Connect with us

HW Community

Video: HP Govt’s Alleged Illegal Demolition of Sheds Leaves Over 70 Cattle Shelter-less Ahead of Winters

Published

on

BBNDA Waste Treatment Plant Petition

Solan-Four families living in Kenduwal in Baddi, Solan district, for over past 35 years and are dependent on selling milk, received a big jolt when some government officials along with police force with armed jawans allegedly trespassed and demolished all cattle-sheds on October 30, 2019. These families own over 70 cattle including 40 cows.

The families told Himachal Watcher (HW) that despite their repeated requests, they were not shown any permission or orders regarding the said tress passing and demolition. The officials with the police force just came with a JCB machine and demolished the cow-sheds. Now, all the cattle are spending cold nights under the open sky, which also jeopardise their lives and health, especially newborns, thus, the business on which these families depend on for their livelihood.

It’s shocking that under the rule of Bharatiya Janata Party, which has been using cows as an agenda for elections at both State and Centre, in reality, showed such insensitivity towards these animals in this case.

Considering the petition filed in relation to the same in the State High Court, it appears that the reason behind this action has more to do with grudges of the BBNDA with these families than law and order. These families – living in Kenduwal for over last 35 years- have become a thorn in the side of BBNDA, District Administration, and the State Government right after they reached the court with a petition.

In the petition, it was exposed that BBNDA had proposed an Rs.9.7 crore Integrated Solid Waste Management facility in Kenduwal in 2012 and obtained clearance for the same in 2015. Entire garbage from Baddi and area under BBNDA was to be treated in this plant.

However, the plant never came up, and instead, the piece of land was turned into a huge open dumping yard.

 

It should be noted that According to the 2011 Census, the total pollutions of the Baddi MC and BBNDA area were 29911 and 29293 respectively while the total amount of waste generated per day was 25.50 tons and 20.30 tons respectively. The number of migrant labourers or workers from other states was not included in this Census. The populations in both areas have increased by 2018, which implies growth in a waste generation too.

To make it worse, BBNDA didn’t even follow guidelines under the environmental laws. The dumping yard was created on the riverbed of Sira River.

Another disaster was that BBNDA didn’t even follow the guideline related to maintaining a distance of at least 200 meters from human habitat. For years, tons of waste was dumped on this site and eventually, it made the lives of these families a living hell – posing serious health hazards.

The situation became so ugly that these families had to seek legal help and approach the State High Court. The families filed a petition seeking relief.

As per the proceedings, the BBNDA and District Administration could not justify in the court why a dumping yard was created on a land that was sanctioned for building a treatment plant. It made this act as unlawful and this dumping yard illegal. These authorities had to face the the wrath of the court. Eventually, the court directed the authorities to stop dumping waste at Kenduwal and dispose of it in accordance with the environmental laws. The court also directed that the affected families, which were living in inhumn conditions, are relocated within a stipulated period of eight weeks.

Petitioner’s request for relocation and halting of the illegal dumping was allowed by the Hon’ble Court vide its Orders dated 04.10.2018, 21.05.2019 and 4.9.2019.

The order passed on 04.10.2018, the Hon’ble Court had directed,

“In the interregnum, we direct that no garbage shall be dumped into the land owned by the present petitioner or dumped at any other site, save and except, in accordance with the law.”

In an order passed on 21.05.2019, the Hon’ble Court had directed,

“…the request made by the petitioner in CMP No.4422 of 2019 regarding the relocation of his house at a distance from garbage dump be also considered and specific response be given in the status report”

Again, in another order passed on 4.9.2019, the court had directed,

“It is stated by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General that the petitioner may be relocated and reported to this Court within two weeks. Post after two weeks.”

The petitioner said that the BBNDA and District Administration had no regard towards or fear of the court orders. They still continue to dump waste at the same site and did not relocate the family.

Instead, these families, which belong to Gujjar community (recognised as Scheduled Tribes), begun to face the wrath of the government system following it. The families alleged that they were even threatened in order to dissuade them from reaching the court or taking any legal step.

