 |
| Courtesy: http://krishnamercy.com |
Wishing all of you a very Happy New Year! I hope this decade comes with more smiles, happiness, kindness, and peace.
For me, it seems this decade passed by in the blink of an eye, tumultuous, a few crests and many troughs. Undoubtedly a decade of mental fatigue that seems to have brought out the worst in otherwise rational folks.
With all that’s going on, I have, like many of the Hindu Bengali families that have Muslim surnames (awarded as titles generations ago), a unique, unpleasant view from this strange intersection I’m in. For one, I’ve realised that had I really been a ‘Khan’ in the true sense, some of the people I know well may have chosen not to be in my life at all. I’m surprised by the intensity of disappointment and sadness this realisation has brought on.
As humans our perceptions are shaped by personal experiences and cultural stereotyping. We simply cannot escape our biases, but we can choose to introspect and examine them. Whenever I see posts supporting the ongoing CAA, I try to understand why these individuals are supporting the legislation, and so far, I have always come to the conclusion that they have not read the act and are simply forwarding misinterpreted misinformation because of their inherent negative bias towards a community. Yes, including the debonair guru.
In 1955, the original Citizenship bill was passed which laid down the rules for gaining Indian citizenship – it could be by birth, by naturalisation, by descent, or through registration under specific circumstances. One of the key criteria for obtaining citizenship (if it’s not by birth, obviously) is that one must not be an ‘illegal’ immigrant i.e. someone who has entered the country without the proper documentation, or someone who has overstayed after their visa has expired. You can read the bill here (https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/4210/1/Citizenship_Act_1955.pdf)
The current Citizenship Amendment Act (which is now a Bill) amends a particular section of the original bill which deals with the interpretation of the term ‘illegal immigrant’. This 2019 Act has included an amendment that basically makes exceptions to who can be deemed an ‘illegal immigrant’—if you are a non-Muslim from Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, AND who entered India on or before 31 December 2014then you will no longer be deemed an illegal immigrant (assuming all other checks are cleared). The Act further includes provisions of how such people can then obtain citizenship. All checks and criteria being successful, such people will be deemed citizens of India from the date of their entry into the country. (Read it here http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf)
So why is this deemed as discriminatory? This Act is applicable retrospectively to people who are already inside the country. In all the arguments I’ve come across supporting this Bill, it is surprising that no one is talking about this important fact. The result is that for two people who have fled a country under similar circumstances such as war and persecution, the Muslim immigrant is denied citizenship whereas the non-Muslim person gets theirs, even if both meet all the criteria and security checks. Here is an example case – if a Muslim entered the country in 2005 and a Hindu in 2013, both having fled persecutions in their home countries, it is the Hindu who now becomes the citizen. How much ever hard-nosed you are, and whatever eloquent arguments you present to justify this (primarily because you don’t like Muslims), under the cold glare of light, this is discrimination based on religion. The original Article uses the word ‘person’ to refer to an individual and has been carefully drafted to maintain the neutrality of the Constitution. Now, by using religion as qualifiers to deem worthiness of a citizenship, we are on a slippery slope of tinkering with the very essence of the Constitution. I am yet to hear a cogent statement from the government as to why they removed a community from the ambit of this Bill. Likewise, I am yet to understand from those who support this why they think this is not discriminatory. THIS is what many are fighting against—people are raising their voices against the fact that the Act is inherently discriminatory; now, this discriminatory clause has become enshrined as law. The repercussions of a majority Government passing a discriminatory bill based on religion is chilling and disturbing. Every democracy has its checks and balances to ensure there is no misuse of power; in our case, this is missing due to lack of a strong opposition.
National security is always very important, so we need an effective border check, as in the case of all countries in the world. We need an efficient, humane, technologically driven process to identify people who are living in the country without proper documentation; we need to have a process to manage such immigrants, as is done in all the other countries. A hallmark of this past decade has been mass migrations of populaces because of unstable political situations and climate change. As with all countries, India too needs to adopt and implement an effective refugee management system. However, no country has implied that to sort out a percentage of illegal immigrants, the entire population of a country must eventually prove its credentials. World history has already shown us what this agenda is all about; an agenda that churns out chaos, anger, fear… and where this leads to.
