At the outset, it must be reiterated that this write-up is not intended to endorse or defend the establishment’s actions, whether through commission or omission. On the contrary, there are legitimate questions that must be answered – why the outreach to the protesters was inordinately delayed, why was the police response not sufficiently proactive in the initial stages, why was the crowd allowed to develop into a critical mass before decisive crowd-control measures were employed and why was the use of pellet guns not transparently acknowledged at the outset. These are serious issues, and the SC constituted committee should establish responsibility and attributability for decisions that may have unnecessarily escalated the situation. However, accountability is not one way street and the actions of the protestors, including causing severe injuries to the police personnel, should also be examined to arrive at a balanced perspective in this volatile and explosive situation.

The police have stated before the SC that the protesters refused to vacate the Jantar Mantar complex and no permission had been granted for the Parliament march. Therefore, the gathering and the attempt to march towards the Parliament were illegal by an unlawful assembly. Despite repeated requests and warnings by the police, protestors breached multiple layers of barricades and refused to comply with lawful directions in their bid to reach the Parliament. Disregarding these significant causative factors, the ongoing public discourse assumes that the protesters were exercising their legitimate democratic right to protest and that the police subsequently violated that right. That narrative becomes imperfect once a protest crosses the line and degrades into violence. The right to peaceful protest is fundamental. The right to attack another human being is not. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita itself recognises the right of private defence of every person. That includes a policewoman. A police person does not surrender his fundamental right to life and bodily integrity merely because she is wearing a uniform. More importantly, the organisers and participants in a protest cannot distance themselves from violence by arguing that “criminal elements” infiltrated an otherwise peaceful demonstration. A large organised demonstration also carries a degree of collective responsibility for maintaining discipline within its ranks and ensuring that participants do not attack police personnel. In fact, the organisers should cooperate with the police to identify and isolate those who attempted to turn a peaceful demonstration into a violent confrontation. If they fail to do so, they cannot expect the entire burden of responsibility to fall upon the police.

Since the recommendations of the SC appointed committee to frame guidelines for graded use of force during disorderly protests will be applicable pan India, it should not narrowly focus on this incident. The case of J&K is particularly instructive. Agitational resistance manifesting in protests, stone throwing incidents and bandhs started in 2008, with the ISI of Pakistan attempting to replicate the tactics seen in Intifada II in Palestine. Engineered mass protests against the SF for alleged human rights violations, withdrawal of the Army and Armed Forces Special Powers Act were common, especially on Fridays. There were also a few incidents of terrorists joining the protestors and firing on the SF. The intent was to provoke the SF to retaliate, resulting in collateral damage to escalate the situation.  The 2010 Kashmir unrest was a series of violent anti-India protests and riots that resulted in the deaths of over 100 civilians, mostly teenagers and young adults. Protests later broadened into anti-India rallies, demands for independence, and clashes over unrelated international events.  The SF heavily used tear gas, batons and live ammunition during the peak of the crisis. Due to intense criticism over lethal casualties from live gunfire, the police and para military forces introduced 12-bore pump-action pellet shotguns in 2010 as an alternative crowd-control method. Therefore, if the pellet guns were used on July 20, this year by the SF as enshrined in their SOP, they followed the matrix of graded use of force. Surprisingly, there was intense pressure on the Army as well to acquire riot control equipment for such situations. It was rightly resisted, highlighting the use of the Army in its secondary role as an instrument of last resort and its doctrine and training based on “fire for effect”.

Moreover, in a rapidly deteriorating violent-crowd situation, an individual officer may have only seconds to decide whether he or his colleagues are in imminent danger. Judging that decision later from a video clip, without visualising what the officer could actually see and reasonably apprehend at that moment, risks producing an inherently distorted assessment. The proportionality and necessity of the response must, therefore, remain central to any investigation. But proportionality must be assessed against the threat actually confronting the officer and not against an ideal peaceful protest. This is where the present debate needs greater balance.