The families on October 30, 2019, had to approach the court again with a contempt petition.

As per the contempt petition, the BBNDA did not even obtain permission to establish an SWT plant from the Pollution Control Board, which is a mandatory condition under Section 19 (3) of the 2016 Rules. There is also a flagrant violation of Section 24 and 25 of Water Act 1974, and Air Act 1981, the petition says.

As per the petition, none of the 36 Conditions mentioned in the Environment Clearance letter are fulfilled by BBNDA.

On October 30, 2019, when the family again approached the court complaining that its orders were not followed by authorities, their cowsheds were demolished within a few hours without showing any order, the petitioner alleged.

As per the advocate for the petitioner, no authority can issue orders of demolition on that property because the case is pending in the High Court as well as in the lower court. To issue any such order, these authorities will have to obtain permission from the court. No such permission was taken from the court, he said. This means that the entire act was a case of tress passing and illegally conducting demolition.

The families also told HW that a letter seeking relocation as per the court orders was written to the DC too.

The contempt petition clearly mentions,

“Representation dated 10th June 2019 was made to District Commissioner, Solan, Himachal Pradesh and a copy was also sent to competent Sub Divisional Magistrate for Seeking adequate compensation and rehabilitation under “The Right to Fair. Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013”, for relocation in accordance with law…”

When HW talked to the DC, Solan, KC Chaman, he said that he is not able to recall receiving any such request.

About the demolition, he said the matter was not in his knowledge.

He further told HW that the land belongs to the government and these families have encroached upon it. Keeping aside the orders of the HC, the DC said these families are not entitled to get any land under any scheme or policy.

However, the petitioner’s advocate argued that once the court has passed orders of the relocation of these families, it doesn’t matter whether they were entitled under any scheme or policy or not. The authorities are ought to obey the order and relocate them.

“The entire area, which is about 41 bighas, falls within the planning area. It’s government land that is allotted to BBNDA for construction of waste treatment plant. Therefore, fencing and the process of clearing the land are being carried out by the BBNDA authority,”

the DC said.

“The BBNDA does not need my permission to issue such orders and it can do so at its own discretion. The Town and Country Planning Department might have issued such orders,”

the DC said when he was apprised of the allegations of the families that they were given no notice and shown any orders.

Other than that, the family has written to the National Commission for Scheduled Tribe seeking justice. Similarly, applications were given to the Superintendent of Police, Solan, in 2018 complaining that BBNDA was violating court orders. The SDM, Nalagarh, was also requested to intervene. For years now, they are running from post to pillar. However, no relief came from anywhere. 

HW Community

“When Our Country is Burning in Silent Phase”

Published

on

By

Poem on Citizen Amendment Act by Bharat Bhushan Sharma shimla f

2020 is upon in a haste
When our country is
Burning in silent phase
Our doors are closed on
A religion, few nations chosen
And you and I stand without treason

Yes, on the road a few
At work some unable to chew
This unconstitutional view
Our country’s regime
Has thought and holds due
Basing someone’s identity
On his attire
How shrewd will we be
Dear sire

You have the golden number
But fret the day
When we stand a count
Not long will you have a sigh
You’ll be heading to the door neigh
Power is yours
But not your virtue
In the helm you are
Take control but sanely
And uplift our glorious country

Your deeds have put us in upheaval
Steady the ship ‘coz
We’r not going to be for long in slumber
We choose not to see
But our eyes don’t wear a veil
If you choose to fail
Us again in this run
We have certain chutzpah
And it’s not going to be fun

Continue Reading

HW Community

CAA and NRC – A Dissent on Grounds of Equality and Fraternity

Published

on

CAA and NRC Legal Interpretation by Advocate Deven Khanna 2

Shimla- In the past few days, there has been unrest in the country over two actions of the parliament i.e firstly, due to introduction of a law called Citizen Amendment Act (CAA), which deals with granting of citizenship to refugees, and secondly, due to the declaration that India will soon have a register of citizens (NRC) where all citizens will have to prove their citizenship with documentary evidence.

