Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, November 21, 2024

A Brief Analysis of CAA And Its Impact on Citizens

Posted in: Constitutional Law
Sat, Dec 21, 19, 09:13, 5 Years ago
star star star star star
4 out of 5 with 24 ratings
comments: 1 - hits: 13955
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), saying they are two different things. We all saw in different news channels that many people who were protesting did not had even the elementary knowledge of CAA but were protesting vehemently just on the provocation of leaders from different political parties
To protest is the democratic right of the people of India. No one can stop us from doing so. However, it is important that it is controlled. Keeping our emotions in control is the most important part. - Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid Syed Ahmed Bukhari No doubt, Syed Ahmed Bukhari has rightly called on the people of the country to exercise restraint and keep their emotions under control while demonstrating. Even those who are protesting against CAA have the right to protest peacefully but not the right to hold the nation to ransom! He also very rightly urged the people, including the youth, to not be provoked by nefarious elements. He also explained the difference between the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), saying they are two different things. We all saw in different news channels that many people who were protesting did not had even the elementary knowledge of CAA but were protesting vehemently just on the provocation of leaders from different political parties! This is what I find most hurting that some parties are trying to fish in troubled waters and make huge political capital from it without caring a damn for the disastrous consequence it would have on the unity and integrity of our country! It is heartening to note that Syed Ahmed Bukhari has sought to allay all the unfounded fears of Muslims by reiterating what Amit Shah who is Union Home Minister and Narendra Modi who is Prime Minister have been repeatedly saying that, "The CAA is for those people who came to India from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh before December 31, 2014. They will be granted citizenship and it will not affect the Muslims living in India. The Muslim refugees who came to India from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh will not get Indian citizenship. It has nothing to do with the Muslims living in India." Bukhari further clarified that, "While the CAA has become a law, NRC has been only announced. It has not become a law yet." I am sure that what Bukhari has said will help remove the misgivings among Muslims about CAA and calm the huge tension which had cropped up after few leaders incited them by spreading wrong rumours about CAA! Needless to say, Bukhari's comments are very significant as it came in the backdrop of anti-CAA protests which turned violent in northeast Delhi's Seelampur area, forcing the police to use tear gas shells to disperse the protesters, who torched two buses. The police also stopped vehicular movement on the road, which connects Seelampur with Jafrabad, due to demonstration. The protest in Seelampur came days after clashed between police and protesters in Jamia Millia Islamia over the citizenship law. To be sure, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019 seeks to primarily amend the definition of illegal immigrant for Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Buddhist and Christian immigrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who have lived in India without documentation. It must be understood that the CAA grants citizenship to non-Muslims of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who fled religious persecution and arrived in India before December 31, 2014. They will be granted fast track Indian citizenship in six years. So far 12 years of residence has been the standard eligibility requirement for naturalisation. It must be borne in mind that in the aftermath of most unfortunate partition on the "most stupid" and "most senseless" ground of religion as insisted by Muslim League and Mohammad Ali Jinnah and the horrifying communal riots that followed, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India and Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan of Pakistan signed a treaty, also known as the Delhi Agreement, on security and rights of minorities in their respective countries. India had constitutional guarantees for rights of minorities and Pakistan had a similar provision in the Objectives Resolution adopted by its Constituent Assembly. Amit Shah claims strongly that India has kept its end of the bargain while Pakistan openly mocked at it by ensuring that Hindus and Sikhs are either killed or harassed or forcibly converted! To say the least, it is this wrong that the new law seeks to correct. We all know fully well how Hindus, Sikhs among others have been forcefully converted in Pakistan, their temples and gurudwaras plundered and vandalized and this alone explains why their population stands hugely decimated! Can anyone deny this? Why US, UN, UK and other European countries who keep lecturing India on human rights and secularism among other things never said anything on this nor ever took any step to ensure that no terror training camps are set up in Pakistan for being used to kill Hindus and other minorities? What is worse is that USA directly funded terror groups as was