Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Indian student Aysha Renna protests CAA at Jamia Millia Islamia.
BY JAHNAVI PRADEEP ’23
On Dec. 12, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) was passed in India to amend the Indian Citizenship Act of 1955. This amendment provided a direct and easy route to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian religious minorities who fled religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. However, the Act does not mention Muslims as part of those eligible for this path to citizenship. This questionable act came along with another proposed bill, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), whose agenda was to remove existing illegal immigrants from India by making people prove ancestry in India before a particular date. According to the New York Times, this act “effectively creates a hierarchical system of citizenship determined by an individual’s religion.”
Subsequently, there has been an outbreak of student protest and clashes with the state over the legislation. These protests have been mismanaged by the media, police and state. However, this should not be the case, as university students are the thinking future and their voices are valid. They should not be shut down, especially with violence.
There have been recent incidents of police brutality in leading universities in northern India. Additionally, a horrifying instance took place at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), where a masked mob entered and attacked students. JNU, located in a politically active climate, is marked by a great sense of student activism and dissent.
According to the New York Times article, an “archaic law,” which prohibited five or more people to assemble together was used in several places.
Accompanying this law, the internet was shut down in five states and police brutally resulted in several deaths, detention of minors and attacks on dorms and libraries. Additionally, universities were “ordered to monitor the social media activity of students.”
I was a party to this when I went home over the break to Bangalore, India and found myself caught amidst this very situation. I watched my friends come home from their local colleges after political leaders had gone to their schools with threats of violence. Allegedly, they claimed that students were hurting the ruling party sentiments and being against Indian culture through their behaviors and clothing.
The state is meant to care after its citizens and to listen to their concerns. However, the politicians seem to be perpetuating an idea opposite to this, instead adding to the struggles that these students already face.
Are opinions of the students that question the government not valid? How does this reflect the nation as one of the world’s largest democracies? How does this respect the idea of freedom of speech that is enshrined in the constitution?
As Mahua Moitra, a member of Indian parliament and a Mount Holyoke alum of 1998, put it, there has been a “suppression of all dissent” and “funding for liberal education has been cut off.”
According to Moitra, this is a dangerous sign of a rising fascism in India, and it does go against the structure of a democratic state. If a student is skeptical as to how these acts affect them or questions them, they should be allowed to reject what is doled out to them.
This raises grave questions as to what is being done to the very basis of the Indian constitution. Is the country being run by the whims of the party with no heed to those who think otherwise — with no heed to students agitating for change and raising questions on how their own lives are being managed by the government?
I hope that tomorrow, whether I am here or at home in India, I am able to break past these barriers and raise my voice.