About 60 petitions already stand filed in the Supreme Court challenging the (CAA) law. This is the first time in the history of the nation that religion has been considered as a determining factor for grant of privileges in a state enactment. The concern of the people is whether there exists a threat to fundamental values of “fraternity”, “equality”, and “secularism” upon which this nation is built upon. The question is “Whether Something which is not allowed to be done directly is being done indirectly i.e exclusion on the basis of religion in the grant of citizenship”.

Another decision of the Government, the “NRC (National Register of Citizen)” is being sought to be imposed nationwide. This exercise has costed public funds from between 1200 Cr to 1600 Cr in Assam already. It has also led to 40 lakh people being declared stateless by the Government in the first instance, just in Assam. This exercise was, however, erroneously done, and on re-checking, the Courts found that the number was actually 19 lakh. There was an error of 20 lakh “Human Beings”, who stood declared stateless.

The number of deportation affected by this entire exercise of NRC in Assam has been found to be negligible. This begs the question, what is the need for conducting such an expensive and unreliable process and whether the present decisions of  parliament are even necessary. Most importantly, if Acts themselves at all are permissible from the perspective of constitutionality, humanity and ethical standards.

Citizen Amendment Act (CAA)

The Law as it Was Before The Amendment:

The law before the amendment essentially said:

If you are in India and you are a non-citizen, without relevant papers, then you are an “illegal immigrant” and, in that case, you have no right be in the country and you are liable to be subjected to be detained and ultimately deported.

Exception to the above rule was;

If one could show that he was a person who was in India, and had come to India due to legitimate fear of being persecuted on any ground in the home country, then he would be eligible for a long term visa. The idea was that if someone is a refugee fearing persecution, then he can stay in India on long term visa basis and the case would be evaluated on ‘case by case basis’.

Notably and rightly so, “religion” had no role to play in the unamended law whatsoever.

The New Law

The 2019 amendment changes the above provision/ position. It creates classes of people who would be entitled to immunity. These classes have been made on the bases of “Religion and Nationality”.

The amendment draws the distinction between persecuted people who have been living in the country from, on or before, December 31, 2014. It puts them into two categories and says that; one category who are of a particular religion and nationality would be entitled to benefit in “grant of Indian citizenship” and other sets of people who belong to certain “Religion and Nationality”, would be ineligible for immunity in “grant of citizenship”.

The Act also reduces the requirement of residence in India for citizenship by naturalisation from 11 years to five years for these particular communities.

Classes of People Who Stand Excluded by Virtue of Section 2 (B) of CAA 2019, are:

1. On the basis of ReligionAnyone who is not a Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. The exclusion of Muslims, Atheists or any other religion is apparent.

2. On the basis of Nationality – a classification based on country, by restricting the benefit of acquiring citizenship through naturalisation to minority immigrants only from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

In other words, it says that for certain classes of people there is no immunity from being deemed illegal immigrants, and these classes of people can be denied citizenship and coupled with NRC they can even be put in detention centres or deported to their home country.

Due to such grave consequences, a closer examination of this classification made by the State warrants scrupulous scrutiny.

Violation of Equality

In the new law, the distinction is drawn between “persecuted people living within India” as refugees from before 2014. Amongst these persecuted people, one set is given benefit by the state and the other set is not. The distinction between persecuted people has been drawn just on the basis of religion and nationality. In a secular country, religion cannot become the basis of granting or denying privileges to any person, be it citizen or a non-citizen. This idea goes against the mandate of “Fraternity”, “Equality” and “ Secularism” hence violates the basic structure along with various other constitutional provisions.

It is a settled position/principle of law that whenever there is an exclusion on the basis of classification then;

a. There must be a yardstick to differentiate between those included in and excluded from the group, and
b. That yardstick must itself be reasonable.

Where a legislation discriminates on the basis of an “intrinsic and core trait” of an individual, which in the present case is religion, it violates the “Right to Equal Protection from Laws”. This protection is available to non-citizens settled in India also. Classification based on religion does not form a reasonable classification based on an intelligible differentia.

