LETTERS: I REFER to the letter “India’s CAA does not discriminate against Muslims”.
Ever wonder why an Indian law, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), should continue to elicit hue and cry from far away jurisdictions — from Washington in the west to Kuala Lumpur in the east? The short answer is, it is discriminatory. As a matter of fact, the writer of the letter has unwittingly conceded that the CAA is discriminatory when he stated that the law strictly applies to a certain class of refugees.
When the CAA does not apply to another class of refugees for citizenship consideration, then it discriminates against the excluded class of refugees.
The exclusion or omission makes the CAA particularly discriminatory when one considers that India is a state party to the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).
Under ICERD, discrimination means “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.
India and Malaysia share a common legislative process. An Act of Parliament starts with a Bill, a proposed law. Every Bill has what is called in Malaysia “Explanatory Statement of the Bill”. In India, it is called “Statement of Objects and Reasons” (SOR). Both serve to explain the legislative purpose of the proposed law and are referred to by the courts when called upon to give effect to the law.
If one were to read the SOR of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) 2019 and ICERD together, it wouldn’t be difficult to come to the view that the CAA is discriminatory.
Now, one aspect of the CAA which was not highlighted is this. The CAA was first read on Dec 9 last year and read the second time the next day.
It was passed by both Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) on Dec 11 and assented to by the president the next day. In short, the CAA became law within days and appears to be rushed.
It remains to be seen whether the CAA will be upheld by India’s highest court, the Supreme Court, which on Jan 22 this year refused to stay the law without hearing from the Central Government of India.
The BJP-led government now has four weeks to respond to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the CAA.
HAFIZ HASSAN
Melaka
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times