Courts, lawyers and the media have an important role in protecting citizens from state excesses. But protection of civil liberties cannot mean treating law enforcement personnel as people without rights. The police are also citizens. They have families, fears and physical vulnerabilities. The shield and helmet do not make them invulnerable. Indeed, if the state expects police personnel to confront violent crowds, it has an obligation to give them appropriate training, equipment, clear rules of engagement and competent leadership. Conversely, police leadership must ensure that personnel are not placed in situations where poor planning, delayed intervention or inadequate communication make violence more likely. The real lesson from this occurrence should, therefore, not be that police action is essentially suspect or that protesters are inherently innocent. It should be that both sides have rights and responsibilities. The right to protest is indispensable to a free society. So is the right of the person in uniform to return home safely after enforcing the law. The objective should not be to choose between the two. It should be to ensure that both perform their respective mandates without fear or unnecessary castigation.

The post The Forgotten Rights of those in Uniform appeared first on IMR.

Student movements have played a defining role in India’s political and social evolution. From the freedom struggle to the Nav Nirman Movement in Gujarat, the JP Movement, the anti-Mandal protests, and more recent agitations over education, employment and citizenship, students have periodically emerged as The Nav Nirman Movement (1973–74) in Gujarat, which began over hostel food charges and corruption before contributing to the fall of the state government, the Bihar student movement that evolved into Jayaprakash Narayan’s ‘Total Revolution’, the anti-Mandal agitations of 1990, and later protests over university autonomy, citizenship legislation and examination irregularities demonstrate how campus issues can sometimes evolve into national political movements. an influential force capable of shaping public discourse.

At the same time, the vast majority of Indian students remain focused on education, employment and personal advancement. Consequently, large-scale student unrest is neither inevitable nor impossible; it emerges only when specific political, economic and social conditions converge.

The challenge for governments and educational institutions is, therefore, not merely to respond to protests, but to understand the conditions under which localized discontent can escalate into a nationwide movement.

1.  Triggering Issues

Large-scale student movements generally begin with a grievance that is perceived as legitimate and widely shared. The trigger itself may be relatively small, but it resonates because it reflects broader concerns.

Common triggering issues include:

• Employment and recruitment: Recent protests over examination paper leaks, delays in recruitment examinations and alleged irregularities in recruitment processes in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Rajasthan illustrate how employment-related grievances can unite students across institutions. Delays in government recruitment, cancellation of examinations, alleged paper leaks, or perceived unfairness in selection processes.
• Educational policies: The Jawaharlal Nehru University fee-hike protests (2019) demonstrated how educational policy decisions can rapidly mobilize campus opinion. Fee hikes, changes in admission policies, scholarship reductions, hostel regulations or examination reforms.
• Perceived injustice: The death of Rohith Vemula at the University of Hyderabad (2016) generated nationwide student protests because many perceived the issue as extending beyond one individual to questions of institutional fairness and social justice. Disciplinary action against students, allegations of discrimination, or incidents viewed as violations of fairness.
• Economic pressures: Rising unemployment, inflation affecting student households, or reduced economic opportunities.
• Political or constitutional issues: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests (2019–20), particularly at Jamia Millia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University and JNU, illustrated how broader political issues can mobilize students. Policies perceived to affect democratic rights, academic freedom or civil liberties.
• Catalytic incidents: Police entry into Jamia Millia Islamia in December 2019 transformed localized protests into a national issue by becoming a widely discussed symbolic event. A single event, such as a controversial administrative action or an incident involving use of force, can transform localized dissatisfaction into a wider movement if it is viewed as symbolic of a larger problem.

Importantly, a trigger succeeds only when it reflects an existing reservoir of dissatisfaction. Most isolated incidents do not develop into sustained protests.

2.  Stabilizing Factors

India today possesses several structural factors that reduce the likelihood of prolonged nationwide student unrest.

Career-oriented aspirations. Today’s students are considerably more focused on education, competitive examinations, professional qualifications and employment than previous generations. The opportunity cost of prolonged agitation is therefore much higher.