acknowledged recently by Pakistan PM Imran Khan admitting that 40,000 terrorists are active and earlier even by former Pakistani Army Chief and President – Gen Pervez Musharraf who said that it was only after attack on New York on World Trade Centre that US turned against us! It cannot be denied that Amit Shah certainly has a very valid point when he points out rightly that India was wrongly partitioned by Congress on the flimsy basis of religion. Why UN, US and UK justified partition of India terming it as "biggest secular act" instead of disallowing the partition of India on the most flimsy ground of religion? What sort of secularism was partition on basis of religion? Was Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan not in his senses when he said to Jawaharlal Nehru that, "Nehru what have you done? You have made me a foreigner in my own country by agreeing to the partition of India on the ground of religion! Should I feel proud of it?" Why Congress buckled for partition when Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Maulana Hasrat Mohani and many other Muslim Congress leaders didn't want the partition of India on the ground of religion? Why were the disastrous consequences of partition not thought out? Who can deny that Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh are all Muslim countries where Islamic law prevails and where people belonging to other religions have been constantly exterminated and tortured and humiliated to most degrading extent? Who can deny that even the Buddha's statues were not spared in Afghanistan and other places? So where will they go if not to India which is their mother country as earlier under British India and even earlier Pakistan, Afghanistan and even Bangladesh all formed part of India? As it turns out, parties like the Congress among others are opposing this CAA on the ground that it leaves out Muslims and violates Article 14 which guarantees equality. Many parties like Congress feel very strongly that Shias are most persecuted in Pakistan among others and they too must be allowed to come in India. We cannot deny that Sunni terror groups which have got direct patronage from Pakistani Army and ISI keep attacking Shia shrines and keep killing them also in huge numbers in Pakistan as we keep reading also time and again! Is this not the biggest slap on the face of Mohammad Ali Jinnah who was himself a Shia and who was the founding father of Pakistan? All Shias must concede now unequivocally that partition was an act of betrayal by Jinnah! What purpose has partition served if even those from Jinnah's Shia groups have to seek refuge in India? Why US, UK, UN and European countries among others never took any step to check the unabated cycle of deadly violence in Pakistan against Shias, Hindus, Sikhs among others? If Shias are compelled to take refuge in India then Pakistan must be also integrated with India and all political parties must acknowledge that partition on basis of religion was the biggest stupidity that was allowed to happen right under the nose of Congress which called the shots in 1947 when India was partitioned! Why Congress never admits that they themselves were responsible for partition along with Jinnah, UK, US and UN who never wanted to see a united and strong India once the Britishers left India? Why they keep blaming VD Savarkar foolishly who had just no role to play in 1947 when India was partitioned? How long will Congress shy away from owning up its past mistakes and Himalayan blunders like the partition of India on the most absurd ground of religion? Why US, UN, UK and European countries always maintained that India should remain quiet even if Hindus, Sikhs and other minority groups are killed most brutally not just in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan but even in India in Jammu and Kashmir? Why they also insist that India must talk always to Pakistan and tolerate terror training camps operating from Pakistan and no action should be taken against dreaded terror groups like Taliban who has still not been declared a terror organization? Why they congratulate India when 'Ramzan ka ceasefire' is declared most stupidly and most shamelessly wherein all action is halted against terror groups and Pakistani Army giving them a free hand to kill our people and soldiers most brutally by beheading their heads as has happened also many times when they send their special trained commandos termed as "BAT" (Border Action Team) so that they can then play with head like football and why Muslims in India and parties speaking on their behalf also never say a word when Ramzan is identified with terror groups and "Ramzan ka ceasefire" is declared which I consider as the biggest insult of Islam and Muslims on earth? Why a deafening silence on it? My best friend Sageer Khan had way back in 1993 said that, "India is the most tolerant country in the world. Muslims enjoy maximum independence in India alone and must always be happy and proud of it. In Pakistan they are discriminated against and Muslims from India are called 'Mohajjirs' and are still discriminated against and treated as second grade citizens. Similarly Balochis, Sindhis, Shias among others are all discriminated against in Pakistan. In India, Nehru banned Hindus from marrying more than one individual both male and female even though earlier they could marry as many as they liked but he did not touch Muslims and we still enjoy polygamy with full freedom! But see how tolerant Hindus