Corporate Social Responsibility

Assignment – 2

Submitted by-
Mudit Goel
Vidhi Grover
Arjun Mohan
 CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, INDIA

BACKGROUND

The Citizenship Amendment Act was a bill that came into effect on December 11, 2019, by the BJP
dominated NDA (National Democratic Alliance). The act was an amendment to the Citizenship Act of
1955. The Citizenship Act of 1955 regulates the basis of acquiring Indian citizenship. [ CITATION
THE \l 16393 ] In 2006, the bill was first introduced by the ruling BJP party in the lower house or
the Lok Sabha to amend the Citizenship Act of 1955. [CITATION The \l 16393 ] The illegal
immigrants belonging from religions including  Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis
from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh are sought of made eligible for being a citizen under the
bill. Also, some revisions were made in the conditions on the registration of OCI (Overseas Citizen of
India) cardholders. The report of the bill was submitted on 7 January 2019 that was assigned to the
Joint Parliamentary Committee.[ CITATION REP19 \l 16393 ] The bill was approved on 8 January
2019[ CITATION THE \l 16393 ] by Lok Sabha but it expired when the 16th Lok Sabha dissolved.
At a later date, the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 was again brought in December 2019 in the
Lok Sabha. 

Due to further assessment and valuation of the bill, the Act was subject to hold till January 2019.
Later, after the national elections in May 2019, the bill was reintroduced on December 4th, 2019 and
eventually passed in the Lok Sabha on 10th December 2019. Subsequently on the 11th of December,
2019 the bill was passed in the upper house or the Rajya Sabha. The bill was passed by the ruling
party BJP and its alliances that make up the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). The liberal centrist
Indian National Congress (INC), Trinamool Congress (TMC), and the Communist Party of India (CPI)
were the major parties to oppose the bill. The INC claimed the bill to be unlawful and against the
spirit of a democratic and republic India. 

The bill was received with majorly widespread dissent in most parts of India. Starting off with major
chaotic altercations between the public and the police, protests kicked off on northeast of India and
the capital of Delhi. Soon, protests spread to other parts of the country as well and unrest was
ubiquitous throughout the nation in the name of this bill. The CAA divided the world’s largest
democracy into two with the majority of protests held by those opposing the CAA. While the
government claims the CAA is for ensuring the safeguard of religious minorities in the neighboring
Islamic nations, it also claims the act as one that manifests the Indian constitutional values and ethos
by safeguarding and protecting these minorities. The government also went on to state that the
National Population Register (NPR)- a register for the surveyed population of the country- and the
National Register for Citizenship (NRC)- a register for the citizens of the country which was updated
for the first time since the 1950 census would not result in anybody losing their citizenship or end up
being deported. However, the part of the nation that opposed the act saw things differently. 
A very large number of illegal immigrants, who are from Bangladesh, live in India. In 2001, the
Border Security reported 15 million illegal migrants from which 12 million illegal migrants were from
Bangladesh estimated by the government of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA). [ CITATION
Pus16 \l 16393 ] The explanations for the size of immigration involves open borders, past
immigration trends, economic factors, and cultural and linguistic relations. Many immigrants have
received the Right to Vote. According to Niraja Jayal, the liberty given to illegal immigrants to Right
to Vote is used by many leaders to win the elections. During the elections, many corrupt political
leaders give promises to illegal migrants to get them Indian citizenship if they vote for them. Due to
these fake promises, the number of refugees and illegal immigrants increases every year. India is not
a signatory to either the 1951 UN Refugee Convention or the 1967 Protocol.[ CITATION
ANC89 \l 16393 ] The country does not have any policy on refugees. All refugees are listed as
"forced migrants." Although India has been able to accept refugees due to the conventional stance
articulated by Jawaharlal Nehru, such refugees must return to their home countries once the
condition has returned to normal. However, the major criticisms were-