Therefore, the yardstick is reasonable only if it is not based on an “intrinsic and core trait” of an individual such as religion or sex, this is a constitutional limitation placed on the power of the State.

The determining principle for granting citizenship can never be religion, the only relevant factor was ‘persecution’, as it was in the unamended law.

Citizenship can be granted on the grounds of birth, descent, persecution, and naturalisation alone. Bringing religion as a criterion for granting citizenship cuts through the guarantees of Fraternity, Equality, and Secularism which form the basic structure of our constitution.

For example, if you have 10 people living in India as refugees from the past 40 years, all of them have been persecuted. Now you want to save them; you can choose to save all of them or none. However, if you chose to save few and not save the others, then those few who are excluded cannot be excluded purely on grounds of their religion, there has to be some other basis of making this choice. In the old law, it was just persecution. A secular state is bound by principles of secularism and cannot make decisions based on the identity of religion.

It is a capricious and unconstitutional law supported by impermissible sense of purpose. Few important legal positions are;

1. It is incorrect to say that the Act only applies to non-citizens and that Indians need not worry about it. Even though CAA  does not at present impact Indian citizens, it impacts human beings who are living in India, who are being treated unequally and the State is acting against the fundamental fabrics of our constitution in handing out such treatment.

If you are a Hindu who came from Pakistan 50 years ago, you get immunity from being an illegal immigrant but if you are a similarly situated Ahamadia or Sufi or Atheist from Pakistan/ Afghanistan/Bangladesh, you don’t get immunity. Such a law cannot be passed by a secular nation.

2. It is incorrect to say that law is inclusive and seeks to benefit immigrants. On the contrary, the irrationality of exclusion is apparent from the fact that now, if a person is suffering from the wrong type of persecution, he won’t get immunity. Persecution in itself is not enough as it earlier was when the old law was in force. Now a determination of citizenship grant is made dependent upon a fact-finding probe into an individual’s religious beliefs.

A human being who has been persecuted have been divided unreasonably, arbitrarily into impermissible categories (religion), hence benefit is being denied in violation of Article 14.

3. The amendment arbitrarily pics up the three nations without any rationale. If you are a persecuted person living in India and you belong to the privileged group of countries, only then you get this immunity and if you don’t belong to these three countries, then you don’t get this immunity. These three countries are not the only neighbouring countries where people have been subjected to violence and religious persecution, for example, Tamils And Rohingyas, or Buddhists from Tibet. There is a ‘pick and choose’ method without having any determining basis or underlying rationale in selecting these three countries. Religious persecution has happened in other countries around us and there are people settled in India, from other countries, who are being excluded from this benefit. This action of exclusion on the basis of nationality is manifestly arbitrary as there is no basis for choosing these three particular countries.

4. The inclusion of a few religions and nationalities is a welfare measure, but the problem is that persons who are equally entitled to get this immunity are being denied of this protection. This offends the equality principle and is discriminatory.

5. It is an incorrect argument to say that Policy matter cannot be tested upon the constitution and cannot be struck down on being arbitrary. The most fundamental principle of equality is that every person in India is entitled to equal protection of laws. Equal protection of law allows the govt to draw certain classifications, which must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and with a defined purpose.

If the purpose of this act is to save people from persecution then it cannot draw these distinctions. And if the purpose of the act is to save only certain religions from persecution, then the purpose itself becomes discriminatory, being only on grounds of religion. On this ground alone, the policy can be struck down.

FRATERNITY

Is a Law/Policy Undermining Fraternity Constitutionally Permissible?

A law can be struck down if it violates the basic structure of the constitution. One of the basic features of the Constitution along with “Equality” is “Fraternity” which is mentioned in its preamble. Fraternity is a prime value from where other principles like secularism take root. It is the first time in the history of the country that a law has been passed where the “determining principle” of classification of human beings is on the basis of their “religion” alone. This has naturally caused unrest in the country, but among the protests, the voices of “unity of religions” and “brotherhood” are being raised. The voices counter a “Law” which on the face of it, is being perceived to be against the unity of the nation and drawn on communal grounds. As mentioned earlier, law cannot solely be based on religion, as that would violate the equality principle and Article 14. In addition, this law also offends the principle of fraternity.

