A day before voting commenced in India on 19th April, the US Congress research wing, Congressional Research Service (CRS) published a report fear-mongering about the recently notified Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The three-page report titled: “Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws” asserted that the implementation of CAA would ‘violate’ certain Articles of the Indian constitution.
While the function of CRS is to provide objective, fact-based information to US Congress members, the report in question reeks of biasedness. The report, as expected, is taken up by the Western media, deeming the Modi government as a ‘Hindu nationalist’ one and Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a ‘Hindu nationalist’ leader. Asserting that India’s ‘Hindu nationalist’ government has, since 2014, worked on its Hindu nationalist policy goals including the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.
CRS report insinuates violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution in CAA
The CRS report said that the key provisions of the Citizenship Amendment Act would violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian constitution.
“The CAA’s key provisions—allowing immigrants of six religions from three countries a path to citizenship while excluding Muslims—may violate certain Articles of the Indian Constitution. Article 14: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. Article 15: The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them.”
Notably, the Modi government notified CAA on the 11th of March 2024. These rules, called the Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024 will enable the persons eligible under CAA-2019 to apply for Indian citizenship on fast-track basis.
Under the CAA, people belonging to persecuted minority groups in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan—including Christians, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists, Hindus, and Sikhs—who came to India on or before December 31, 2014, will be granted Indian citizenship on a fast-track basis.
The CRS report says that while the Home Ministry called the CAA compassionate and humanitarian legislation, the ‘critics’ argue that for neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka, where Buddhism is ‘foremost’ and Tamil Hindus face persecution, CAA does not provide them a means to get Indian citizenship. Similarly, it says that in Myanmar, where Buddhism holds primacy, Rohingya Muslims face persecution, and Shias and Ahmadiyas facing persecution in Pakistan are also excluded from CAA. Citing these arguments posed by the unnamed ‘critics’, the CRS report makes a case that the CAA is ‘discriminatory’ and violates Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the constitution.
“India’s Home Ministry, which calls the CAA “compassionate and ameliorative legislation,” contends that the three specified countries have a state religion (Islam), resulting in the persecution of religious minorities. CAA advocates say that Muslims do not face persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan, and they insist the act is constitutional because it addresses migrants rather than citizens. Critics point out that migrants from other neighbouring countries with state (or favored) religions, such as Sri Lanka (where Buddhism is “foremost” and Tamil Hindus face persecution) and Burma (where Buddhism enjoys primacy and Rohingya Muslims are persecuted), are excluded from a path to citizenship. Persecuted Muslim minority communities such as Pakistan’s Shias and Ahmadis also enjoy no protections under the CAA,” the CRS report reads.
Why are Shias and Ahmadiyas from Pakistan, Rohingyas from Burma and Tamil Hindus from Sri Lanka not included in CAA
Notably, despite facing discrimination, persecution, and other adversities, Shias and Ahmadiyas identify as Muslims. They continue to make up the Muslim majority in theocratic Islamic nations like Pakistan and Afghanistan. There is a distinction between sectarian violence and religiously motivated violence. Although India does not support discrimination against any community or religious group, the attacks Shias and Ahmadiyas face in Pakistan are law and order problems, hence they are not covered by the CAA.
Meanwhile, the reason behind excluding Rohingya Muslims from the CAA, is that the Rohingyas do not come to India directly, rather they go to Bangladesh and then illegally infiltrate into India from there. Since, Rohingyas are circumventing a safe haven in Bangladesh to reach India in search of material benefits, they are economic refugees in India, and no longer the persecuted religious minority.
Coming to why Tamil Hindus are not covered in the CAA, the CAA, as the government has often said, is meant to undo the historic wrong done to the minority groups following the partition in 1947 and does not include the linguistic criteria.
In an interview with Republic TV, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said: “In the case of Tamils in Sri Lanka, the Indian-origin Tamils were settled through negotiation. So, I think we cannot compare the Pakistan situation with the Sri Lanka situation. These are totally different.”
It is thus clear that unlike the assertions made in the CRS report, the CAA is neither discriminatory nor in violation of Articles 14 and 15. Article 14 guarantees every person the right to equality before the law and equal protection under the law on Indian territory. This assurance does not imply or mean absolute mathematical equality but allows the state to make appropriate classifications. The state has the authority to enact special laws for particular groups. The only condition is that this category and the object it represents are reasonably related. Further, the CAA does not bar anyone or in this case, Muslims from neighbouring countries from coming to India legally.
Furthermore, the Indian constitution defines the rights of Indian citizens, not refugees from other countries. Granting citizenship to refugees is totally up to the Indian government and requires no recommendation, concern, or interference from the US government, Congress, or any of its bodies.
Timing of CAA
The CRS report said that ‘observers’ note that the CAA was notified amidst the Lok Sabha election campaign and was meant to gain political advantage. However, contrary to the assertions made in the report, Union Home Minister Amit Shah had already said that the CAA brought in 2019 will be implemented before the 2024 elections.
In an interview last month, Minister Shah had said, “There is no question of timing. BJP said in its manifesto in 2019 that we will bring CAA and give citizenship to refugees from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan…In 2019, it was passed by both Houses but got delayed due to Covid…The opposition wants to do appeasement politics and wants to consolidate their vote bank. They have been exposed and the people of the country know that CAA is the law of this country. I have said 41 times that it would be implemented before the elections.”
CRS and its history of bias
Notably, this is not the first time the Congressional Research Service has published a biased and motivated report concerning India. Back in 2018, CRS had published a report which blamed ‘Hindu nationalism’ for rising ‘intolerance’ in India. “Religious freedom is explicitly protected under its constitution. Hindus account for a vast majority (nearly four-fifths) of the country’s populace. Hindu nationalism has been a rising political force in recent decades, by many accounts eroding India’s secular nature and leading to new assaults on the country’s religious freedoms,” the report said.
The report relied on several leftist media outlets and cited people like S.M. Mushrif who had attended the inauguration event of the book, ’26/11: RSS ki Saazish?’. This book insinuates that the RSS conspired with the CIA and Mossad to perpetuate the horror in Mumbai.
It also had commented on the Anti-Conversion Law making assertions that conversion law has created a hostile atmosphere for Christian minorities. The CRS report, however, did not make any mention of the Muslim intolerance or the missionaries actively working to convert people to Christianity through deceptive and illegal means.
Another such biased report was published by the CRS in October last year, titled: India: Human Rights Assessments, in which it said the Hindu nationalist government is violating religious freedom alongside freedom of expression. The report cited several biased sources including US government-funded human rights ‘watchdog’ Freedom House, which had downgraded India from ‘Free’ to ‘Partly Free’ and had supported violent protests against CAA.
