THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE BENGALURU

RCS 153: Understanding Indian Society

CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT

Submitted to: Rev Dr D S Ben Das Submitted by: Abin A

Date: 24/07/2025 Class: BD II

Introduction

Citizenship is a pivotal element in the structure of any sovereign state, defining the
relationship between individuals and the nation they belong to, encapsulates the rights, duties,
and identity of citizens within a legal framework. Citizenship is a twofold concept which
comprises a legal right to the soil and a moral affiliation to it.1 In India, citizenship laws have
evolved through historical circumstances, shaped by colonial legacies and the post-
independence emphasis on democracy and secularism. The Citizenship Amendment Act
(CAA), enacted in 2019, marks a significant and controversial amendment to India’s
citizenship laws, prompting nationwide debate over its constitutional validity and social
impact.

The CAA amends the Citizenship Act of 1955 to grant Indian citizenship to specific
religious minorities like Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from three
neighbouring countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan), who entered India before
December 31, 2014. This selective inclusion excluding Muslims has stirred debates around the
principles of equality and secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The Act has also
been a subject of intense political debate and social discourse across the country.

1.Historical Background

The story of citizenship in twentieth-century India is really about a fresh perspective on

1
Lion Konig, Cultural citizenship in India: politics, power, and media (New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
2016), 3.
enacted in various contexts, how individuals and groups emerge as political players, and the
principles of political obligation and legitimacy. The twentieth century in India marks a
significant turning point in all these aspects. Some narratives of citizenship are unique, while
others tend to mimic existing ones. However, most accounts highlight the popular struggles
against political authority in various forms. In India, the shift from being subjects to becoming
citizens was the result of a long and unique fight for national self-determination, even if the
understanding of citizenship mirrored that found in many liberal-democratic constitutions from
the West. The concept of citizenship was developed alongside the idea of nationhood. Unlike
the struggles faced by the working classes and women for voting rights in Britain, or the civil
rights movement in the United States, many Indians didn’t have to fight specifically for
citizenship. They gained it with independence; breaking free from colonial rule meant trading
the burdensome status of an imperial subject for the empowering identity of a citizen in a
sovereign state. The notion of equality was both the foundation and the promise of this vision
of citizenship, and its realization through constitutionally recognized rights carried a profound
ethical weight stemming from the freedom movement against colonial oppression. 2

If we look closely, the inclusive aspects of Indian citizenship’s formal structure can be
traced back to the civic ideals that emerged during the freedom movement. Similarly, the
current debates surrounding citizenship also have their roots in the ideological clashes and
uneasy political compromises of that era. Citizenship isn’t something fixed or unchanging; it’s
a concept that constantly reflects historical challenges. The ongoing contestation is key to
understanding citizenship across its three main dimensions: as a legal status, a collection of
rights and entitlements, and a form of identity. The book illustrates that each of these
dimensions has both a pre-independence and a post-independence narrative. Although the
Constitution of 1950 aimed to create a clear break between these narratives, there are
significant continuities that connect them. In the broadest sense, this is a history filled with
ideas and debates about what it truly means to be an Indian citizen. 3

2. Objectives and Justification

2
Niraja Gopal Jayal, Citizenship and its Discontents: An Indian History, (Cambridge: Harvard university press,
2013), 3.
3
Niraja Gopal Jayal, Citizenship and its Discontents: An Indian History, (Cambridge: Harvard university press,
2013), 4.
 Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures equality before the law and equal
protection under the law, is more than just a procedural right that it’s the bedrock of the Indian
legal system. Article 14 specifically prohibits arbitrary classification, but it requires a two-fold
test to be met that there must be a clear distinction between groups and this distinction must
have a logical connection to the law’s objective.4

