Introduction
On March 11, 2024, the Central Government officially put the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) into effect, marking five years since its passage in Parliament. This law, passed on December 11, 2019, amends the 1955 Citizenship Act, streamlining the process of granting Indian citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who arrived in India before 2014. These minorities include Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. It's important to note that Muslims are excluded from this law, as they form the majority in these neighbouring countries.
(Image: Reuters)
In 2019, Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself assured that both the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) were unrelated to Indian Muslims. However, following the passage of the CAA in the Indian Parliament, New Delhi witnessed protests and subsequent riots. This tumultuous aftermath was fueled by a toxic blend of misinformation, distorted narratives, and targeted propaganda aimed at certain sections of the Indian Muslim population during the chilly winter of 2019. Both Indian and foreign left-liberal media outlets played a role in spreading this misinformation, exacerbating tensions and contributing to the unrest. Why are Muslims from Neighbouring Countries Not Included in Getting Indian Citizenship Under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA)?
The exclusion of Muslims from the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) stems from their majority status in neighboring countries. Additionally, historical trends reveal a significant decline in Hindu populations in Pakistan and Bangladesh since India's partition in 1947. In 1947, the Hindu population in Pakistan was about 24%, but today it is not even 1%. Similarly, in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), the Hindu population was 30% in 1947, but today it is about 7%. Persecution in these Muslim-majority nations has led to dwindling numbers of Hindus, as well as other religious minorities like Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. These communities continue to face persecution to this day. The Modi government's decision to include these persecuted minorities in the CAA while excluding Muslims reflects the need to address ongoing religious persecution in these countries. Providing citizenship to those responsible for persecuting minorities would contradict the humanitarian aims of the CAA.
Furthermore, Pakistan was established on the foundation of Islam as its religion. While initially declaring itself as a secular nation, Pakistan transitioned into an Islamic republic in 1956, with Islam becoming its state religion. Following this shift, the situation for Hindus and other minorities began to deteriorate rapidly. Given that Pakistan was established as an Islamic nation, it's natural to question why India would accept Muslim migrants from Pakistan, where they make up the majority.
Poland and Germany Accepting Ukrainian Refugees
Two years after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Ukrainian migrants have reshaped the European landscape. The European Union reports that approximately 4.2 million Ukrainians now receive temporary protection in EU countries, granting them residence permits, work rights, and access to healthcare and education.
Germany hosts the largest number of Ukrainian migrants, with 1.2 million residing there as of November 2023. Surprisingly, Poland, which historically hasn't accepted many forced migrants, is home to the second-largest group of refugees, totalling 960,000.
The significant number of refugees is largely due to the 530-kilometer border shared by Ukraine and Poland. Poland's willingness to welcome Ukrainian migrants stems from their shared history, including territorial conflicts, mutual tensions, linguistic and cultural similarities, and shared experiences of communist rule. These commonalities have fostered a sense of solidarity between the two nations, leading Poland to open its arms to its Ukrainian neighbours.
South American Countries Accepting Venezuelan migrants
Since 2017, Venezuelans have been fleeing their country due to hyperinflation, food and water shortages, and government violence. Colombia and Brazil have responded uniquely to the influx of over six million refugees across South America. Instead of resisting immigration, they've embraced and supported refugees, welcoming them with open arms.
The exodus of nearly 8 million Venezuelan migrants escaping poverty and political turmoil is positively impacting the economies of other South American countries. The majority of these migrants, about 6.5 million, have sought refuge in Latin American and Caribbean nations, particularly Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.
In Colombia, the arrival of 3 million Venezuelans has contributed to formalizing the country's economy. Migrants are more likely to take low-paid official jobs, which helps integrate them into the economy compared to Colombians who often work in the shadow economy. Similarly, Brazil and Colombia have provided opportunities for migrants to integrate into local economies.
These countries have supported migrants by providing legal documentation, helping them enroll in schools, assisting them in finding employment, and treating them as valued members of their communities. This approach has facilitated the successful integration of Venezuelan migrants into Colombian and Brazilian societies.
In essence, countries don't simply open their borders to everyone; they selectively accept refugees, particularly from neighboring nations, based on specific criteria. These criteria include if individuals are facing oppression or persecution if there's a shared history, mutual tensions, and linguistic and cultural similarities between the refugee and host countries.
