India’s Citizenship Law Triggered by Rising Right-Wing Ideology

Credit: Foreign Policy

By Nadia Kanji
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 6 2020 – “Fire bullets at the traitors of the country,” chanted mobs of Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, supporters wrapped in Indian flags in Delhi last week.

It’s been less than a month since protests emerged against the BJP’s Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a new law to redefine and restrict who is considered an Indian citizen. In a violent crackdown, 27 peaceful protesters have been killed and police have detained 1500 others. BJP vigilante mobs continue to threaten and beat people protesting this controversial bill.

The CAA became law on December 11th, 2019 to provide a path to citizenship for minorities that fled from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan prior to 2014, but its most controversial point is that it specifically excludes Muslims. Critics call it discriminatory and say it threatens the secular nature of India’s constitution by trying to establish a Hindu religious state, or a “Hindu Rashtra,” akin to other religious states like Saudi Arabia or Israel’s attempt for a Jewish nation state.

In addition to the CAA, the Indian government is also planning to implement a National Register of Citizens, also known as the NRC, across the whole nation by 2021. The most recent NRC was implemented by the Indian government in the state of Assam in 2015 forcing Indians to provide documented proof of their citizenship to be considered Indian citizens. The result was the disenfranchisement of 1.9 million mostly Muslim residents who now risk being sent to illegal detention camps as they do not have what the government considers sufficient documentation or “legacy documents” which must date back to the 1970s. People fear that its extension to the rest of the country will not only affect Muslims who are not safeguarded by the CAA, but also the poorest, unlettered parts of society.

According to Indian historian and executive-director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research, Vijay Prashad, the BJP has couched the CAA as a progressive refugee policy which is redundant given that India is already a signatory of the Global Compact for Migration as well as other international treaties on migration and refugees.

“Why not bring these treaties to be ratified by India, why bother to create your own bizarre thing if there’s already an international framework to say that we accept refugees and migration?” he asked rhetorically. “Well it’s because they’ve used the question of migration not for migration itself but to define what is an Indian citizen, which is a very chilling thing because now they are making the claim that Muslims are not citizens in India,” Prashad told IPS News.

Prashad says this is a core part of the BJP’s right-wing ideology. India’s home minister Amit Shah even referred to undocumented Muslim migrants coming from Bangladesh to India as “termites” and “infiltrators” and threatened to throw them into the Bay of Bengal.

India is currently the world’s largest democracy which historically has not used religion as a prerequisite for citizenship. According to Ramya Reddy, human rights lawyer from Georgetown University Law Center, the CAA puts India’s democracy at risk by violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution, which deal with equality and liberty.


Daily protests have been met with extreme violence by the police who have fired stun grenades, smoke bombs, tear gas, and even used live ammunition to shoot and kill protestors. Police have attempted to stop protests by imposing Section 144 of the Penal Code, a draconian law from the British Raj historically used to crush freedom fighters by prohibiting the assembly of more than 4 people. The section of this law, however, is being applied selectively.

“When the radical Hindutva supporters gather, this is not considered an unlawful gathering according to the police because they’re pro-government. The police even escort them,” said Aatir Arshad a Bachelor’s student from Jamia Millia University who’s been involved in recent protests.

Jamia Millia Islamia University, a public college in New Delhi with a majority-Muslim student body, became the center of the protest movement in Delhi after police stormed the university campus, dragged out several students, beat them up and arrested them, including those who were not participating in the demonstrations.

“They rushed into the library, where students were not even protesting, they were just studying for their exams and the police beat them up,” Arshad told IPS News. “That moment was apocalyptic for Jamia Milia Islamia. They also harassed students and then claimed they did nothing.”

Arshad adds that police also entered the mosque on the university campus, beat up the Imam, as well as the guards of the university. Protests are still going on because of the events from that day.

Ahla Khan, an alumnus from Jamia Millia and resident of the Jamia Nagar area, explained to IPS News how on the first day of protests her and her sister were just walking to Jamia University when they got caught in the middle of a confrontation between police and protesters. They ran to the sidewalk and watched as police hit students with batons.