Supporters of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) argue that persecuted minorities
from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan represent a legitimate classification. However,
there are some arguments that, Why limit the focus to just these three countries while leaving
out others like Sri Lanka (Tamil Hindus) or Myanmar (Rohingya Muslims)? Why is the
emphasis solely on religious persecution, ignoring ethnic or political persecution? Why are
persecuted Muslim minorities (like Ahmadiyyas, Hazaras, and Shias) left out of the
conversation? In this context, the CAA fails both parts of the test: its classification is arbitrary,
and its objective lacks constitutional validity, as it injects religious identity into a secular legal
framework. Secularism is not merely as a lofty ideal but as a fundamental principle of Indian
constitutionalism which intricately woven into the Preamble, Articles 25–28, and the Basic
Structure of Doctrine. By determining eligible refugees based on their religion, the CAA
effectively creates a state-sanctioned religious classification, which undermines the essence of
secularism. This classification also subtly suggests that Muslims are less worthy of
compassion, casting them as outsiders.

From this perspective, CAA is unconstitutional in its essence, even if it has been passed
through the proper parliamentary procedures. It infringes upon both equality and secularism,
which are vital components of the constitutional framework. The transformative vision of the
Constitution argues that citizenship goes beyond just a legal label that it’s the bedrock of
individual dignity and active participation in society. Citizenship shapes one’s access to public
services, ability to vote, sense of security, social respect and political voice. The NRC-CAA
connection, particularly in Assam, has left millions in a position where they must prove their
citizenship, often lacking reliable documents. This is a caution that this situation turns the
Constitutional promise of dignity into a bureaucratic nightmare.

When citizenship hinges on religious identity or lineage proof, it undermines the

4
Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (HarperCollins India, 2020),
35.
Constitution. The strongest point is that laws like the CAA represent a regressive constitutional
moment which a time when the state uses legality to erode morality. It highlights the danger of
legal formalism, where discriminatory laws are justified simply because they’ve gone through
parliamentary procedures. Even though the CAA was passed by a legislative majority, it
contradicts the spirit of the Constitution. So, a transformative constitution should be interpreted
dynamically, adapting to safeguard marginalized communities rather than pushing them aside.
This is particularly significant in India, where democracy is characterized by its multicultural,
multireligious, and multilingual nature. A citizenship law based on religion disrupts this
delicate balance, risking persecution, statelessness, and alienation. 5

3. Criticism and Misconceptions

A plain reading of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 47 is sufficient to make out
for anyone with a little common sense that there is nothing in this act to cause alarm for
Muslims, as it is an enabling act and not a disabling act. One of the major criticisms of the Act
of 2019 is that it does not even mention the term persecuted communities. It is a specious
argument, because the term persecution and persecuted figures prominently in the ‘Statement
of Objects and Reasons’ of the Act of 2019, and also in the 2015 amendments to the Passport
(Entry Into India) Rules, 1950, 48 and Foreigners’ Order, 1948-49, to both of which the Act of
2019 refers directly in the proviso to S.2 of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. While the
above is casus belli for the Islamists, ummat and millat, the pain of the secularists is purely
from the point of view of electoral considerations. The BJP had got 37.76% votes in the 2019
General Elections by itself with 22.9 crore votes and over 45% vote for the NDA. This is higher
than Congress’s vote share in the 1952 Elections. This has led to two apprehensions. First, if
the secular parties cannot protect the fortress Medina, the Islamic vote would gravitate to a
more militant Islamic outfit, in the manner it shifted between 1937 and 1946. However, today,
there is no Britain to aid them, and no situation like one-third of the army being Muslim exists
today, as it existed in 1947. Second, the freshly added voters, particularly in Bengal and Assam,
have the potential of taking the BJP vote share beyond 40% and the NDA vote share close to
50%, making it virtually invincible for many years to come. 6

5
Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (India: HarperCollins,
2020), 72.
6
Sanjay Dixit, Unbreaking India: Decisions on Article 370 and the CAA, (Gurugram: Garuda Publications, 2020),
89.
 The evolution of citizenship in India has closely followed the rise of identity-based
politics, particularly since the 1980s. The transition from a secular, rights-focused view of
citizenship to one that is more ethnic and majoritarian is, the most concerning trend. The
Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) isn’t just a sudden shift; rather, it’s the result of a long-
standing process of ethno-religious categorization of citizenship that started with the Assam
movement and the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act of 1983. Therefore, the
CAA should be seen as part of this ongoing historical narrative, not as an outlier, but as a
reflection of the deeper tensions that exist within Indian democracy. 7