are that no one ever said a word but if this had been done with Muslims we would have started screaming and yelling all over that our religion is in danger! Muslims must develop more tolerance for Hindus just like they have for us. Hindus never claim Mecca or Medina as temple sites! Why Muslims claim all those sacred Hindu sites like Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura which Hindus hold sacred since lakhs of years on the plea that Babur or Aurangzeb built it? Who was Babur? He was just an invader and nothing else! How can Babur or Aurangzeb be preferred over Lord Ram? What if Hindus also demand temple in Mecca and Medina? We have not allowed any temple anywhere not just in Mecca or Medina but also in any other part of Saudi Arabia or any other Gulf country. Not a single mosque should ever be built in Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura and Centre must declare them as "Hindu sites" and develop them just like Mecca and Medina." In a big relief to Centre, the Supreme Court has refused to stay the CAA, 2019 and has just issued a notice to the Centre on a clutch of 59 petitions challenging the amendments and said it would hear the matter on January 22. Also, a Bench of Chief Justice of India Sharad Arvind Bobde and Justice BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant also instructed Attorney General KK Venugopal to ask the government to publicise the provisions of the Act through the media to remove any confusion. The Bench of Apex Court thus declined to oblige some of the petitioners lawyers who pressed for a stay! It is high time and now India must tell US, UN, UK and European countries to just simply mind their own business and stop meddling in India's internal affairs which we are quite capable of sorting out ourselves! Why they never said anything when Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities were repeatedly killed in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh? With what face do they lecture us when it is countries like US and UK who have always armed Pakistan to the teeth and have also trained even dreaded terrorists like Osama bin Laden helping him to establish most dreaded terror organization Al Qaeda and had always given them long rope in regularly carrying out a deadly proxy war against us by sending terrorists to attack India regularly? Don't they feel ashamed? Why when Pakistani Army crushes locals in PoK, Sind, Balochistan and other parts does UN feel that Pakistan deserves more aid and more help? What is their logic behind it? Can anyone explain? It is simple that countries like US, UK, China among others who constitute the permanent members of UN Security Council never want India to prosper and want that India should always be painted in a corner and Pakistan even if it threatens to nuke India time and again as their PM Imran Khan did right from the UN platform has to be still dealt with most humbly, most courteously and most politely! This is the real beauty of UN, US, UK and other European countries! Should we still care for them? Certainly not. But yes, Muslims must be assured that they are not going to be affected at all and this the government is certainly doing! Centre has even said that Muslims too who are persecuted could be allowed in India once their bona fide claims are established as we saw in case of famous singer Adnan Sami! What is most baffling is that Pakistan is most miffed at this? Why is Pakistan unhappy? Does Pakistan wants that Muslims from Pakistan should also settle down in India as Pakistan does not offer them much opportunities and minority groups like Shias, Ahmadiyas among others are unwanted? This is exactly what those in India who are opposing CAA are demanding most vociferously! Then why don't they concede that India is the best place for Muslims to live in as was admired by my best friend Sageer Khan way back in 1993 and stop painting a grim picture of India from every platform that they get to speak from? They must take a definite stand on this as they just can't have it both ways! In conclusion, Indian Muslims are not at all affected by CAA. This has been clarified by none other than the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid as was pointed out in the beginning itself! This is what is my analysis also on it although I am yet to dwell on National Register of Citizens (NRC) and which is yet to take a final shape! So I will refrain from commenting on NRC! All the violence that we are witnessing has been given a political colour by various political parties for gaining maximum political capital from it! This is what I find most reprehensible! It cannot be justified under any circumstances by anyone! How can burning of property or burning of buses or burning of railway stations be ever justified? Justifying it will be the surest recipe to unmitigated disaster and complete anarchy! It merits no reiteration that partition cannot be undone. But certainly those who have suffered from it must be provided maximum relief which is exactly what the Centre is doing most effectively for which it must certainly be applauded and not condemned! No way! Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate, s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave, Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
This article critically analyses the concept of Parliamentary privileges enshrined under Article 105 of the Constitution of India along with various judicial pronouncement.