“I was watching a guy standing there, just looking at his phone doing nothing. The police ask him ‘where are you going’ and he doesn’t say anything. And just like that the police start beating him up,” says Khan.

She explains how the protesters have been highly organized and peaceful in Delhi. Many have volunteered to distribute tea in the biting cold weather, organized assemblies and facilitated plays and book readings. Chants and slogans have called for repealing the CAA as well as for Azaadi, or freedom. Police have been more restrained than in Uttar Pradesh (UP) where police violence has been lethal. The Chief Minister of UP called a meeting in late December threatening to seize property of those involved in protests “to compensate damage to public property.”

“In UP police and RSS goons have been barging into people’s houses, hitting them, beating people up, thrashing their entire houses, looting them, TVs and fridges broken,” said Khan.

The government has also made several attempts to prevent media outlets from covering police violence and has blocked the internet is several parts of India where there are massive protests. Internet shutdowns have become commonplace, with the shutdown in Kashmir being the longest ever in a democracy.

International Response

While many protesters are still languishing in jail, the United Nations has voiced concern over the CAA with Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, calling for “restraint and urg[ing] full respect for the rights of freedom of opinion and expression and peaceful assembly.” UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s spokesperson stated that the law “would appear to undermine the commitment to equality before the law enshrined in India’s Constitution.”

Despite this, Reddy says that this doesn’t have any enforcement as domestic law always takes precedence over international law. Even though the UN has criticized the CAA, “[changes have] to happen domestically or with pressure,” she said. And right now, no other major international powers like the UK, the US, and Canada have come out against this because they’re strong allies [of India],” Reddy told IPS News.

In fact, on a recent visit to Washington, D.C. India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar cancelled a meeting with the House Foreign Affairs Committee after the other members of Congress refused to exclude Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a critic of the CAA, NRC, and India’s actions in Kashmir.

South Asian students in the United States are expressing their dismay with the Indian government by launching a campaign demanding their House of Representatives “express their disapproval through targeted sanctions against Modi government officials until both laws are repealed.” So far, the letter has been signed by the Yale South Asian Society, Harvard College U.S.-India Initiative, Columbia University South Asian Organization, University of Pennsylvania South Asia Society Board, Cornell University South Asian Law Students Association, Brown University South Asian Students Association and Dartmouth University Muslim Students Association Al-Nur, and many other student groups.

Democratic Deficit

Implementing a nationwide National Register of Citizens will cause massive economic disruption, according to a recent report by the Wire. The article states that the NRC in the state of Assam alone, which makes up just 3% of the population, “took almost a decade, required the involvement of over 50,000 government employees and cost more than Rs. 1,200 crore,” or just over 168 million US dollars. While the Indian development dream is flailing with its ranking in hunger slipping annually and unemployment rising, the implications of implementing these exclusionary laws go beyond the marginalization of Muslims to also draining resources from some of the world’s poorest residents.

“This is not about a policy you can really implement,” said Prashad. “You can’t actually, practically expatriate 200 million Muslims.” Prashad also pointed out in his recent article that India’s Muslims form the eighth-largest country in the world.

The point, he adds, is that “this is a marker saying we are redefining citizenship and emboldening the hard-right and mobs on the street to make it clear to Muslims that they are not welcome here and that India is a Hindu country,” Prashad told IPS.

Despite the hard attempt by the government quell any resistance to the CAA, protests have been occurring daily with Muslims, Dalits, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs, farmers, lawyers, workers, writers, and journalists joining together to prevent what could leave millions stateless in “the largest disenfranchisement in human history.”

When asking Aatir Ashad, who’s been protesting daily, about his experience he tells IPS News that whenever there’s a call for a protest, the police just close all of the metro stations so that no one can reach the protest site.

“Great democratic country we’re living in,” he says sarcastically, distressingly, as he prepares for another day of joining the protests.

2020: a Year Full of Danger

Protesters demonstrate against direction taken by climate change talks. Credit: Ana Libisch/IPS

By Farhana Haque Rahman
ROME, Jan 6 2020 – Let’s face what lies ahead with open eyes: 2020 is going to be a very tough year for the world, and developing countries in particular. The infant decade has already begun with the harbingers of climate disaster as thousands fled to beaches in Australia from raging bush fires, and the Middle East braced for more conflict after a U.S. air strike in Baghdad killed Iran’s top general.