Fear of legal and disciplinary consequences. Students increasingly recognize that criminal cases, university disciplinary proceedings or prolonged arrests may affect future employment, higher education opportunities, passports and government service. This acts as a significant deterrent against sustained confrontation.

Majority of students remain law-abiding. Most students prefer peaceful academic environments and have little interest in prolonged political activism. Historically, only a relatively small proportion of students actively participate in demonstrations.

Awareness of political exploitation. Many students across ideological lines have become increasingly cautious about being used by political parties for electoral or partisan purposes. This skepticism often limits long-term mobilization.

Presence of organized student bodies. Organizations such as the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), along with other student organizations representing diverse ideological perspectives, provide structured channels for student participation. Their presence often moderates spontaneous mobilization by encouraging organized engagement.

Public confidence in political leadership. Confidence in national or state leadership can reduce the willingness of students to assume that institutional mechanisms have completely failed. While political preferences vary considerably across regions and campuses, confidence in elected institutions can contribute to overall stability.

Administrative coordination. Where governments maintain effective coordination between educational institutions, civil administration and law enforcement, isolated incidents are less likely to spread across multiple campuses.

Reservation policies. The anti-Mandal protests of 1990 simultaneously demonstrated how reservation policy itself can become a powerful mobilizing issue among sections of students. India’s reservation system addresses historical inequities and provides educational opportunities to large sections of society. While reservation remains a subject of political debate and can itself generate grievances among different groups, it also contributes to social inclusion for many beneficiaries.

3.  Additional Stabilizing Factors

Several broader social changes further reduce the probability of nationwide student mobilization.

• Increasing enrolment in private universities with relatively different campus cultures.
• Highly competitive examination and coaching ecosystem.
• Strong parental emphasis on career success.
• Digital lifestyles that diffuse attention across multiple interests.
• Diverse educational pathways, making it difficult to unite students around a single issue.
• Availability of online grievance mechanisms in many institutions.
• Expanding private-sector employment opportunities outside traditional government careers.

Collectively, these factors create a society in which students often perceive greater personal benefit from academic progress than from prolonged political activism.

4.  Factors That Can Produce Large-Scale Student Unrest

Despite these stabilizing influences, certain structural conditions can still generate widespread mobilization.

Youth unemployment. Growing concern over employment opportunities has featured prominently in protests relating to railway recruitment and government vacancies. When educated young people perceive diminishing employment opportunities despite significant educational investment, frustration can accumulate across campuses.

Examination and recruitment controversies. Repeated controversies involving examination paper leaks, including recruitment and entrance examinations in several states, have increasingly become flashpoints capable of generating cross-state mobilisation. Repeated examination cancellations, paper leaks, delayed results or recruitment irregularities directly affect millions of students simultaneously and can become powerful unifying issues.

Loss of institutional trust. During the anti-corruption movement of 2011, although not exclusively student-led, large numbers of students joined because many believed conventional institutions were failing to address corruption effectively. Student unrest often intensifies when students conclude that universities, examination authorities or governments are unwilling or unable to address legitimate grievances.

Broad-based policy impact. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act protests illustrated how a policy perceived to have nationwide implications could generate mobilisation across geographically dispersed campuses. Policies affecting students irrespective of region, caste, language or political affiliation are more likely to generate nationwide responses.

Economic distress. Inflation, declining household income and reduced affordability of education can intensify existing dissatisfaction.

Perceived injustice. Students frequently mobilize more readily around issues of fairness than around purely ideological questions. Perceived unequal treatment or arbitrary decisions often generate stronger emotional responses.

Symbolic incidents. The death of Rohith Vemula and the police action at Jamia Millia Islamia became symbolic events that continued to influence public discourse long after the immediate incidents. Certain events become symbols that extend beyond the immediate issue, representing larger concerns about governance, accountability or justice.

