Battle for democracy and secularism is on

For the first time since Prime Minister Narendra Modi stormed into office in 2014 and began transforming India into a Hindu nation, a mass upsurge against the move is spreading across the country.

What precipitated matters was the ramming of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill through Parliament. The new law opens the way for non-Muslim migrants to acquire citizenship and for the preparation of National Register of Citizens (NRC) in every state, as was done in Assam.

Critics believe nationwide extension of the NRC exercise is uncalled for since no state experienced large-scale refugee influx as Assam did. The religion-specific provisions of the new law, they say, are directed against the Muslim minority.

The violent protests in Assam over the law testified to widespread discontent there against the NRC exercise.

The protests, which resulted in four deaths in police firings, forced Modi to cancel his summit with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Guwahati, the state capital. Home Minister Amit Shah, who piloted the measure, had to cancel planned visits to Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh as protests raged in the northeastern region.

Clearly the Modi administration had bitten off more than it could chew. It rushed a few thousand security personnel to the northeast from Jammu and Kashmir, where an estimated 700,000 soldiers have been enforcing a lockdown for more than four months.

Failing to block the Citizenship Amendment Bill in Parliament, political parties took the issue to the people. Many states witnessed protests against the law. Students’ organisations and civil society groups staged demonstrations.

West Bengal witnessed the most furious protests. Delhi witnessed the most police brutality.

Addressing a Save India rally in Delhi, Congress President Sonia Gandhi said it would destroy the soul of India. The Modi administration had no respect for Parliament and other constitutional institutions, she added.

In Kerala, traditional rivals Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Democratic Front and Congress-led United Democratic Front decided to organise a joint protest.

The law invited sharp criticism from abroad too. UN High Commission for Human Rights described it as “fundamentally discriminatory”. Genocide Watch founder Gregory Stanton, addressing US Congressional and government officials, said persecution of Muslims in Kashmir and Assam was the first step. He added ominously, “The next stage is extermination – that is what we call genocide.”

Modi received strong support from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the fountainhead of his Bharatiya Janata Party’s Hinduta ideology. Its chief, Mohan Bhagat, praised the government for taking a bold step.

Even so, Amit Shah thought it prudent to assuage the feelings of the tribesmen of the Northeast who fear non-tribes will swamp the region. After Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma and his Cabinet colleagues told him about their concerns, Shah said constructive discussions would be held after Christmas to find solutions to their problems.

The purpose of the NRC exercise is to identify and expel illegal immigrants. Since expulsion is not easy, those denied citizenship will remain in detention camps indefinitely.

Eight states have indicated they will not implement the law. Chief Ministers of Bengal (Trinamool Congress), Chhattisgarh. Madhya Pradesh and Punjab (all Congress), Kerala (CPI-M) and Maharashtra (Shiv Sena) made public statements to that effect.

Deputations that met Chief Ministers of Bihar (Janata Dal-United) and Odisha (Biju Janata Dal) said they were told the states would not implement the law, but there were no official statements. The Shiv Sena, the JD(U) and the BJD had backed the law in Parliament.

A question that arises in this context is whether state governments can refuse to implement a Central law. Legal experts agreed that nationality is a matter that falls exclusively in the realm of the Centre and that states are duty bound to implement a law enacted by Parliament.

That leads to another question: can the Centre enact a law that violates the principles of the Constitution? The validity of the law is a matter to be decided by the Supreme Court in exercise of its power to interpret the provisions of the Constitution.

Several political parties, lawyers and activists have filed petitions in the court challenging the validity of the law. If the court, in its wisdom, rules in favour of the Centre, another question will arise: can a government enforce a law in the teeth of massive opposition from the people?

What is on is not a mere legal battle. It is a political battle to safeguard democracy and secularism.