy. The new bill mostly affects those individuals who came to India before December 2014.
One of the main arguments of the BJP-government is that CAB is important in order to protect the minorities who have been persecuted mostly on the basis of faith. The core of CAB is that it applies to Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and others who are not Muslims from India’s neighbouring countries Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. If individuals from these religious groups can prove that they originate from one of the three eligible countries, they can become Indian citizens via a fast-tracked system.
Before and after its implementation, CAB has been criticised for being discriminatory against Muslims. Various demonstrations have taken place in states like Assam and West Bengal and big cities such as Delhi and Hyderabad. The UN also made statements of CAB being discriminatory and regrettable. Also, during the first judicial hearing on petitions challenging the CAB, India’s Supreme Court declined to postpone or prevent the controversial law. Nevertheless, the court also asked the federal government to file its response to the petitions stating that CAB violates India’s constitution.
CAB can also be seen as an example of what is democratically possible and legitimate by popular demands and public institutions. According to the current UN Charter of Human Rights, which can be seen as ‘international constitutionalism’, every individual has a human right to nationality (citizenship). We also have rights to emigrate (leave a country) and to immigrate (enter a country) during circumstances such as wars and catastrophes. However, the possibility for a person to move from point A to point B always depends on the current system of sovereignty where sovereign states are the primary actors.
As humans, we still do not enjoy the right to move freely across countries and regions, nor do we have any right to citizenship in universal terms – no right to global citizenship, so to speak. Partly because we still have not reached a more advanced and higher levels of consciousness and solidarity with regards to identification, governance and democracy. In principle, humans have rights, but the governments have sovereignty in the first place, especially regarding discussions about humanitarian immigration, rights of migrants and refugees, policies for integration and naturalisation.
In his latest book, the historian Yuval Noah Harari is discussing the recent debates around immigration, especially from European experiences. One of Harari’s main points is that ‘both sides’, pro- and anti-immigration camps, often have legitimate arguments and proposals. Furthermore, what is legit is connected to principles of democracy and sovereignty, which is still mainly a national matter, regardless of one’s moral views. As Harari writes:
“If a country like Israel wants to allow in only Jews, and a country like Poland agrees to absorb Middle Eastern refugees on condition that they are Christians, this may seem distasteful, but it is perfectly within the rights of the Israeli or Polish voters”.
And to make the situation more complex, there is a long of history of discussions about immigration, citizenship and identification connected to CAB. For example, many Assamese-speaking people believe that they will become a minority because of illegal immigration. Many Muslims in India are angry with the law because they think it is discriminatory. Moreover, many Bengali-speaking Hindus are upset because their view is that CAB will not provide security for them due to older laws and governing practices.
Read more via Opulens