Muslim Countries Not Accepting Muslim Refugees
Currently, Europe grapples with a significant challenge of mass immigration originating from Middle Eastern countries. This influx of migrants has raised concerns among Europeans regarding cultural, religious, and security threats posed by these arrivals. In response, European nations are implementing measures to address the immigration crisis and facilitate the deportation of immigrants. However, a pressing question remains: why do Muslim migrants predominantly seek refuge in European countries rather than affluent Muslim nations, or why the rich Muslim countries don’t accept Muslim refugees? Despite the existence of rich Muslim-majority countries, migrants often opt for European destinations where they may not share religious, cultural, or linguistic similarities.
Last year, Pakistan, often supported by India's left-leaning liberals, deported over 500,000 Afghan nationals, both documented and undocumented, back to Afghanistan. This deportation was carried out forcefully, citing reasons such as limited resources and national security concerns. Surprisingly, there was a notable absence of outrage in the world media and major left-leaning outlets, which typically focus on such humanitarian issues. The silence surrounding this significant deportation drive highlights a disparity in media attention and response to similar events based on geopolitical factors.
Forget accepting refugees, amid the escalating conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Pakistan remained conspicuously inactive in efforts to evacuate its students stranded in the conflict zone. It was India that emerged as a beacon of assistance and compassion. Under Operation Ganga, India not only successfully rescued its own citizens from both Russia and Ukraine but also extended a helping hand to Pakistani and Turkish students in distress.
In a remarkable display of solidarity, Pakistani and Turkish students, facing dire circumstances and abandoned by their own governments, resorted to using the Indian flag as a symbol of hope. Disguised as Indians, they passed through checkpoints, clinging to the prospect of rescue by India when their own nations failed to intervene. The Indian embassy played a pivotal role in coordinating their evacuation, providing essential support, including food and shelter, upon their safe return home.
Similarly, Bangladesh, another neighbouring country of India, has been pressuring Rohingya Muslims to return to Myanmar. Thousands of refugees have been relocated to a remote island known as Bhasan Char, which they describe as akin to a "prison island." Bangladesh's Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina even appealed to the UN rights chief, emphasizing the need for hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees, currently residing in overcrowded camps in Bangladesh, to return to Myanmar. Despite these developments, there has been no outrage from Western media or Muslim-majority countries.
Saudi Arabia, often presenting itself as a guardian of Muslims globally, caused surprise when it declared its refusal to grant citizenship to Rohingya Muslims. This stance drew attention in April 2019, as reports surfaced of Rohingya Muslims staging hunger strikes in Saudi detention centers to protest against harsh conditions. Despite being the birthplace of Islam, Saudi Arabia initiated the forceful deportation of Rohingya back to Bangladesh, subsequently returning them to Myanmar.
Amid the Israel-Palestine conflict, the plight of Gaza's 2.3 million residents has reached a critical juncture. Faced with uncertainty and displacement within their own land, Gaza's inhabitants navigate a precarious existence in a small territory bordered by Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea. Egypt stands as the sole Arab nation sharing a border with Gaza, while Jordan borders the West Bank. Despite their geographical proximity, both nations have voiced staunch opposition to any forced displacement of Palestinians from their homeland.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi has underscored concerns that the ongoing conflict could be leveraged to coerce Gaza's civilians into migrating to Egypt. Similarly, Jordan's King Abdullah II has issued a firm stance, emphasizing that Jordan and Egypt will not accept Palestinian refugees. Jordan's King also issued a stern warning, cautioning against any efforts to forcibly displace Palestinians from their territories or instigate internal displacement. The reluctance of wealthy Muslim nations to extend aid to Palestinians and offer refuge highlights a form of hypocrisy within the Muslim world.
Conclusion
When Muslim neighbouring countries and Muslim countries worldwide refuse to accept Muslim refugees and instead forcefully deport them citing reasons like national security and limited resources, it raises questions about why India should adopt a different approach. Just like other nations, India has the right to selectively accept refugees based on specific criteria, such as shared history, cultural similarities, and persecution faced by individuals. This rationale underpins India's Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which offers citizenship to those escaping religious persecution in neighbouring Muslim-majority countries. The Act's inclusion of Sikhs, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Christians reflects the grim reality of persecution endured by minorities in these regions (Neighbouring Muslim Countries).
コメント