4. The CAA and National Register of Citizens (NRC) Confusion

While the CAA might seem humanitarian at first glance, its true consequences become
clear when it is linked with a nationwide NRC. In this situation, Muslims lacking proper
documentation could find themselves stateless, while non-Muslims would be shielded by the
CAA which leading to a two-tiered system of citizenship. This blend of inclusive language with
exclusive actions reflects as bordering from within, where the boundaries of the nation are not
just drawn at its borders, but are instead redefined within the population itself, based on identity,
suspicion, and the need for proof.8 The powerful vision of the Constitution is that citizenship
goes beyond just a legal label that it is the bedrock of personal dignity and active engagement
in society. Citizenship shapes one’s access to public services, right to vote, sense of security,
social respect and political voice. The connection between the NRC and CAA, particularly in
Assam, has left millions in a position where they must prove their citizenship, often lacking
reliable documentation which cautions that this situation transforms the Constitutional promise
of dignity into a bureaucratic ordeal. 9 When citizenship hinges on religious identity or lineage
proof, it undermines the inclusive spirit of democracy and betrays the transformative ideals of
the Constitution.

5. Internal Reactions

7
Niraja Gopal Jayal, Citizenship and Its Discontents: An Indian History (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
2013), 178.
8
Anupama Roy, Citizenship Regimes, Law, and Belonging: The CAA and the NRC (New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2022), 113.
9
Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (India: HarperCollins,
2020), 75.
 The Indian Independence Act, 1947, as approved by the British king on 18 July 1947
made clear provisions for splitting India into majority-Muslim and non-Muslim districts based
on the 1941 Census. It is, therefore, disingenuous to object about why non-Muslims of the
neighbouring Muslim majority countries are the target of this 2019 Act. Dr Ambedkar had
famously said in his book Pakistan and the Partition of India (1945) that Muslim politics is
like ‘gangster’s method of politics’, in which they make more unreasonable demands, use riots
as a tactic in the overall strategy while playing victim all the while. The present government
seems to have called this bluff. This must be bad news for Islamists as both Britain and the
secularists had played along with this brand of Jinnah’s politics, conceding almost everything.
Only Patel and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee stood between the Islamists and total surrender. Only
Gopal Patha of Calcutta and the Sikhs stood between the Islamists and the total annihilation of
non-Muslims in Pakistan.10

Approximately 15% of the Pakistani population in the West was Hindu and Sikh at the
time of Partition, which has been continuously declining ever since. Approximately 30%
population in the East was Hindu, comprising largely of Rajbongshi and Namashudra Dalits,
who had in a remarkable spell of delusion, followed their leader Jogendra Nath Mandal to
support the Muslim League in the 1946 provincial elections in Bengal. This was to be their
permanent undoing. The Bengali bhadralok had the resources to either migrate to India or to
buy peace in East Pakistan. The Dalits were not so lucky. After Partition, they bore the brunt
of the Islamic zeal. Jogendra Nath Mandal was a part of the Liaquat Cabinet but could not
prevent the ongoing Islamist onslaught on his brethren. He had to ultimately resign and run
away to Calcutta where he spent the rest of his life in anonymity and ignominy. Thus, the
Liaquat–Nehru Pact was under tatters, and it had become essential to make necessary changes
so that effective protection to the minorities of Pakistan and Bangladesh could be provided.
The Government of India also took care of the 75,000 Sikhs who had to relocate to India when
it was run over by the Taliban and made it impossible for minorities to exist. This, of course, is
in addition to the promises made by Mahatma Gandhi and various governments, that, Hindus
and other non-Muslim minorities had every right to relocate to India. From the point of logic,
the Muslims of India supported the Muslim League in its demand for Pakistan and then stayed
back in India. The Hindus of Pakistan chose an undivided India and then got stuck in a new