But even as the world needs a concerted and decisive response to its challenges, we risk more of the backsliding and indifference towards humanity that in 2019 characterised the behaviour of many powerful governments, from Australia to the United States, from Brazil to China.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has cited wars, the climate crisis, gender-based violence and persistent inequality in warning that the world is well behind meeting the deadlines of its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The 2019 SDG report showed momentum for positive change, but also identified several areas that need urgent collective action: the climate crisis, human suffering, quality education, and gender discrimination.

Many countries and stakeholders have indeed responded with pledges of “SDG Acceleration Actions”. But we need to be brutally honest about the gulf between past promises and action.

Warning that the world will still have 500 million people in extreme poverty in 2030, Mr. Guterres has called for this to be a Decade of Action. But he surely didn’t envisage what President Donald Trump had in mind with the drone strike he ordered that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad on January 3. Iran quickly pledged “tough revenge” and “World War III” was trending on Twitter.

Even without further conflict in the region, the proxy war fought in Yemen between Iran and Saudi Arabia is expected by the UN to continue as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis” in 2020 after nearly five years of fighting. An estimated 24 million people, or 80 per cent of Yemen’s population, will remain in need of aid.

Worldwide 168 million people will need humanitarian aid and protection in crises across more than 50 countries in 2020, according to the UN’s emergency relief coordinator. The UN humanitarian affairs coordination office (OCHA) launched its Global Humanitarian Overview 2020 with an appeal for nearly $29 billion in aid from donors. “It is the highest figure in decades,” Mark Lowcock, head of OCHA, said, blaming climatic shocks, large infectious disease outbreaks and intensifying, protracted conflicts for an increase of some 22 million people in need last year.

Armed conflicts are already killing and maiming a record number of children, with women and girls at higher risk of sexual and gender-based violence than before.

The UN Children’s Fund UNICEF has called for $4.2 billion for its 2020 emergency appeal to reach 59 million children with life-saving support in 64 countries. This is more than triple the funds requested in 2010.

“Around the world today, we’re seeing the largest number of children in need of emergency assistance since we began record-keeping. One in four children lives in a country affected by conflict or disaster,” said UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore.

UN risk assessments were blown off course by worse than expected climate crisis-related events, such as drought, flooding and tropical cyclones.

But the world’s efforts to deal with the climate emergency have been dealt a most severe blow by the policies of Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro.

Deforestation of the Amazon, the world’s largest tropical rainforest, soared in 2019 to levels not seen in a decade. Protected areas have been opened to mining and agricultural conversion, and murders of environmentalists have increased. Commenting on the global picture, Rhett Butler, founder of the Mongabay non-profit environment website, says: “After a decade of increased deforestation, broken commitments, and hundreds of murders of rainforest defenders, the 2020s open as a dark moment for the world’s rainforests.”

Farhana Haque Rahman

Agronomists such as Carlos Nobre and Thomas Lovejoy warn that the Amazon is reaching a critical tipping point as it shows signs of shifting from humid tropical forest towards degraded wooded savanna which would result in releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. It is urgent that Brazil move away from unsustainable agribusiness monocultures of cattle, soy and sugarcane, and launch a major reforestation project on already degraded lands.

But Mr Bolsonaro is also joined by Mr Trump, who will seek re-election this year, in abandoning climate leadership and damaging global conservation efforts.

The latest mantra for climate scientists and UN envoys seeking to broker global agreements is that “2020 is the last best chance” to turn the tide of the climate emergency. Under the 2015 Paris Agreement countries pledged to review and, hopefully, ramp up their efforts to cut greenhouse gases by this year, meaning that a lot of effort is needed ahead of the crucial UN climate conference, COP26, to be held in Glasgow in November.

As noted by climate news site Carbon Brief, with key emitters such as the US, Australia and Brazil hostile towards international climate action, a lot now hangs on China and the EU acting as one to maintain the Paris Agreement’s momentum.