In a country such as India, with several disruptive forces, such as religion, caste and language, the idea of fraternity is imperative for ensuring “unity of the nation”, through a shared feeling of a common brotherhood.

According to various decisions of the courts this value has been understood to be of prime importance, though not many precedents exist. None the less, there are few which have given the meaning of this principle and have applied it for circumventing State’s power.

Looking at the issue raised in the present case, this principle can be expounded by the Apex court, as the heart of this problem lies in the values of “fraternity and brotherhood” amongst human beings.

According to the jurisprudential understanding, a fraternal bond is one that does not relate to the shared use of goods but rather a shared feeling that is intrinsic to the existence and functioning of the agents themselves. Any law which undermines or poses a threat to fraternity should outrightly be struck down as the other two great values of “liberty and equality” become illusory in the absence of the fundamental value of fraternity.

Drawing the relation between these three fundamental values, it is said that;

a) Liberty without fraternity, for instance, would bestow upon individuals unlimited powers to pursue individual aspirations, without regard to community sentiments and considerations.
b) Equality without fraternity is characterised as a ‘barbaric’ equality, as individuals would have no consideration for the standing of other disadvantaged persons.

In light of this, it becomes imperative to ask that;

a)  How have the courts interpreted the rights granted on the basis of fraternity?
b) Can a law be struck down as it offends the “guaranteed commitment to fraternity” in our Constitution?
c) Have the Courts directed the State to frame policies keeping these principles and constitutional limitations in mind?

The answers to the above questions can be found in the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A Couple of important ones are discussed below;

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, amongst several conclusions the Court arrived at, it declared that the principle of secularism was an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution. In arriving at that conclusion, the Court employed the principle of fraternity in a variety of contexts to assert that the idea of fraternity is a precursor to the attainment of secularism. The Court explained that the inclusion of secular ideals in constitutional provisions was not a product of mere chance but was consciously deliberated upon by the framers in response to the religious foundations of Pakistan. In substantiating this claim, the Court stated that India was historically a country where religious tolerance and a culture of fraternity existed, and the inclusion of secular provisions was accordingly a natural one.

The Court also established that “secularism is the bastion to build fraternity”, and therefore asserted that secular practice and thinking between diverse religious groups, would aid in the fraternal relations between those communities. The outcome of such religious tolerance would have a double impact on fraternity: it would ensure both the unity of the nation through peaceful interaction and the dignity of each citizen.

The Court held that the Constitution strives towards the promotion of secular ideals that would ensure fraternal relations which is the ultimate goal of the framers.

In the Nandini Sundar Case the Courts employed the idea of fraternity in three distinct fashions:
a. As a buffer to unchecked state power;
b. As a mechanism to promote more inclusive policy by the State and finally
c. To reinforce the Centre’s responsibility of upholding human rights in a federal structure.

The governmental policies that disempower humans on the basis of religion are against the constitutional vision. The constitution mandates that power must vest in the State for the welfare of all and not few. The constitutional vision of welfare must be achieved, according to the promotion of fraternity.

The judges in Nandani Sunder case further added that when state power is not exercised in a responsible manner, then there is an inevitable breach of Articles 14 and 21. In using fraternity in such a manner, the Court has elevated the idea of fraternity to a constitutional principle and not merely a noble declaration. In drawing a clear link between unchecked state power and Articles 14 and 21, the Court has created a nexus between the threat to fraternity and a consequent breach of fundamental rights.

The Court also employed the principle of fraternity to judicially review the policy of the State, it stated that it was the responsibility of the Government to ensure the security and integrity of the nation by means which were within the four corners of the Constitution.

The Court in the issue at hand can certainly adjudicate on the basis of the principles mentioned in the above two cases and further expound it. The Courts have the duty to preserve constitutional morality which here is an idea of a “unified nation”, where a culture of fraternity flourishes. Hence any policy of the Government which gives rise to “disaffection and dissatisfaction” from its citizens and is a threat to the unity and secular ethos is liable to be struck down on this ground alone.