5.  Sustaining (or Fuelling) Factors

While triggers initiate movements, different factors determine whether protests remain localized or evolve into sustained campaigns.

Narrative continuity. The JP Movement sustained itself by linking local student grievances with a larger narrative of corruption, governance reform and democratic renewal. A movement gains momentum when participants consistently connect individual incidents to a broader shared narrative.

Public legitimacy. The Nav Nirman Movement gained momentum because public support quickly extended beyond students to the middle classes, traders and civil society. When wider society—including parents, academics, alumni or professional bodies—views student concerns as reasonable, protests tend to receive greater support.

Institutional response. Government and university responses often influence the trajectory of movements. Transparent communication, credible grievance mechanisms and timely engagement can reduce tensions, while delayed or inconsistent responses may increase perceptions of institutional indifference.

Leadership. The emergence of Jayaprakash Narayan during the Bihar student movement transformed a regional agitation into a national political campaign. Recognized student representatives capable of articulating clear demands often provide coherence to movements. Conversely, the absence of credible leadership can lead to fragmentation.

Media attention. Television amplified the anti-Mandal protests in 1990, while social media became a major force multiplier during the 2019–20 university protests. Extensive traditional and social media coverage can elevate local issues into national debates, increasing public awareness and pressure for resolution.

Persistence of the underlying grievance. Movements usually continue when participants believe that the original issue remains unresolved despite repeated representations.

6.  Early Warning and Prevention

Governments and educational institutions should focus on identifying conditions that precede large-scale unrest rather than reacting only after demonstrations occur.

Important indicators include: Historical movements suggest that nationwide student unrest rarely develops suddenly. The Nav Nirman Movement, the JP Movement, the anti-Mandal protests and the CAA-related campus protests all progressed through identifiable stages—from localized grievance to wider public mobilisation.

• Similar grievances emerging simultaneously across multiple campuses.
• Increasing petitions, memoranda and representations on the same issue.
• Growing public discussion among students, faculty and alumni.
• Evidence that localized concerns are acquiring national attention.
• Declining confidence in grievance redressal mechanisms.
• Expansion of peaceful protests to multiple institutions within a short period.
• Increasing polarization between student groups.

Prevention is generally more effective than enforcement.

Effective preventive measures include:

• Responsive grievance redressal systems.
• Transparent communication.
• Timely clarification of policies.
• Independent inquiry into disputed incidents.
• Constructive dialogue with student representatives.
• Consistent application of institutional rules.
• Avoiding unnecessary escalation while maintaining public order.

The objective should be to preserve both institutional authority and public confidence.

Lessons from the “Cockroach Janta Party” Protests

The so-called “Cockroach Janta Party” protests illustrate several broader lessons relevant to governments confronting emerging student-led or youth-driven movements.

First, governments should avoid dismissing apparently small or symbolic protests as insignificant. Symbolic campaigns can resonate if they reflect deeper public anxieties.

Second, rapid and credible communication is often more effective than allowing rumours, speculation or misinformation to fill an information vacuum.

Third, understanding the underlying grievance is more important than focusing solely on visible manifestations such as slogans, demonstrations or online campaigns.

Fourth, maintaining proportionality in administrative and policing responses helps preserve public confidence. Responses perceived as fair, transparent and consistent are less likely to generate wider sympathy for protesters.

Fifth, governments should distinguish between genuine student grievances and attempts by external actors to amplify or exploit them. Durable protests usually succeed only when they resonate with authentic concerns shared by students.

Sixth, governments benefit from continuous engagement with students, educational institutions and civil society, even during periods of relative calm. Trust established before a crisis often proves more valuable than communication initiated after tensions have escalated.

Finally, effective governance requires balancing the protection of democratic freedoms—including peaceful expression and lawful protest—with the responsibility to maintain public order and ensure the uninterrupted functioning of educational institutions.

