Topic 1 : Citizens on the edge
Introduction: The Citizenship Amendment Rules, released by the central government on March 11, have proven its critics right. Rather than a humanitarian refugee policy for persecuted people, they create opaque procedures that do not provide legal safeguards for asylum seekers in India.
Rules under Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 look arbitrary and discriminatory
- These Rules are meant to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019.
- The 2019 Act offers routes to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim “illegal migrants” who came to India before the cut-off date of December 31, 2014, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan.
- The Act is under challenge in the Supreme Court for being arbitrary and discriminatory on the grounds of religion, which, if established, would render it unconstitutional.
The requirement of documents under this act is cause for concerns
- Under the Rules, those seeking benefits under the CAA will need to provide a document to prove that they are citizens of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, and entered India before the cut-off date.
- It is not difficult to imagine that those applicants, who fled persecution before 2014, would find it difficult to procure or present such documents.
- Inevitably, there will be situations where they have lost such documents.
- Potential applicants may have been compelled to damage these documents for fear of being further victimised based on their nationality after their migration.
- Applicants who arrived and resided unlawfully are also unlikely to possess the listed documents that prove the date of entry into India.
Globally refugee-seeking is becoming untenable
- Recent global trends show that governments often demand asylum seekers fulfil onerous documentary burdens to establish fear of persecution.
- This leaves them tangled in delays and rejections.
- It has been widely observed that asylum seekers do not possess enough documents to satisfy state authorities.
- Refugee law experts, for example, have shown that refugees in Australia face a higher burden of proof than even criminals.
- There are several cases of Australian authorities demanding that Afghan asylum seekers produce state documents, despite the well-known fact that Afghanistan’s documentation system has collapsed.
- South Asians seeking asylum in the United Kingdom face constant suspicions regarding the authenticity of their documents.
- Consequently, these countries have considerable backlogs of asylum applications, and cases take between one to three years to conclude with no right to work for asylum seekers.
- Australia and the UK have been criticised for arbitrary and regressive policies that leave vulnerable asylum seekers in undignified conditions and even indefinite detention.
Other concerns regarding CAA rules
- This documentary logic is only the tip of the problem.
- The opaque bureaucratic system is the worst offender.
- The Rules provide that state-level Empowered Committees and District Level Committees will receive and process applications.
- The Empowered Committee has to be convinced, after “making such inquiries as it considers necessary”, that the applicant is “suitable”, “fit and proper”.
- But the Rules provide no meaningful guidance and procedures for these committees.
- The mandate of the Empowered Committee has not been laid down beyond the responsibility of generally ascertaining the suitability of the applicant.
- It remains debatable if the Committee will merely presume “persecution” for non-Muslim applicants, which is a qualification for citizenship under the CAA, or conduct an inquiry.
- It is unlikely that these committees are fit for purpose, not least because they are composed of administrators like census, postal and intelligence officials, and not those familiar with asylum claims.
- This composition shows that this system is not conceived as an asylum system for vulnerable people fleeing persecution.
Concerns regarding District Level Committees
- It is unclear what the role of the committees will be in adjudicating documents provided by the applicants.
- For example, District Level Committees are expected to assess the “veracity” of documents but the Rules do not indicate how this will be done.
- Among the documents to prove nationality, applicants can submit “any document” issued by the country of origin.
- But this would imply that the committee will adjudicate the relevance and authenticity of these documents.
- This appears to be logistically demanding if not impossible task for Indian authorities, especially if the issuing authorities in the country of origin are obscure or have ceased to exist.
- It may lead to delays or exclusion from Indian citizenship with no safeguards protecting them from detention and further marginalisation.
- Applicants are also expected to submit “eligibility certificates” from “locally reputed community institutions” as proof of religious and national identity.
- It is uncertain how the committees will assess these certificates, or if they will follow a fair and transparent procedure.
- The complete lack of guidelines suggests that the Rules are likely to be implemented arbitrarily.
Declaring oneself an illegal migrant will expose applicants to the state’s force and Bureaucracy
- Most concerningly, the CAA Rules expect — and their implementation on the ground will inevitably involve force — people to declare themselves as “illegal migrants” in order to be eligible for Indian citizenship.
- Once they do so, they are bound to become exposed to the arbitrary powers that the state exercises in relation to foreigners, despite government assurances.
- They may be forced to do this only to face a bureaucratic maze.
Learning from good international practices
- The government could have learnt from good international practices that are not narrowly built around state-issued documents, but accept wide-ranging evidence including testimonies to show fear of persecution.
- The Indian system could have followed respected asylum adjudication that involves trained professionals who exercise their powers judiciously, and has mechanisms for appeals and revision.
Conclusion: There are major concerns regarding the CAA rules. Government must make sure that the prosecuted minorities do not face the bureaucratic apathy, which seeking citizenship in India.
Topic 2 : Delhi’s outreach
Introduction: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s push for an early end to the war in Ukraine, in his phone calls on Wednesday to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his counterpart in Kyiv, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, comes amid the military stalemate on the ground and a gathering political sentiment in favour of a negotiated settlement.
Is there any simmer of hope for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine?
- It is perhaps premature to talk of a major Indian role in ending the brutal war in the heart of Europe.
- The earlier initiatives by Turkey and China to promote a ceasefire and negotiations between Moscow and Kyiv had fizzled out.
- But the conditions for productive peace talks might have improved amidst the Republican Party’s refusal in the US to support new military assistance to Ukraine and the growing prospects of Donald Trump winning the White House in the November elections.
- Modi’s phone calls also come weeks before a major peace conference on Ukraine that Switzerland is organising in the coming weeks.
India’s balanced approach in the conflict amidst the West’s ostracization
- The Indian diplomatic initiative comes amid an important shift in international perceptions of India’s role in Ukraine.
- Ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2024, India has received many brickbats in the West for its refusal to criticise the Russian aggression formally.
- Delhi’s presumed political tilt towards Russia in the Ukraine war was magnified by the surge in India’s oil purchases from Moscow.
- The US and Europe sought to inflict economic pain on Moscow by imposing sanctions on its energy trade.
- Despite sharp media criticism of India, sensible elements in the West saw Delhi’s close ties with Moscow as a potential political asset in promoting peace.
- Recent Western media reports have lauded Modi’s role in 2022 in preventing nuclear escalation in Ukraine, as Putin threatened to use atomic weapons if the West directly intervened in favour of Kyiv.
- Being Putin’s best friend is not enough of a qualification to be a peacemaker in Ukraine.
- Over the last year, Delhi has stepped up its contact with the Ukrainian leadership and sought to dispel the notion that it was taking Russia’s side in the war.
- PM Modi, Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval have been in regular touch with their Ukrainian counterparts.
- In a reflection of this balanced approach, India is expected to host the Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, in Delhi next week.
- This will be the first time that Delhi is receiving Ukraine’s top diplomat.
Can India play any role in the peace talks between Ukraine and Russia?
- PM Modi, who is basking in the balmy sun of a successful diplomatic run over the last decade, is seizing the diplomatic possibilities in Ukraine, slim though they might be.
- India’s growing salience on the world stage is matched by Modi’s high personal prestige among world leaders.
- This allows the PM considerable room to explore a potential peace-making role in Europe.
Conclusion: Even a modest Indian contribution will be most welcome in a war-weary Europe. It would also boost Modi’s domestic image as an influential world leader in his quest for a third term as India’s PM. Both the PM and the nation have everything to gain from Delhi’s bold diplomatic moves on Ukraine.