![barkha dutt washington post barkha dutt washington post](https://tfipost.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1-59.jpg)
![barkha dutt washington post barkha dutt washington post](https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/HJ2QZHEREQI6XKW4V54HAGRQZI.jpg)
Also, Muslims from these counties will have to wait for 12 years to become naturalised citizens. The Muslims who are coming from these countries can apply if they have valid travel documents only, otherwise will be considered illegal immigrants. Thus, her objection is not “control of immigration” as such but, according to her “the basis to accept one population and reject another cannot be religion”.įirst, let us note that the bill is not about giving citizenship directly, it is about ‘making people of minority communities’ in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh ‘eligible’ to apply for citizenship without legal travel documents and/or with expired travel documents and reducing the naturalisation period from 12 years to 7 years. Dutt admits that “every country has the absolute right to control immigration”, please pay attention the terms “absolute right”. The issue is: do these changes in the Citizenship Act, 1955 constitute unwarranted discrimination against Muslims and “Islamophobic campaign” as Ms. The bill also makes changes regarding “Overseas Citizen of India Cardholders” but that is not of interest in the present discussion. The second change, relevant to the present discussion, it makes is that of duration of naturalization from 12 years to 7 years, again for “persons belonging to minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan”, Muslims are not part of the list. Note that the list of exempted communities does not include Muslims. As per the new bill “Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan … shall not be treated as illegal migrants”.
![barkha dutt washington post barkha dutt washington post](https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/Y2JA4VQSAYI6ZOWKQ2YUJ7EKFU.jpg)
According to the Citizenship Act 1955 any one entering India without passport or other travel documents or staying beyond the permitted time period is an illegal migrant. One, what this bill was supposed to do is to change the definition of “illegal migrant”.
![barkha dutt washington post barkha dutt washington post](https://www.thewrap.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/wash-936x527.jpg)
The bill (which was placed in the Lok Sabha and expired before being placed in the Rajya Sabha) she refers to is called “The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016”, Shah has said many times that it will be brought before the parliament again. And, two, we should examine her charges of discrimination against Muslims and Islamophobia seriously. Well, let us grant that she knows her Gandhi and he would have been as predictable as she concludes.īut, one, fasting against something, even with the name ‘satyagrah’, does not make it morally and legally wrong. And most confidently declares that if Gandhi “were alive today, he would most certainly have been sitting on a “satyagraha” against citizenship laws that discriminate on the basis of religion”. In her wisdom she proclaims “Even if the proposed new law does nothing to diminish their rights, there is great humiliation in just one religion - their religion - being kept out of the mix”. Barkha Dutt has written on the same issue and calls this anti-Muslim and “an Islamophobic campaign”. There is a lot of concern regarding Home Ministers repeated statements regarding giving citizenship to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians coming from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and keeping Muslims out of this list. Barkha Dutt in Washington Post (where else?) on 8 th October 2019. “Gandhi would be fasting against India’s discriminatory new citizenship law” declares Ms.