Conclusion

Student unrest should neither be exaggerated nor underestimated. Contemporary India possesses multiple structural stabilizers—including strong career aspirations, diverse student interests, institutional deterrence and greater economic opportunity—that reduce the likelihood of nationwide student movements. Nevertheless, history demonstrates Since 1970, India’s experience—from Nav Nirman and the JP Movement to the anti-Mandal agitation, the University of Hyderabad protests, the JNU fee protests and the CAA-related campus demonstrations—shows that while the issues vary, the dynamics of escalation remain remarkably consistent.

Nevertheless, history demonstrates that widespread unrest can still emerge when broad-based grievances coincide with declining institutional trust and emotionally resonant catalytic events. The most effective governmental strategy is therefore not simply strong enforcement, but responsive governance. Institutions that communicate transparently, resolve grievances promptly, maintain public confidence and engage constructively with students are significantly better positioned to prevent localized discontent from evolving into sustained national movements. Understanding the interaction between triggers, stabilizing influences, sustaining factors and early warning indicators enables policymakers to anticipate challenges before they become crises, thereby safeguarding both democratic participation and social stability.

The post Understanding Student Unrest in India appeared first on IMR.

Amarinder Singh (Punjab), Mamata Banerjee (West Bengal) and Pinarayi Vijayan (Kerala) -have announced that they will not implement the legislation in their respective states. Kamal Nath (Madhya Pradesh) and Bhupesh Baghel (Chhattisgarh) expressed reservations against it. Baghelsaid that he would oppose the law. “Our stand won’t be different from what is being taken by the All India Congress Committee (AICC) on the Citizenship Amendment Act.”

The Central government insisted that grant of citizenship was the exclusive domain of the Centre as per the Constitution, with the role of states limited to physical verification of documents to be submitted directly to the home ministry via an online portal.

While campaigning in Jharkhand, defence minister Rajnath Singh said, “There is no option for states other than to implement the legislation. There are set rules, which they will have to follow. The federal structure of the country has to be respected by all stakeholders. Any state government can’t be driven by its agenda while implementing a legislation through Constitutional amendment with presidential assent.” He said asserting that due legal process will be followed to enforce implementation of CAA in all states once rules are drafted.

Constitutional Provisions

There are three lists under the seventh schedule – union, concurrent and state. Centre has exclusive domain to frame laws on matters falling under the union list and citizenship is one such subject. States have no discretion to say they will not implement it. But, states can delay verification of documents, citing law and order problems. Law and order is a state subject, which means the state administration has complete control over its police and public order. States can turn around and say they will conduct not any enumeration exercise as a precautionary measure to maintain public order.

The 97 subjects under the Union List of Schedule VII includes matters like defence, external affairs, railways, citizenship and naturalisation-the matters that will have a bearing on the people across the nation irrespective of government and ideology.

‘Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens’ constituted Item No.17 in ‘List 1’ or ‘Union list’ under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Centre has the exclusive right to legislate on subjects in the Union list. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 was enacted under the Union List of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution. Also, Article 256 of the Constitution makes it binding on states to exercise executive power so as to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament. The executive power of the Union extends to giving directions to a state as government of India deems necessary for the purpose.

Still, while the Constitution gives the Central Government exclusive powers to frame legislation on citizenship, states can refuse to participate in the enumeration exercise or delay it, citing law and order issues, rendering the law ineffective, according to constitutional experts.

Procedural Delay

While an application for citizenship by naturalisation may be filed via the ministry of home affairs (MHA) foreigners’ division portal and the supporting documents uploaded, physical verification of the documents would be carried out at the level of the Foreigners Registration Office (FRO), a charge usually held by the district superintendent of police. The district administration would relay its report to the home ministry which will take the final decision.

At most, the FRO or district administration can prolong the verification process. But in case this becomes a state-wide tactic, the Centre would be within its rights to issue instructions under Article 256 asking the defaulting state to comply with the provisions. The state would then be legally bound to do so.