But China, along with Brazil and India, have been called out by the Association of Small Island States as actively blocking ambitious outcomes in discussions on carbon credit discussions.

Last month’s COP (Conference of the Parties) in Madrid was widely viewed by climate activists as a flop.

Protestors outside the conference hall, including Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, demonstrated the yawning gulf between their aspirations and those inside of procrastinating governments.

The diplomatic Mr Guterres said he was “disappointed” at the outcome and said the major emitters of greenhouse gases need to “do much more” in 2020.

Indeed. Much, much more.

Not all Trade is Good – the Case of Plastics Waste

Credit: United Nations

By Alexey Kravchenko
BANGKOK, Thailand, Jan 6 2020 – Currently, approximately 300 million tons of oil-based plastic waste are produced every year. A significant amount of plastic waste ends up in the oceans, having a detrimental effect on marine ecosystems and coastal communities. Most of this waste originates from the Asia-Pacific region.

If unaddressed, by 2050 there could be more plastic than fish in the oceans.

Recognizing the problem, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development addresses plastic pollution in the ocean. It is widely acknowledged that regulating single-use plastics and microplastics is a major component in achieving this target.

An increasing number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region and across the world are now introducing regulations addressing consumption, production and trade in single-use plastics and plastic waste.

Perhaps the most stringent recent example of addressing single-use plastics is in Kenya, where, since August 2017, producing, selling or even using plastic bags can result in four years in prison or a fine of up to $40,000.

Prior to the ban, plastics were ubiquitous on the streets, and 3 out of 10 animals in abattoirs were found to have plastics in their stomachs.

Alexey Kravchenko

Eight months after, the number has gone down to 1 in 10, and the streets are much cleaner. This, however, came at a significant cost – it was estimated that up to 60,000 jobs were lost as a result – Kenya was a major plastic producer and exporter.

Highlighting the need for regional cooperation, illegal imports from neighbouring countries began to emerge, and the Government of Kenya is urging its neighbours to institute similar bans.

While many developed countries remain better at ensuring that plastics and other waste do not end up in waterways through adequate refuse collection mechanisms and littering fines, recycling remains an issue. This was seemingly addressed through exporting waste plastic for recycling to other countries, most significantly to China.

Since 1992, China imported almost half of the world’s plastic waste for recycling.

However, recognizing the negative effect these imports were having on its environment and air quality, in 2018, the Government of China banned the importation of plastic waste.

Over the coming decades, as much as 111 million tons of plastic will have to find a new place to be processed or otherwise disposed of as a result of China’s ban.

The ban led exporters to seek other markets, and exports of plastic waste to other countries in the region, such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand have skyrocketed.

Expectedly, this resulted in deteriorating environmental situations in the recipient countries and generated backlash: following China’s example, both Malaysia and Thailand have since banned the import of plastic waste.

Recognizing the damaging effect of trade in plastic waste, on 11 May 2019, a total of 180 Governments adopted an amendment to the Basel Convention to include plastic waste in a legally-binding framework that will make global trade in plastic waste more transparent and better regulated, while also ensuring that its management is safer for human health and the environment.

According to this Agreement, exporting countries will now have to obtain consent from countries receiving contaminated, mixed or unrecyclable plastic waste.

Such trade regulations are commonly referred to as non-tariff measures (NTMs) – policy measures other than tariffs that can potentially have an economic effect on international trade in goods.

During the past two decades, while applied tariffs in the Asia-Pacific region have been halved, the number of NTMs has risen significantly. NTMs often serve legitimate and important public policy objectives, but their trade costs are estimated to be more than double that of ordinary customs tariffs.

As such, they have become a key concern for traders as well as for trade policymakers aiming to ensure that trade can continue to support sustainable development.

This year’s Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Report by ESCAP and UNCTAD provides an overview of NTM trends and developments in Asia and the Pacific. It explores how NTMs relate to the Sustainable Development Goals and points to the importance of aligning NTMs with international standards as one way to bring down trade costs of NTMs, as well as of strengthening regional cooperation and streamlining and digitalizing compliance procedures.