NRC National Register of Citizens

Assam is a border state and is suffering from the problem of immigration. In the 70s and 80s, the immigration problem led to a strong movement in Assam, which ended with “Assam Accord”. The part of the agreement between Assam and Indian union was the preparation of NRC, which essentially was an exercise of identifying “citizen of India in Assam” and rest who were “non-citizens”.

What we have seen in the last five years is that this NRC process has led to widespread exclusion and disenfranchisement. This is because the NRC procedure relies on documents, the documentary evidence showing that you are a citizen of India.

In a country like India with widespread illiteracy and poverty, this is a very difficult task. The most vulnerable people will be up for exploitation and harassment.
In Assam, the experience shows that 19 lakh people have been left stranded as ‘stateless non-citizens,’ as they have no documents. Amount of more than 1200 crores have been spent on this exercise with negligible deportation. More worrisome is the fact that 20 lakh people in Assam were found to be wrongly excluded by the Supreme Court in this exercise.

Can NRC go National as the Home Minister Has Suggested?

Data collected till now highlights three major issues which have come in the implementation of NRC in Assam, these are;

1. The most marginalised suffer the most and
2. The women suffer more than men due to insufficient documentation
3. A negligible amount of people are actually deported, and the law does not even serve its purpose efficiently even after consuming lots of time and public money.

Hence, if data shows that these two oppressed groups are the most affected by such an exercise and there has been no good benefit achieved, then implementing the same in the rest of the country is totally illogical.

If you combine CAA and NRC, what you get is that if you are a non-Muslim, who has been left out of NRC, then you still have a possible path of citizenship from CAA. A class of people gets automatic immunity based on religion and nationality. If you are a Muslim, atheist, etc., you are completely ruled out even if you belong to these countries. Ultimately, you are subjected to deportation, or you are put in detention camps. It’s relevant to point out here that the condition of detention camps is terrible and inhumane and is a separate issue in itself.

Conclusion

CAA read alone is discriminatory as it discriminates between persecuted people and divides them in an impermissible category on arbitrary grounds.

The amendment to citizenship Act has brought about disaffection, dissatisfaction and fear in a class of people and has caused unrest in the country. There is internet shutdown (which amounts to the curtailment of the right to speech and expression) in various parts of the country and Section 144 stands imposed in few states. We have an exercise like NRC which wrongly excluded 20 lakh, people, from being a citizen. Now, this is being proposed for the whole country, in the coming days. Worryingly, this might lead to the biggest statelessness crisis of the world causing immense human suffering.

A class is being discriminated on the basis of religion, by state action. The law is arbitrarily neglecting certain communities which is against the Fraternal and Secular values of our country.

The role of the courts as the bastion of fundamental values of the nation is about to be tested. In such times, our commitment to “fundamental duty” and the true values of our country i.e brotherhood and unity and non-violent protests are also under test.

 

Continue Reading

HW Community

Voices Rising in Himachal Against Citizenship Act, NRC Amid Nationwide Protest

Published

on

By

Protest against Citizenship Act in Himachal Pradesh

Shimla-The resistance to Bharatiya Janata Party-led Indian Government’s controversial Citizenship Act, 2019, continues to grow as more and more people pour in on roads to join protests. Today violent protests were reported in Lucknow in which several vehicles were set ablaze and stones were pelted on the police. One protester was said to have died during the clash with police. Police is also facing hard-time in controlling the situation as protests continue to grow larger.

The politics is at its cheapest with the sabotage of peaceful protests through anti-social elements and BJP’s IT Cell trolling anyone who does not support CAA. Police forces are also bearing the brunt of this contentious legislation with reports of injuries to policemen during clashes with protesters.

Protesting voices are also rising in Himachal Pradesh with students of Himachal Pradesh University and some other organizations holding protests in Shimla.

On December 17, the Himachal Pradesh unit of All India Lawyers Union (AILU) had expressed its solidarity with the students of Jamia-Millia-Islamia, JNU, Delhi University, Aligarh Muslim University and all other educational institutes protesting against the CAA and NRC. AILU said it is the right of the students to protest against this amendment which is contrary to the secular structure of India and the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.