 The very fact the government chose to exclude Muslims from the list of those seeking to
choose to refuge in India was what caught the attention of the critics. The government
claims the Muslims are safe in the Islamic countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan, and
Bangladesh and hence are not subjected to any religious executions. The government holds
this reasoning as the basis for the exclusion of Muslims from the bill.
 Even as the government claims the safety of Muslims in these countries, studies reported
the Shias (in Pakistan), Ahmediyas (in Pakistan) and Hazaras (in Afghanistan) were all Muslim
sects that have been subject to heinous persecutions in their homes. The tendency of the
government to turn a blind eye to such facts irked the critics. They saw this as a blatantly
discriminatory act of the government to single out Muslims.
 The exclusion of neighboring countries like Sri Lanka, Myanmar and China from the bill was
received with suspicion considering the fact all these nations are neighboring and all of them
have minorities facing severe persecutions. Sri Lanka has been a harbor for violence against
the Tamils for ages. China has been the center for violence and discrimination against the
Uighur Muslims. Myanmar has had the Rohingya refugee issue which had garnered
international attention in the past. In spite of such shady records for these countries, an
Indian government that claimed to be rescuing people facing persecution had conveniently
ignored these countries in its citizenship act. The exclusion of these countries raised
concerns.
 India has had the record of giving refuge to people seeking asylum in India without being
based on any religious meters. This fundamentally makes India a secular, sovereign,
democratic republic. This was the very rudimentary spirit upon which the Indian constitution
was prepared. To differentiate people based on their religion of faith by itself seemed to be
violating humanitarian laws. Hence, opposers of the law saw it as something downright
unconstitutional. 

 The NRC was first made in 1950 after the census and since then has never been updated
until 2019 August. The amendment of the citizenship act along with the introduction of the
NRC in the northeastern state of Assam (as a start for the widespread implementation of the
NRC nationwide) led to a result being published on the 31st of August stating that out of the
 33 million population of the state, only 31 million were included in the NRC. The 2 million
left out included both Hindus and Muslims. As per the CAA, the Hindus in the 2 million would
be naturalized leaving the Muslims out in uncertainty left with no other option other than
proving their nationality. Likewise foreseeing the possible damage with the exclusion list to
go way past the present 2 million figure when NRC would be deployed nationwide critics
continued to express their dissent. [ CITATION The19 \l 16393 ]

Comparison of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, as passed by Lok

Sabha, with the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019
The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 (as Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019
passed by Lok Sabha)

ELIGIBILITY:  The Bill includes two extra provisions on

 This act restricts illegal refugees or
migrants who try to obtain Indian
Citizenship. The people who don't have a
valid passport, visa or documents are
considered to be illegal migrants.
 According to this act,  Hindus, Sikhs,
Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians
from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and
Pakistan will not be treated as illegal
migrants. Also, they are free from the
Foreigner’s Act 1946 and the Passport
Act 1920 by the central government.  
 The Bill additionally expressed that from
the date of its establishment, every
single lawsuit continuing pending against
such an illegal immigrant will be shut.
citizenship to illegal immigrants that
belong to the six religions from the three
nations.
 RESULTS OF SECURING CITIZENSHIP: The
Bill says that on gaining citizenship:
1.  such people will be esteemed to
be residents of India from the
date of their arrival in India.
2. All the court proceedings with
respect to their illegal immigration
and citizenship will be shut.
EXCEPTION: The Citizenship Amendment
Act will not be applicable to tribal areas of
Assam Meghalaya, Mizoram or Tripura. 
These tribal areas include Karbi Anglong
(in Assam), Garo Hills (in Meghalaya),
Chakma District (in Mizoram), and Tripura
Tribal Areas District. It will likewise not
have any significant bearing to the zones
under the Inner Line under the Bengal
Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. The
Inner Line Permit regulates the visit of all
people including the Indians to Arunachal
Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland.