Many of my Hindu friends believe that they are well on the path to establishing a Rama Rajya in ‘Bharat’. What an irony. Let me show you Rama’s view, in whose name the country has been set on fire. In the Yuddha Kanda, Rama and his Vanara army have camped on the Indian mainland, having ascertained the fact that Sita is a hostage of Ravana. Vibhishana, Ravana’s brother, having failed to drill moral sense into his megalomaniac brother, decides to support Rama. He, along with four other Asuras, approaches Rama’s camp. At this point, all the important Vanaras have a lengthy discussion and debate with Rama. Many of them advise Rama to capture Vibhishana and punish him, put him to death because he comes from the enemy camp; that because he is an Asura, by default he will be deceitful and so, he cannot be trusted.
At which point, Rama addresses Sugriva – (I have taken the Devanagari script from this site; you can find the excellent word-to-word translations from K.M.K. Murthy on https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/valmikiramayan/yuddha/yuddha_contents.htm)
बद्धअन्जलिपुटम्दीनम्याचन्तम्शरणआगतम् ||
नहन्याद्आनृशंस्यअर्थम्अपिशत्रुम्परम्पत |
नहन्याद्आनृशंस्यअर्थम्अपिशत्रुम्परम्पत |
Summary – if an individual in miserable plight stands before you begging with cupped palms, even if such an individual is your enemy, and he surrenders to you seeking your abode, then, you must not do harm (to this person) and he should not be killed.
अर्तोवायदिवादृप्तःपरेषाम्शरणम्गतः ||
अरिःप्राणान्परित्यज्यरक्षितव्यःकृतआत्मना |
अरिःप्राणान्परित्यज्यरक्षितव्यःकृतआत्मना |
Summary: The enemy individual could be oppressed or arrogant, it is immaterial – if he has sought protection against others (persecuting him), then the one with a disciplined mind knows that even at the cost of one’s own life the enemy’s life must be protected.
सचेद्भयाद्वामोहाद्वाकामाद्वाअपिनरक्षति ||
स्वयाशक्त्यायथातत्त्वम्तत्पापम्लोकगर्हितम् |
Summary: If you don’t protect (such a person who has come asking for your refuge) either because of fear, ignorance, or you simply don’t wish to, then this is a grave sin that will be admonished by the world.
विनष्टःपश्यतस्तस्यरक्षिणःशरणआगतः ||
आदायसुकृतम्तस्यसर्वम्गच्चेद्अरक्षितः |
आदायसुकृतम्तस्यसर्वम्गच्चेद्अरक्षितः |
Summary: If such a seeker of refuge, not having received your protection (even if you were able to provide him with such protection), dies in front of your eyes, then in his death all your moral merits will be erased.
एवम्दोषोमहान्अत्रप्रपन्नानाम्अरक्षणे ||
अस्वर्ग्यम्चअयशस्यम्चबलवीर्यविनाशनम् |
अस्वर्ग्यम्चअयशस्यम्चबलवीर्यविनाशनम् |
Summary: By not protecting those who seek refuge, you commit a grave sin, your reputation will be destroyed, as will your strength and valour. No heaven will be bestowed to you.
Therefore, Rama declares –
सकृद्एवप्रपन्नायतवअस्मिइतिचयाचते ||
अभयम्सर्वभूतेभ्योददामिएतद्व्रतम्मम |
अभयम्सर्वभूतेभ्योददामिएतद्व्रतम्मम |
Summary: If any individual seeks refuge in me by uttering just once, ‘I am yours’ – then my solemn pledge is that I shall protect him from all types of beings (all kinds of dangers). And so, Rama directs Sugreeva to bring Vibhishana to His presence, and declares that indeed had Ravana himself come to Him seeking refuge, it would not have been refused.
So yes, as of 2019, I know what Rama will be labelled as by all those who want Rama Rajya. Rama Rajya is not about building towering temples – it is a concept of the mind and the heart, and it requires unflinching strength of character and leadership.
No one likes to be used, so I can’t understand why many people I know allow themselves to be willingly manipulated, sometimes by politicians, sometimes by millionaire gurus. So perhaps our resolution for the next decade should be to talk less and think more; to engage with facts, to put an effort to understand our own religion, and above all, to be respectful and kind when we speak and act.
© Sumana Khan 2020