A key document likely to be sought is one that proves that the applicants belonging to minorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh migrated on or before December 31, 2014, and have fulfilled the condition of minimum five-year stay in India. Sources said the applicants may be also be asked to upload an affidavit along with their application, declaring that they had migrated to India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution.

Electoral Implications

The clarification has political ramifications too with BJP leaders pointing out that the amended Act and the proposed National Register of Indian Citizens will be central to electoral battlegrounds like West Bengal where Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee has opposed the measures. The state may drag its feet but may not be able to prevent the Centre from issuing relevant certificates to eligible refugees.

Legal Challenge

Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde said states can voice their opposition against the law by challenging CAA in the Supreme Court. “There is no precedent yet but the Constitution permits the state to approach the top court,” he said. States have, in the past, filed civil suits against the Centre for relief in matters such as boundary reorganization or water disputes.

“Centre has the power to frame rules under the law but to determine whether people are foreigners or not is the state government’s job,” Hegde explained.

The post Internal Security : States Are Bound to Implement the Law appeared first on IMR.

The Act

The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) has amended Section 2 of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which defines “illegal migrants” by adding a proviso – Section 2 (1)(b) – according to which any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, and who have been exempted by the Central Government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or the Foreigners Act, 1946, shall not be treated as “illegal migrant”. Further, any proceeding pending against such persons shall abate allowing them to be eligible to apply for citizenship by naturalisation, which is laid down under Section 6 of the 1955 Act.

The absence of the Muslim community from the proviso is conspicuous and was the subject of intense debate among parliamentarians in the past few days.

It does not automatically confer citizenship on a person from Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. They have to apply for citizenship and possess the qualifications laid down under the Citizenship Act. The amendments will not affect a person who is already a citizen of India.

The Act also does not exclude Muslims as a whole, as Muslims, including from the three countries specified in the proviso, can become Indian citizens by following the procedure laid down in the act. The prohibition is only if they are “illegal migrants”: those who travel without valid passport and documents, or those with valid documents who stay in India beyond the permitted time period.

There are Muslim communities facing discrimination in Muslim majority countries, such as the Rohingya Muslims who are a persecuted community in Myanmar. The amendment disregards this by classifying Muslims as one homogenous group. Thus, Muslim illegal migrants, as a whole, are denied a benefit irrespective of whether they are persecuted in their home country or not.

Non-Muslim illegal migrants from other countries will not get the benefit of this exemption.

Opposition to the Act

The Citizenship Amendment Act is opposed by Opposition parties and many civil rights activists on the ground that it discriminates against Muslims. They say that such discrimination is unconstitutional under Article 14.

Rights under Article 14 are absolute. These two fundamental rights are not exclusive to the citizens of India but to “any person”. In this backdrop, the Opposition parties and activists have accused the BJP of signaling out the Muslims to further its “hidden agenda”.

Beyond the political arena, civil society and discerning citizenry have vehemently expressed their disagreement with the new national law. More than 720 jurists, writers, actors, activists and citizens had issued a statement against the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill and the National Register of Citizens, describing these as “misguided” and, worse, “unconstitutional”.

Protests Against the Act

Even before Lok Sabha cleared the Bill, protesters, majority of them being students took to streets in Guwahati to rally against the Bill on 10 December 2019. Hundreds poured into the streets responding to a shut down call by the North East Student’s Organization. However, the protests went out of control when public infrastructures and vehicles were vandalized and the police resorted to baton charges and firing of teargas. Soon the Army was deployed to contain the situation and the nature of protests turned absolutely violent resulting in the killing of 2 people during firing by the security forces. This also resulted in the cancelation of the annual India-Japan Summit scheduled for 15-17 December 2019 in Guwahati.  However, these agitations remained confined to the North East.

What changed the extend and the momentum of these protests to acquire a pan Indian character started in Jamia Milia Islamia (JMI) University, New Delhi.

Protesters took to violence in West Bengal which started on 13 December 2019. In Lucknow, students of Darul Uloom Nadwatul Seminary gathered in large numbers to protests but the police did not allow them to leave the campus.