 CITIZENSHIP BY NATURALIZATION:  The Bill further lessens the time of

 The Act permits an individual to apply for naturalization for such a group of people
citizenship by naturalization if the from six years to five years.
 individual meets certain capabilities. One
of them is that the person should live in
India or should have been in the central
government for the last 12 months. Also,
he/she should have lived in India for a
minimum of 11 years in his span of 14
years.
 The Bill made a special case for Hindus,
Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and
Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
and Pakistan, with respect to this
qualification. For this group of people,
the 11 years' necessity will be shortened
to six years.

BASIS OF CANCELLATION OF OCI:  Same as 2016 bill

 The Act states that the central
government has the authority to cancel
enrollment of OCIs on five basis which
includes: enlistment through fraud,
demonstrating offense to the
Constitution, engaging with the enemy
during the war, need in light of a
legitimate concern for the sovereignty of
India, the security of the state or the
public rights, or if within five years of
enrollment the OCI has been condemned
to detainment for 2 years or more.

ENFORCEMENT

Any person who is born in India or their parents are Indian or stayed in the country for a certain
period of time, etc. may be eligible to become a citizen of India. At the same time, illegal migrants
are barred from obtaining the citizenship of India.[CITATION The \l 16393 ] Under Indian law, an
illegal migrant is defined as a foreigner who arrives in the country without valid travel documents
(like passport and visa) or arrives with valid documents but resides past the allowed period of time. [
CITATION Cen \l 16393 ]

Under the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, unauthorized
immigrants may be expatriated or jailed. These acts give the central government power to regulate
the entry, exit, and settlement of foreigners in India. Two notifications were issued by the central
government in 2015 and 2016 that exempted certain groups of illegal immigrants from the
conditions of the Acts of 1946 and 1920.[ CITATION Gra15 \l 16393 ] Hindus, Buddhists, Christians,
Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who entered India on or before
31 December 2014 are the groups that are exempted.[ CITATION Gra16 \l 16393 ] This indicates that
the above-mentioned groups in India will not be expatriated or jailed without valid documentation.

Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, and Parsis from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh
who are illegal immigrants make them eligible for Indian citizenship under the 2019 Bill. This
provision exempts some areas of North-East India and also makes certain changes to the conditions
associated with the OCI cardholders. Under the 1955 Act, a foreigner of Indian origin or a foreigner
whose spouse is of Indian origin is eligible to register for OCI. Granting the OCI offers various benefits
like work and study in the country and the right to travel to India. The Bill revises the Act to cancel
OCI registration of a person who violates any law announced by the central government.

On or after the date of the commencement of the Act, the cases pending in the court of the illegal
immigration or citizenship will not be enforced by law until a final judgment is made. Given that such
an individual will not be excluded for making an application for citizenship under this segment on the
basis that the procedure is pending, the Central Government or authority shall not dismiss his/her
application if he/she is otherwise found qualified for the granting of the Indian Citizenship. Provided
further that the person who makes the application for citizenship shall not be deprived of his rights
and privileges to which he/she was entitled on the date of receipt of his/her application on the
grounds of making such application.

The Citizenship Amendment Act will not be applicable to tribal areas of Assam Meghalaya, Mizoram
or Tripura.  These tribal areas include Karbi Anglong (in Assam), Garo Hills (in Meghalaya), Chakma
District (in Mizoram), and Tripura Tribal Areas District. It will likewise not have any significant bearing
to the zones under the Inner Line under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873. The Inner Line
Permit regulates the visits of people including the citizens of Indian to Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram,
and Nagaland. This Act benefits Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi and Christian foreigners coming
from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. In the event that their movement records like
identification and visa are not all together or are most certainly not accessible, they can apply for
Indian citizenship if they were abused back home. 