Here we have two legal systems, one tracing its roots to Roman law and another originating in England or we can say one codified and the other not codified or one following adversarial type of system other inquisitorial or one is continental whereas the other one Anglo-American
The principle of gender equality is enshrined in the Indian Constitution in its Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles.
The constitutional interpretations metamorphose a non-federal constitution into a federal one which results into a shift from reality to a myth
What justice is? and why one wants access to it? are important question which need to be addressed in introductory part of the literature. Justice is a concept of rightness, fairness based on ethics, moral, religion and rationality.
It is not the whole Act which would be held invalid by being inconsistent with Part III of the Constitution but only such provisions of it which are violative of the fundamental rights
Thomas Mann had in 1924 said; a man’s dying is more the survivor’s affair than his own’. Today his words are considered to be true as there is a wide range of debate on legalizing euthanasia.
India became one of 135 countries to make education a fundamental right of every child, when the Parliament passed the 86th Constitutional amendment in 2002.
Following are the salient features of the amended Lokpal bill passed by Parliament:
Good governance is associated with efficient and effective administration in a democratic framework. It is considered as citizen-friendly, citizen caring and responsive administration. Good governance emerged as a powerful idea when multilateral and bilateral agencies like the World Bank, UNDP, OECD, ADB, etc.
A democratic society survives by accepting new ideas, experimenting with them, and rejecting them if found unimportant. Therefore it is necessary that whatever ideas the government or its other members hold must be freely put before the public.
This article describes relationship between Indian Legislative provisions and freedom of press.
This article gives an overview of the Definition of State as per Article 12 Of the Constitution of India with emphasis on Relevant case law
Coming straight to the nub of the matter, The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v Delhi Jal Board held that Pan India Reservation Rule in force in National Capital Territory of Delhi is in accord with the constitutional scheme relating to services under the Union and the States/Union Territories
Jasvinder Singh Chauhan case that denial of passport or its non-renewal without assigning reasons as listed under the Passports Act, 1967 infringes the fundamental rights. who was praying for the renewal of his passport and issuance of a fresh passport to him.
In Indian Young Lawyers Association v/s Kerala has very laudably permitted entry of women of all age groups to the Sabarimala temple, holding that 'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'. It is one of the most progressive and path breaking judgment that we have witnessed in last many decades just like in the Shayara Bano case
Sadhna Chaudhary v U.P. has upheld the dismissal of a judicial officer on grounds of misconduct, on the basis of two orders passed by her in land acquisition cases. This has certainly sent shockwaves across Uttar Pradesh especially in judicial circles.
The term judiciary refers to the higher officials of the government i.e Judges of all the hierarchy of the courts. The constitution of India gives greater importance to the independence of the Indian judiciary. Every democratic country set up it’s own independent judiciary for the welfare of it’s citizens.
various allowances, perquisites, salaries granted to mp and mla
This article presents a glimpse of human life through the constitutional approach.
Er. K. Arumugam v. V. Balakrishnan In the contempt jurisdiction, the court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been disobeyed
As Parliamentarians, we remain the guardians and protectors of fundamental rights, and always need to ensure we are fulfilling our many responsibilities, as legislators, representatives and role models. to uphold the rights set out in the Declaration, particularly as regards safeguarding political and civil society space.
Kashmiri Sikh Community and others v. J&K has very rightly upheld PM's Employment Package 2009 for Kashmiri Pandits living in the Valley.