10
Sanjay Dixit, Unbreaking India: Decisions on Article 370 and the CAA, (Gurugram: Garuda Publications, 2020),
85.
nation that they had not chosen. While the CAA is a cause for alarm for the Islamists, ummat
and millat for their quest of theological supremacy, the pain of the secularists is different. It
stems purely from the point of view of electoral considerations. The induction of the Bengali
Hindu immigrants in Assam and Bengal can alter the electoral college somewhat in the short-
term and set a pattern for the long-term. In the 72 years since Independence, this appears to be
one great opportunity that has been taken by the ruling dispensation, unlike the many missed
opportunities of the past. No wonder, this flew in the face of a conscious strategy on part of the
Islamists to Islamise Bengal and Assam coupled with the nullification of Article 370.11

6. Understanding Citizenship as a Legal and Political Construct

Citizenship goes beyond just a legal label; it’s a complex identity that is shaped by
political struggles and social contexts. Citizenship regimes are influenced by how societies
manage inclusion and exclusion, the policies set by the state, border control practices, and the
politics of identity. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is a significant shift in India’s approach
to citizenship. This law moves away from a secular and territorial view of citizenship, leaning
instead towards one that emphasizes religious identity. This is a type of selective
humanitarianism, where the state shows compassion, but only for certain groups specifically,
non-Muslim minorities from three predominantly Muslim countries: Pakistan, Afghanistan,
and Bangladesh. 12 This selectivity is legally problematic, because it implies that Muslim
migrants, even if fleeing persecution, are ineligible for equal consideration, violating the
constitutional principle of equality before law under Article 14. Supporters of the CAA lean on
the idea of reasonable classification found in Article 14. This means the law can treat different
groups differently, if there’s a clear distinction and a logical connection to the law’s purpose.
However, classifying people based on religion doesn’t hold up constitutionally, particularly
when Muslim minorities in those same countries, like the Ahmadiyyas or Hazaras are excluded.
This exclusion isn’t just unfair; it also shows a religious bias that goes against India’s
commitment to secularism in its legal framework.13

11
Sanjay Dixit, Unbreaking India: Decisions on Article 370 and the CAA, (Gurugram: Garuda Publications, 2020),
186.

12
Anupama Roy, Citizenship Regimes, Law, and Belonging: The CAA and the NRC (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2022), 6, 34.
13
Anupama Roy, Citizenship Regimes, Law, and Belonging: The CAA and the NRC (New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2022), 42.
 The Indian Constitution is more than just a legal framework; it’s a transformative
document aimed at addressing historical injustices and fostering a more equal and inclusive
society. Article 14 (Equality), Article 15 (Non-discrimination), and Article 21 (Right to Life
and Dignity) is the foundation of the Constitution’s moral compass. He contends that laws like
the CAA undermine this vision by imposing discriminatory exclusions based on religion, which
the Constitution clearly forbids. 14

7. Implementation and Challenges

There is a crucial line between civil society and political society in postcolonial
democracies like India. Civil society is the realm of officially recognized citizens, mainly the
urban elite, who interact with the state through formal channels like courts, elections, and laws.
On the other hand, political society encompasses marginalized groups such as migrants, slum
dwellers, and minorities whose connection to the state is shaped by informal negotiations,
group identities, and populist movements. In this framework, citizenship goes beyond just legal
status; it’s something that’s negotiated. Many individuals exist as political subjects rather than
fully recognized legal citizens.15 The CAA–NRC–NPR framework exemplifies this theory in
action. It puts millions of people especially in border states like Assam and West Bengal,
through documentation checks, raising the risk of statelessness. Those lacking proper papers
must turn to the mechanisms of political society: seeking help from religious leaders, engaging
in vote-bank politics, and mobilizing their communities, rather than relying solely on legal
citizenship. In today’s democracies, we often see a surge in populist statecraft, where the
government claims to represent the people, but only defines who those people are in a way that
excludes many. The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) fits perfectly into this populist story:
the government asserts it’s there to protect persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, Jains,
and Christians from neighbouring Muslim-majority countries. However, by leaving Muslims
out of the Act’s protections, the state promotes a majoritarian view of the nation. This approach
reduces citizenship to a cultural identity, where religion becomes the key to loyalty and
belonging. Instead of fostering universal citizenship, we end up with a tiered system of
membership, where some communities are seen as more authentically Indian than others.