The CAA makes this legally appropriate for such immigrants. Furthermore, they get a quicker course
for Indian citizenship through the Naturalization Mode. The minimum residency requirement in India
would be just 1 plus 5 years rather than 1 plus 11 years as applicable to every other classification of
outsiders.[ CITATION QAM \l 16393 ] But in the event that an individual confronting mistreatment on
grounds of religion in nations other than these 3 nations cannot apply under CAA. They should apply
through the standard procedure to get Indian Citizenship as same as some other outsider for either
registration or naturalization as a resident of India. They would get no inclination under The
Citizenship Act, 1955, even after the CAA.

EFFECTIVENESS:

The Bill, in a nutshell, says that if the illegal immigrants are:

 1. Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, or Parsis

 2. from Bangladesh, Afghanistan or Pakistan

 3. stepped in India on or before 31 December 2014, and 

4. do not reside in some specific tribal areas of Assam, Tripura, Mizoram or Meghalaya that are
mentioned in the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution or in the Inner Line zones which are
Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, and Nagaland,

 will not be considered as illegal immigrants. 

We believe that Article 14 of the Indian Constitution is being violated in this Bill. Article 14 of the
Indian Constitution assures that all the people along with the foreigners and the citizens are to be
treated equally. Our belief that Article 14 is being violated is on the basis of the fact that the Bill
discriminates illegal immigrants on the grounds of the country of origin, date of entry in India,
religion, and residence place in India.

We believe that the law passed had many issues that need to be considered hence it is not effective
in our opinion. Some of the issues that need to be considered with the Citizenship Amendment Act
are as follows:

1. Firstly, the Bill discriminates immigrants on the grounds of the country of origin that is to
only include Bangladesh, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. The Statement of Objects and Reasons
in the Bill (SoR) mentions that India has a history of people migrating from Bangladesh,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan and the above-mentioned countries have a state religion and that
has resulted in religious ill-treatment of the minority groups. Now that the SoR states that
many citizens of undivided India were residing in either Bangladesh or Pakistan, the Act does
not mention the reason for including Afghanistan in the Act.
2. Secondly, the Act does not clearly state the reason behind discrimination of immigrants from
these countries to immigrants from other neighboring countries like Myanmar, which is a
primacy of Buddhism or from Sri Lanka which again has a Buddhist state religion.
[ CITATION The18 \l 16393 ] Sri Lanka and Myanmar both have a history of ill-treatment
of linguistic minority (Tamil Eelams)[ CITATION NSa18 \l 16393 ] and religious minority
(Rohingya Muslims)[ CITATION Mya20 \l 16393 ] respectively. Over the past years,
these minorities flee from their respective countries to take refuge in India. [ CITATION
TNN17 \l 16393 ] The Act does not mention why the illegal immigrants from Sri Lanka and
Myanmar are excluded from the Act knowing that the objective of the Act is to offer
citizenship to immigrants who flee ill-treatment.
3. Thirdly, it is arguable that there are other religious minorities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh,
and Pakistan who face religious ill-treatment and immigrated to India like the killing of
atheists in Bangladesh[ CITATION Ins \l 16393 ] or Ahmadi Muslims who are not even
considered Muslims in Pakistan.[ CITATION CON \l 16393 ] It is ambiguous as to why
illegal immigrants from only six religions have been covered in the Act.
4. Fourth, it is also vague as to why there has been discrimination on the basis of the date of
entry to India (that is 31 December 2014).
 5. Fifth, it is very much debatable as to why the illegal immigrants living in the areas included in
the Sixth Schedule or the Inner Line Permit zones are excluded from the Act because once an
illegal immigrant living in these areas acquires citizenship, he/she would face similar
constraints as any other Indian citizen would.

