HomeLatest NewsSena & todays opponents of NRC, had in 2004 facilitated its passage

Sena & todays opponents of NRC, had in 2004 facilitated its passage

Mumbai: Many hate History as a subject, more so in remembering the past. But, History has an uncanny and often mischievous tendency of pulling out skeletons from ones closet, when one desperately tries to hide them. The Shiv Sena, the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC), Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and others who today are opposing the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC), who while in power in 2003-2004 had not only supported it, but also ensured passage of the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2003 in the Parliament then, which also had paved the way for NRC.

What is worse that the provisions of the 2003-2004 law, that the opponents are opposing now, includes granting citizenship rights to people from countries like – Pakistan and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). It may be recalled that one of the demands that the opponents of the CAA was why not Muslims from Pakistan and Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka as well.

Much to their embarrassment, history reveals, that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had on December  10, 2003 had already framed the Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Card (NIC) Rules in 2003 itself and came into effect from the date they were published in the Gazette. 

What is even worse is that the 2003-2004 amendment bill was passed during senior Sena leader Manohar Joshi’s tenure as the Lok Sabha Speaker then.

In fact Sena had three minister’s in Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s ministry which included – Manohar Joshi (Heavy Industries), Anant Geete (Power) and Suresh Prabhu (Chemicals and Fertilizers. Of them Manohar Joshi went on to become the Lok Sabha Speaker following the untimely accidental death of sitting Lok Sabha Speaker G M C Balayogi (Telugu Desam Party) in 2002. Suresh Prabhu has since then switched allegiance to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). This was the time when late Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray whole-heartedly backed the Vajpayee government.

The Vajpayee ministry of 1999-2004 also included the likes of – Mamata Banerjee (TMC – Railways), Nitish Kumar, George Fernandes, Sharad Yadav (all JD-U), Murasoli Maran and T R Balu (DMK) and Naveen Patnaik (Biju Janata Dal – BJD). Today, besides the Sena, TMC and DMK are opposing the very same law they once had helped pass it 16 years ago. Mamata Banerjee had even implored the Centre to do something about the influx of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants.

The 2004 amendment bill which was introduced in the Lok Sabha by then Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, L K Advani on May 7, 2003, the law was assented by the President of India on January 7 and published in the Gazette on January 8, and came into effect from December 3, 2004 as Act 6 of 2004.

The 2003 amendment act sought to grant Dual Citizenship to Indian’s who for years have lived in certain countries. These countries included – United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), Canada, Australia, New Zeland, South Africa, Singapore and Ireland.

Most importantly the list also includes – Pakistan, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), erstwhile Federation of Rhodesia and Nayasaland (1953-1963), parts now merged into Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe; Ghana, erstwhile Federation of Malaya (1948-1963), now part of Malaysia; Singapore and Republic of Ireland.

This list of 16 countries forms the 4th Schedule which was inserted after the 3rd Schedule of the principal act, that is – The Citizenship Act of 1955.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019 similarly grants citizenship rights to persecuted minority communities of Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Christians and Buddhists from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Just as the 2004 amendment act

The issue here is not about the Dual Citizenship, it is what is being conveniently overlooked or many appear to have simply forgotten what they did 16 years ago in the Parliament.

It is the new Article 14A that was inserted in 2004 in the principal act of 1955, has stringent provisions of issuing National Identity Cards (NIC), maintenance of National Register of Indian Citizens (NRC). The NPR was supposed to be maintained by the Director of Census in India. The Directorate of Census too had issued notification on various criteria for acquiring Indian citizenship.

The State of Objects and Reasons for the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2003 – besides achieving the objective of granting citizenship to people from certain countries, it had three specific stringent provisions.  Those included – (i) make acquisition of Indian citizenship by registration and naturalization more stringent, (ii) prevent illegal migrants from becoming eligible for Indian citizenship and (v) provide for the Compulsory Registration and issue of a National Identity Card (NIC) to all citizens of India.

When asked for his views on the raging anti-CAA, anti-NRC agitation, Shiv Sena president and Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray remarked that there was no need to fear about the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), but asserted that his government will not allow the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC) to be implemented as it would “impact people of all religions”.

The Sena president in an interview to party mouthpiece “Saamana” had said “I can confidently say the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) is not meant to throw Indian citizens out of the country. But, the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is going to impact Hindus as well.”

However, the Chief Ministers views were not taken kindly by his own cabinet colleague, Congress Minister for Power, Dr Nitin Raut. Who sarcastically remarked “supporting CAA is a matter of survival for Shiv Sena. In Maharashtra we are the government formed by three parties. Congress differs from Uddhav’s statement. No such decision was taken by the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA).

The Congress minister argued that the Congress Working Committee (CWC) has passed a resolution opposing CAA. “Hence there is no question of the resolution being implemented in Maharashtra. The issue shall be put before the coordination committee of the MVA and will be debated”, he added.

Chief spokesperson of Maharashtra BJP, Madhav Bhandari was quick to rub it in for the Sena president, urging Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray should openly and clearly state his stand on CAA. He further said “the Sena president in his interview to party mouthpiece “Saamana” had said that the misunderstanding surrounding the CAA needs to be cleared. The CAA law is not a law that will deport anyone out of the country. The Shiv Sena had voted in favor of the CAA in the Lok Sabha.”

Congress Minister for Power, Dr Nitin Raut also differs with his own party senior leader Kapil Sibal who on January 19, had said “if CAA is passed no state can say ‘I will not implement it’. It is not possible and is unconstitutional. You can oppose it, you can pass a resolution in the Assembly and ask the central government to withdraw it.” However, Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan recently rejected the resolution passed to this effect by the Kerala Legislative Assembly arguing that the State did not have the right to pass a resolution on a constitutional law enacted by the Centre.

Prashant Hamine
Prashant Hamine
News Editor - He has more than 25 years of experience in English journalism. He had worked with DNA, Free Press Journal and Afternoon Dispatch. He covers politics.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Must Read

spot_img