Pinched by the brutal police action on students from Jamia and AMU, students from IIT-Madras, TISS, Mumbai, Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU), Hyderabad, Jadavpur University and different cities such as Chennai, Puducherry, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Lucknow, Varanasi, Kolkata and took to streets in solidarity on 16 December against CAA and brutal Police action inside Jamia campus.

Protests against the Act started as a student’s protests but in no time assumed a political character where political parties as well as people holding political offices participated in these protests.

The protests spread to Delhi University (DU), where students organized peaceful demonstrations and boycotted the semester exams.

Although, these protests started as a student’s protests but in no time it assumed a political character where political parties as well as people holding political offices participated in these protests. Mamata Banerjee addressed a rally in Kolkata, while in Delhi the congress organized Bharat Bachao rally to address a variety of issues including CAA. Meanwhile in Kerala, the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) joined hands with the opposition United Democratic Front (UDF) to protests against CAA. Protesters gathered in Mysore, Bangalore, Manglore, Thiruvanthapuram, Kochi, Chennai, Aurangabad and many more districts. 

The protests acquiring a political nature robbed these protests of their original essence, innocence and purpose. These protests that were initially seen as dissenting voice of an empowered youth of the country would have greatly contributed to enhance India’s image as a well functioning democracy. Political party as catalysts to students resorting to violence cannot be denied.

CAA and NRC in Assam

Home minister Amit Shah claimed that this law had nothing to do with Indian Muslims or other Indian citizens. Oddly, in the same speech in the Lok Sabha, he promised a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC) and then attempted to defend the CAB in isolation of that announcement. The law is a perfect example of the maxim, post hoc ergo propter hoc (after it, therefore, because of it). The CAB follows an Assam NRC which backfired and was denounced by the BJP’s own state leadership. The government is yet to publish the religion-wise breakdown of those 1.9 million excluded, but the CAB (Section 6B) seeks to abate proceedings against the Hindus in that list (singling out only Muslims as migrants). The CAB is, thus, a twisted solution to a botched NRC in Assam, and also a pre-emptive precursor to the nationwide NRC, which Shah has declared to be an inevitability. If this nationwide NRC is as badly conducted as the Assam NRC (whose first list identified over four million as immigrants), it will have an error rate of over 50%. The CAB is, therefore, a pre-emptive remedy to save all (but the Muslims) who are left out, something deliberately ignored by this government.

The Implications

Though the amendment does not automatically confer citizenship to Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, it removes the tag of “illegal migrant” which is a roadblock for acquiring citizenship by naturalisation.

Further, it also relaxes the condition to acquire citizenship by naturalisation. As per the current requirement, a person should have 11 years of residence in India or service of government in India. The amendment reduces this to a period of five years.

Muslim illegal migrants from these three countries cannot apply for citizenship and will continue to remain illegal migrants.

The number of Bangladeshis living illegally in India was put at 2 crore by Union minister Kiren Rijiju in the Rajya Sabha in 2016. He did not get into numbers for specific states.

Ever since India became independent there has been an uncontrolled inflow of illegal immigrants for a variety of reasons from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan — many in search of greener pastures while many others are fleeing from religious persecution. Illegal immigration into India is a punishable offence —as it is in every other country. However, when the number of such illegal immigrants is as huge as it is, prosecuting the offenders may not always practicable.

There are at present in different parts of India an unascertained number of such immigrants living as refugees — many are subject to exploitation as cheap labour in several establishments. These illegal immigrants consist of, among others, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians — all minorities in the specified Islamic countries; and also a large number of Muslims who could be safely presumed to have migrated for reasons other than religious persecution.

The Constitution of India specifies who are citizens of this country. It also recognises Parliament’s power to make laws relating to citizenship. Accordingly, the Citizenship Act of 1955 was enacted. That law has been amended several times to meet the needs of the time.

The post Internal Security : Controversy Over Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 appeared first on IMR.