Apart from the above-mentioned issues, this Act also had an impact on the Indian economy.  After
the bill was passed by India’s parliament on 11th December 2019, the protest was erupted by the
citizens of India mainly the youth and students. Many universities and colleges postponed their
semester exams, the state-level cricket, and football matches were also postponed. This protest
affected the Indian economy. According to The Indian Express, there has been a decrease in the sales
of vehicles, watches, and other buyer merchandise, because of the progressing fights.[ CITATION
San20 \l 16393 ] Also, several trains were canceled, over 700 flights got delayed and more than 30
flights got canceled due to the protest. In Assam, public transport got suspended after 2 railway
stations were set on fire. Approximately, Indian railway suffered CAD $18 million in property damage
due to the protest.[ CITATION Ani19 \l 16393 ] Some of the metropolitan cities like Delhi closed their
metro stations as precautionary measures. The government imposed internet shutdowns in the
states of Assam and Tripura, five districts of West Bengal, Bhopal, Dakshina Kannada and parts of
Delhi. Mobile internet and SMS services were also suspended in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. Canada,
France, Israel, Russia, Singapore, Taiwan, the U.S., and the U.K. issued travel advisories for nationals
traveling to northeast India. The protests reportedly resulted in a 60% decline in tourists visiting the
Taj Mahal in Agra for the month of December. The number of visitors went down by at least 90% in
the state of Assam, according to the head of Assam Tourism Development Corporation.[ CITATION
Nup19 \l 16393 ]

RECOMMENDED CHANGES:

In order to make the law more effective, the following changes can be made to the existing
Citizenship Amendment Act:

1. The government should go ahead with the process of implementing the CAA but with some
revisions like the words “persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian
communities in Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan” can be replaced with “refugees from
Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan who have taken shelter in India because of persecution
on religious grounds”.[ CITATION THE \l 16393 ] This will positively help in countering the
publicity, both inside India and abroad, about the alleged communal intent of the Modi
government and help in creating an environment in the country conducive for expediting the
NRC process.
2. While preparing NRC special care can be taken to make sure that no Indian citizen is left out.
This process will help to detect various illegal immigrants. Though it will be difficult to send
them back to their country of origin. Since most of them are likely to be from Bangladesh,
both nations need to negotiate to decide the future of these illegal immigrants. 

3. As far as the requests of the citizens of the North-Eastern States of India are concerned,
attempts should be made to enforce the Assam Agreement to the extent possible. Those
 seeking Indian citizenship under the CAA should be given financial and other benefits in
terms of land, resources and work to migrate out of the North-East. Refugees expecting the
grant of citizenship (those who came to India after 31 December 2014) and undocumented
immigrants should be relocated from there through a mix of rewards and disincentives, and
any new refugees should not be permitted to reside there.

ALTERNATIVES

To understand the possible alternatives to the law we must first understand how Indian citizenship
works. There are majorly 4 ways to obtain citizenship in India. The CAA majorly deals with the 4th
kind of obtaining Indian citizenship- by naturalization. As a team, we concur there is a need to
understand why a law is in place. In the case of the CAA, the amendment in citizenship was brought
about to address the issue of religious persecution and thereby provide a safe haven for those
subjected to such torture. On a closer look, there is one more thing the government wishes to
address through this amendment- the basic fundamentals of obtaining Indian citizenship. 

