Pramod Acharya
On a day when JMM-Congress alliance is all set to form a new government in Jharkhand, the BJP-led NDA government at the centre with superlative majority is battling the first signs of civil war in the largest democracy in the world.
Ironical as it may sound, the incumbent government has fulfilled one of its manifesto promises while dividing public opinion as well as general discourse in the country. This is natural when any legislation comes into being on a theory of specific exclusion rather than holistic inclusion.
Hundreds of activists and journalists in the self-proclaimed Islamic republics have fought and suffered for standing up to the truth and carnage notwithstanding their religion. Simply put, if we extend the same principle of Citizenship Amendment Act to other Islamic nations, even Jamal Khashoggi, if he was alive, would have to go through a much longer and un-assured rigorous process of acquiring Indian citizenship just because he belongs to a certain religion although facing far more oppressive and menacing propaganda of an authoritative state. Therein lies the problem.
The party in power is fully entitled to pass the legislation in Parliament. They have the mandate and you cannot fault a regime for fulfilling its own manifesto promise although I heavily doubt how many of us actually noticed it then. With respect to NRC too, the BJP wasn’t shy about its intentions. It was clearly mentioned in their manifesto and even unequivocally stated by the President of India in his speech during the first session of Parliament post the Lok Sabha election. But no one bothered to go hammer and tongs against it then. So what has changed now?
May it be triple talaq or Article 377 or even for that matter the Uniform Civil Code, all these agenda points although aimed at certain minorities, espouse a progressive outlook. With the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Act, this government for the first time since 2014 attempted and succeeded in clearing a legislation which distinguishes victims of persecution based on religion. So whether it is Khashoggi or a human rights activist from Pakistan like (now deceased) Asma Jahangir would have been conveyed by present regime to take a walk through thornier path towards citizenship just because of their birth religion which they throughout their life championed to reform.
Any administration harboring prejudice founded on communal sentiments is detrimental for democracy. It may have a majority, mandate and mood in its favour. It certainly isn’t justified by founding principles of a republic born out of colonial repression. And frankly, what are we without that Preamble?
The outpouring of anger and rage on the streets might be misplaced and stemming out of imprecise understanding of central arguments of the legislation. But the fury stems out from one elemental emotion of a large section of society “ fear.
No one can and should support any individual or organization indulging in violence under the guise of a revolutionary movement. Any person burning and destroying public property, torching roadside vehicles of blameless people or brutally attacking policemen is unquestionably indulging in a criminal act. If your desperation drives you towards bloodshed you strengthen the cause of those who enjoy seeing you disappearing into a dark abyss while being condemned by the majority and criticized by your own sympathizers for ruining the momentum a peaceful progress could have garnered.
So, without a doubt, the violence must stop. But it leaves one question unanswered. What about the fear?
The responsibility to allay fears is with the establishment. Macho, alpha-male styled utterances can never calm sentiments. Rather, such attempts at demonstrating muscle of the state can lead to further extremism and anxiety. The state needs to display that its fault lines do not lie in the religious composition of the citizenry. It needs to audaciously exhibit an honest objective towards proving its egalitarian credentials. What does it need to do?
The union government can begin with making the citizenship amendment act religion-neutral. If India feels for persecuted communities or individuals from its neighboring nations, two of which are on the verge of being a failed state, it should, befitting its history, culture and compass explicitly support fast tracked citizenship for all individuals or groups suffering from all kinds of hounding by their respective regimes. That is an egalitarian legislation.
As for the NRC, the moment you amend the CAA with the above effect, nobody should have any problem with the repercussions of one on the other. We all should agree that illegal aliens residing in this country for any inexplicable reason shall be deported, irrespective of their religious background, just like in the rest of the advanced world. At the same time, we shall also give refuge to any persecuted being notwithstanding a person’s communal antecedents.
What we expect from a government with such mighty majority is such large heartedness; because without it India shall not remain true to its soul. BJP many of the times gets the streak to create homogeneity of sorts. With Congress Mukt Bharat it was political; with uniform civil code it is civic. While the latter is desirable as it fits the annals of our base constitutional values, the former reeks of an authoritarian tendency and we have seen off late that such rhetoric has diminishing returns.