The Supreme Court on 12th September stuck down the penal provision of adultery enshrined under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code.
President A. Akeem Raja case it has been made amply clear that, Freedom of religion can't trump demands of public order. Public order has to be maintained at all cost. There can be no compromise on it.
Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghosh who is a former Supreme Court Judge and former Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court who retired in May 2017 and a current member of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was appointed as India's first Lokpal
colonial era Official Secrets Act (OSA) as many feel that it has far outlived its utility. Before drawing any definite conclusion on such an important issue, we need to certainly analyse this issue dispassionately from a close angle.
Sri Aniruddha Das Vs The State Of Assam held that bandhs / road/rail blockades are illegal and unconstitutional and organizers must be prosecuted.
ABout changes in Changes in Constitutional (Forty-Second) Amendment Act
Definition of State as per Article 12 f the Constitution of India with emphasis on Relevant case law
Justice KS Puttaswamy (Retd) and Anr vs UOI held that right to privacy is a fundamental right.
You want India to defend Kashmir, feed its people, give Kashmiris equal rights all over India. But you want to deny India and Indians all rights in Kashmir. I am a Law Minister of India, I cannot be a party to such a betrayal of national interests.
Faheema Shirin RK Vs State of Kerala and others that right to access internet is a fundamental right forming part of right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
the Supreme Court of UK has gone all guns blazing by categorically and courageously pronouncing in Gilham v Ministry of Justice the whistle-blowing protection envisaged under Employment
The Constitution directs the government that High Court shall have power, throughout in relation to it jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose also.
What is child labour ? Why bonded in india?
Shiv Sena And Ors. Vs UOI whether the newly sworn in Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis enjoys majority in the State Assembly or not! This latest order was necessitated after Shiv Sena knocked the doors of the Apex Court along with Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress.
Sanmay Banerjee v/s. West Bengal in exercise of Constitutional writ jurisdiction on the appellate side has that people have every right to criticize dispensation running the country, being legislature, executive or judiciary
On May 16, 1946 Cabinet Mission Plan arbitrarily announced to group British Indian states in A, B & C categories. Assam was kept in Group C with Bengal, creating a predominantly Muslim zone in Eastern India like the one proposed to be setup in western India.
Top political leaders and Members of Parliament from Left Parties have very often raised the questions of atrocities and accommodation of these minorities even in the Parliament. Unfortunately when this dream of opening the doors of India for her cultural children was about to be realized
Why is it that even after more than 81 days the blocking of road at Shaheen Bagh in Delhi is continuing uninterrupted since 15 December 2019? Why is it that Centre allowed this to happen? Why were they not promptly evicted?
The Basic Structure Of Indian Constitution Or Doctrine Applies During The Time Of Amendments In Constitution Of India. These Basic Structure State That The Government Of India Cann’t Touch Or Destroy
Arjun Aggarwal Vs Union Of India And Anr (stay) dismissed a PIL filed by a petitioner who is a law student. The PIL had challenged the June 30 order of the Ministry of Home Affairs wherein considerable relaxations from lockdown were operationalised under Unlock 1.0
This blog deals explains the Right to Access Internet as a Fundamental Right under Constitution of India and the reasonable restrcitions which it is subject to and whether it can be considered to be a fundamental right or not.
This article talks about what exactly is meant by the doctrine of colourable legislation, how various case laws have come up time and again to reiterate its meaning and how the supreme court views this doctrine. To address legislative transparency for some improvements in the legislative system, colorable legislation is necessary to be studied
Shri Naini Gopal Vs The Union of India and Ors. in Case No. – LD-VC-CW-665 of 2020 has minced no words to hold that: We need to remind the Bank that the pension payable to the employees upon superannuation is a property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India
Article 25 of the Constitution of India, thus ruled that the immediate family members of Covid-19 victims be permitted to perform the funeral rites of the deceased subject to them following certain precautionary guidelines
Top