1. Religious persecution- As already mentioned throughout this study, there are religious
persecutions happening in various neighboring countries. It is necessary that the
government deploys measures to assess those caught up in such turmoil. The Indian
government would have to identify the countries that it would have to consider in this
exercise and wisely choose those eligible to be considered under threat. This consideration
should not be based on religion, caste, sex or any other criteria of distinction as such a policy
may not necessarily encapsulate the essence and ethos of the Indian constitution. Apart
from the already mentioned Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, it may have to include
the Tamils in Sri Lanka, Rohingyas in Myanmar and the Uighurs in China and the other
Muslim majorities in the 3 previously mentioned Islamic countries. The inclusion of SriLanka,
Myanmar, and China could be better justified as addressing religious persecution in
neighboring countries. That would be accepted as a more wholesome and unbiased
approach of the government. The Indian government would have to work closely with the
respective international governments and bodies like the United Nations to retrieve related
information. Since most of the above-mentioned countries are a part of the SAARC it would
be easier to work out an effective plan for the governments to combat the issue.
Internationally, it would give India a reputation that it has been known for over the ages.
India’s secular and sovereign identity would encourage countries around the world to model
effective refugee and immigration laws based on regional cooperation. [ CITATION Cit19 \l
16393 ]
2. FUNDAMENTALS OF INDIAN CITIZENSHIP- The second and probably the most important
factor from an internal point of view for the Indian government would be the changes it
would have to bring about to the citizenship law existing in India. In other words, what
happens to those rescued and brought into India? Would they continue to be refugees or
residents or do they move on to be naturalized citizens? All of these questions have to be
addressed by the government.  
India is a country that has been receiving refugees since its independence. It has accepted refugees
from Tibet, Chakma, Hojong and Sri Lanka. India has always adopted a more embracing approach
when it comes to immigration. But the real issue lies in differentiating between the legal and illegal
immigrants because only legal immigrants can avail Indian citizenship through naturalization going
ahead. This is where a national refugee law could come into place. An effective national refugee law
would take into consideration the present scenario in India and evaluate the capacity to
accommodate refugees based on the social, economical and national security factors into
consideration. As a part of the law, the rules and regulations of the refugees can be mandated based
upon defining the rights and privileges of refugees. Since generally a  refugee is somebody who has
been forced to leave their country due to persecution based on religious, ethnic or political grounds
those leaving a country due to economic conditions may not be treated as a refugee as per
definition. Also, the states that can accommodate these refugees need to be identified and only in
those states must shelter be provided for such refugees. This would enable the government to have
better control and access to the refugees and thereby monitor their progress.  

The concept of ‘first country of refuge’ would be very integral in forming the law. This would avoid
refugees from exploiting such immigration friendly laws and thereby creating a disadvantage for
genuine refugees. This would also help address the Rohingya issue from Bangladesh as the current
Rohingya refugees are from Bangladesh since they moved from Myanmar. Biometric records of the
refugees have to be collected and stored in a central database and those not included in the
database should be deemed as illegal immigrants. Refugees should also be provided with separate
provisions and must be treated as a separate category altogether. All of the above-mentioned
factors have to be encapsulated in the national refugee law in order to create a non-porous and fool-
proof law that would stand to serve the right purpose by upholding Indian constitutional values.  
Lastly, India would have to then engage all of the stakeholders in the NCR exercise and thereby being
able to create and document a register for citizens would prove to be the most important thing to
deal with the present issue. Since most countries including the likes of Pakistan and Bangladesh have
their national identity cards and India being an exception in spite of being a global leader from that
part of the world is a matter of concern. India must incorporate a plan at the earliest to issue
national identity cards with electronic chips in order to maintain a single point of access for the
government to retrieve information about the citizen. This would not only address the issues of
refugees coming into India for good but also address the issue of illegal and undocumented
immigrants that have been crossing into Indian borders.

Conclusion

Also, this Act poses no problem for any Indian resident in any capacity. The Indian residents rather
appreciate central rights provided to them by the Constitution of India. No judgment, including the
CAA, can abbreviate or remove the rights. The CAA, in any case, doesn't influence any Indian
residents, including Muslim residents.

As of now, the government needs to understand the vibe of the nation. The citizenship amendment
is something that is the need of the hour undoubtedly but it is imperative as to how they would go
about it. There is a widespread dissent that is common within not just the Indian public but also the
international media. The government needs to address this dissent. They need to educate its citizens
about how well it adheres to the constitutional spirit India boasts about. The government has to
ensure the public has restored its faith in the law and is not biased or subjected to target any section
of the society. Also, India needs to consider and treat each of the mentioned 6 nations individually as
each nation’s refugee has a different backdrop and reason to choose to leave their home. The
political and legal implications for each country have to be discussed with their respective home
ministries and a carefully crafted plan must be chalked out to identify and accept them as refugees
in India. Also, the maintaining of a central database to identify refugees and clearly defining their
rights, privileges, provisions, and regulations and thereby maintaining superficial surveillance until
they are eligible for citizenship would prove to be the most important and fundamentally integral
part of the building block.