14
Gautam Bhatia, The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts (India: HarperCollins,
2020), 10.
15
Partha Chatterjee, The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 28.
 Citizenship isn’t just a static label; it’s a dynamic arena of ongoing political struggle.
Groups that exist outside the traditional power structures fight for their rights through
movements, protests, or even informal deals with state representatives. This was clearly
illustrated during the anti-CAA protests across India. From Shaheen Bagh to various university
campuses, the demonstrations were largely fuelled by those who felt threatened with exclusion,
including Muslims, Dalits, women, students, and others. These individuals, often labelled as
fringe, took back the Constitution and asserted their rightful place in society. In this context,
the CAA is the state’s attempt to redraw the lines between those who are governed and those
who are included, aiming to force political society into compliance. Moreover, borders aren’t
just physical; they can also be internal. The CAA–NRC process, while supposedly focused on
national security, effectively establishes new divisions within the population, creating areas of
suspicion and exclusion. 16 This results in the dehumanization of certain groups, casting citizens
as potential infiltrators unless they can prove otherwise that a process that echoes the chilling
patterns seen in other exclusionary regimes throughout global history.

Conclusion

The ongoing debate surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) really
highlights the significant divides within Indian democracy. It brings to light the tension
between constitutional values and majoritarian politics, universal human rights and selective
compassion, as well as inclusive citizenship versus exclusionary nationalism. As we have seen
through the insights, it embodies the clashing visions of what India should be.

On one side, critics argue that the CAA marks a troubling departure from the
transformative and secular principles laid out in the Constitution. The historical vulnerability
of citizenship in India, noting how identity-based exclusions have intensified over the years.
The constitutional breaches that the Act entails, particularly its discriminatory religious
classifications, which seem to violate Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The CAA–NRC
framework disproportionately impacts marginalized groups, turning citizenship into a
contentious and unstable status. From a human rights perspective, it powerfully underscores
how this law inflicts suffering and establishes new hierarchies of belonging, ultimately
undermining the egalitarian ideals of the Indian Constitution. Conversely, it serves as a form
of historical justice for religious minorities who were displaced during the Partition and have

16
Partha Chatterjee, The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2004), 72.
faced persecution in neighbouring Islamic countries. It appeals to civilizational values and
national security, suggesting that this selective approach to humanitarianism is not only morally
justified but also strategically essential. Even this defence brings up some serious concerns.
While the CAA might stem from a genuine desire to protect those who are persecuted, its
selective approach, especially in excluding Muslim minorities facing similar hardships,
highlights a troubling inconsistency in how humanitarian principles are applied. This also raises
red flags on constitutional and international fronts, as it seems to undermine the secular nature
of Indian law and the universal protections of human rights.

At its core, the CAA isn’t just a legal issue; it is a moral and political turning point for
the Indian Republic. It forces us to confront some fundamental questions: Who truly belongs?
Who gets to make that call? And what criteria are we using? The answers to these questions
will significantly influence the future of Indian democracy, whether it stays committed to its
pluralistic, secular, and inclusive roots or veers toward a narrow, identity-focused governance.
As we have seen through the debates and protests, the fight over citizenship transcends mere
paperwork or legality; it’s fundamentally about dignity, recognition, and the very essence of
the Indian Constitution.
Bibliography

Bhatia, Gautam. The Transformative Constitution: A Radical Biography in Nine Acts. India:
HarperCollins, 2020.

Chatterjee, Partha. The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most of the World.
New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

Dixit, Sanjay. Unbreaking India: Decisions on Article 370 and the CAA. Gurugram: Garuda
Publications, 2020.

Jayal, Niraja Gopal. Citizenship and Its Discontents: An Indian History. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 2013.

Konig, Lion. Cultural citizenship in India: politics, power, and media. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2016.

Roy, Anupama. Citizenship Regimes, Law, and Belonging: The CAA and the NRC. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 2022.