Today, students affiliated to Student Federation of India burned an effigy of the Home Minister, Amit Shah, at the Summerhill Chowk as a protest against the CAA and NRC. The students also condemned barbaric police action against students of Jamia Millia Islamia Central University. The students said the new Act is outrightly an attack on the Indian constitution’s secular structure. The Act contradicts Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, they argued.

Students asked as to why only persecution wasn’t made a criterion for granting citizenship instead of favouring some religions except for one.

Reportedly, cases were filed against several students over this protest.

The nation has begun to burn in the communal fire sparked by this decision of the Centre Government, the students said.

Akhil Bharatiya Janvadi Mahila Samiti also staged a protest against CAA across the State on December 19. In Shimla, a protest was staged by the Samiti in front of the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla.

The Samiti alleged that this Act was introduced in a time when unemployment is at its peak, the nation’s economy is in the state of coma, and the rate of crime against women is growing consistently. The Samiti argued that education has become more expensive, thus, unaffordable for the poor. At the same time, the government is making cuts in the education budget and inflation is burdening the plebeian, it said.

The Samiti said the Central government deliberately introduced this Act to distract the media and the public from real issues.

This government is dividing the nation on the basis of religion, region, and cast.

The Samiti demanded the withdrawal of the legislation at the earliest.

In the evening today, CPI(M) along with Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, Muslim Sudhar Samiti, and some other groups held a separate protest outside the DC Office, Shimla.

CPI(M) said that the Modi-led Centre government is implementing agendas of RSS and setting the nation ablaze in communal fire, and the CAA clearly confirms it.

Under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, every citizen has equal rights irrespective of their religion or caste, the State Secretary, CPI(M), Dr Onkar Shad said.

Families, especially economically weaker sections of minority and landless, would suffer most due to this discriminatory decision of the government to exclude one religion in the legislation, he said.

North-Eastern states will be affected adversely due to this CAA and NRC, he said.

He further said that as public is coming out on streets to protest against this discriminatory act, the government is resorting to use of police force to suppress their voices. The brutality of Delhi police in Jamia Millia Islamia case confirms that this government is inclined towards Fascist and dictatorial ideologies instead of upholding democratic values and respect the Indian Constitution, he further added.

He made a call to come out in protest against CAA and NCR in large numbers to give a befitted reply to the Centre Government.

Amid widespread protests in India against the Act, hundreds of protestors were detained by the police. Fearing more public protests, the government has gone on to impose Section 144 in Bengaluru, Uttar Pradesh and parts of Delhi to suppress resistance. Mobile services were suspended in some parts of Delhi as protesters marched towards the Red Fort.

However, protestors did not stop marching despite the enforcement of Section 144. A large number of educational institutes have now joined the protest across the nation.

A massive protest was reported from Bengaluru’s Town Hall despite the imposition of Section 144. In Mangaluru city, several policemen are said to have sustained injuries and two civilians were in ICU due to violent clashes.

Intellectuals and legal experts are of the opinion that this fire was ignited by the BJP Government’s paranoia to make India a Hindu Rastra by amending the Citizenship Act, 1955, which required an applicant to have resided in India for 11 years to gain citizenship.

There is a strong opinion that the government could have avoided exclusion on the basis of religion and damaging secular principals enshrined in the Constitution.

As per this legislation all persecuted Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Christians who arrived in India before December 31, 2014, from Bangladesh, Pakistan, or Afghanistan, would be given citizenship even if they do not possess any documents. However, this list does not include persecuted Muslims.

Another debate arising is that instead of mentioning religion as a criterion for granting citizenship, the government could have mentioned “immigrant religious minorities”.

Amid all chaos, the most relevant question is whether there was an emergency due to which India needed this new Act and NRC? The NRC in Assam took a decade and Rs 1,200 crore before it was completed. In order to implement this process across the nation, it would not only consume an insane amount of money but a large number of government employees and machinery too.

Continue Reading

Trending