References
ANCHR. (1989, 7 7). Implementation of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees. Retrieved from The Un refugee Agency:
https://www.unhcr.org/excom/scip/3ae68cbe4/implementation-1951-convention-1967-
protocol-relating-status-refugees.html

Central Government Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/795065/

Citizenship Amendment Bill: India's new 'anti-Muslim' law explained. (2019, 12 11). Retrieved from
BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50670393

CONSTITUTION (SECOND AMENDMENT) ACT, 1974. (n.d.). Retrieved from The constitution of
Pakistan: http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/amendments/2amendment.html

Das, P. (2016, 12). Illegal Migration from Bangladesh. Retrieved from

https://idsa.in/system/files/monograph/monograph56.pdf

Dutta, A. (2019, 12 20). Railways property worth Rs 90 crore damaged in anti-CAA protests.
Retrieved from Hindustan Times: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/railways-
property-worth-rs-90-crore-damaged-in-anti-caa-protests/story-
HkrDOg4o5ZUQYAkLvj7KfN.html

Grah Mantraliya. (2016, 7 18). Retrieved from Bharat ka rajpatra:

http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2016/170822.pdf

Grah Mantri. (2015, 9 7). Retrieved from Bharat ka Rajpath:

http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2015/165755.pdf
Inside Bangladesh’s killing fields: bloggers and outsiders targeted by fanatics. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Support the guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/11/bangladesh-
murders-bloggers-foreigners-religion

Moorthy, N. S. (2018, 8 19). Why Lankan refugees are reluctant to go back home. Retrieved from The
times of india: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/why-lankan-refugees-are-
reluctant-to-go-back-home/articleshow/65591130.cms

Myanmar Rohingya: What you need to know about the crisis. (2020, 1 23). Retrieved from BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41566561

Nupur Anand, R. (2019, 12 29). CAA protests: Tourism worst hit, 7 countries issue travel warnings.
Retrieved from live mint: https://www.livemint.com/news/india/caa-protests-tourism-
worst-hit-by-protests-7-countries-issue-travel-warnings-11577602257782.html

Print, T. (2019, 12 15). CAA, NRC, refugee-citizen —why BJP, Cong & AGP are exposed as hypocrites.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naQDnu3hBeg

Q&A: Ministry of home affairs answers questions on Citizenship Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019: https://hcikl.gov.in/pdf/press/CAA_2019_dec.pdf

REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CITIZENSHIP. (2019, 01). Retrieved from Lok Sabha:
https://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/bill_files/Joint%20committee%20report%20on
%20citizenship%20%28A%29%20bill.pdf

Sandeep Singh, A. S. (2020, 01 13). From cars to watches, protests hit India Inc: ‘Decline in customers
visiting showrooms’. Retrieved from The Indian Express:
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/citizenship-amendment-act-caa-protests-india-inc-
decline-in-customers-6213438/

THE CITIZENSHIP (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2016. (n.d.). Retrieved from AS INTRODUCED IN LOK SABHA:
https://www.prsindia.org/sites/default/files/bill_files/Citizenship_%28A%29_bill
%2C_2016_0.pdf

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019. (2016, 7 15). Retrieved from PRS:
https://prsindia.org/billtrack/citizenship-amendment-bill-2019#_ednref2

The constitution. (2018, 12 7). Retrieved from Wayback machine:

https://web.archive.org/web/20160303221202/http://www.priu.gov.lk/Cons/1978Constitu
tion/Chapter_02_Amd.html

TNN. (2017, 9 6). Why India is refusing refuge to Rohingyas. Retrieved from The Times of India:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-india-is-refusing-refuge-to-
rohingyas/articleshow/60386974.cms