In my first essay in this series, I posited that there are two major tests that every law needs to continually pass. The first test is whether the reasons for making a certain law are still sound. The second is whether the net impact of a law is still positive.
In this essay, I will test CAA on these two questions. Let's look at the soundness of the reasons behind CAA first. CAA gives citizenship to all Hindus, Sikhs, and members of 4 other religions who are citizens of either Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan and have been living illegally in India before 31st Dec, 2014. It also shortens the minimum time from 11 years to 5 years that a person, who fits the above criteria, except the date test, has to have lived in India to be granted citizenship. Let's start with the primary argument being made in favor of this law:
- CAA gives protection to members of the communities that are being persecuted in those countries because they are in minority.
- Everybody would agree that this is a noble goal. However, for a law to be sound there should be a reason why it applies selectively in 2 ways - 1) the subset of chosen countries whose citizens this law applies to, and 2) the subset of communities whose members this law applies to. Some say that this law simply applies to a subset of the nation, community cross-product and that in itself is not a problem. However, this is not correct. If a law selectively benefits a subset of individuals or groups, then it is unfair, unless it is accepted that only those subsection of people deserve it and none else. For example, will a proposed law ever get support if it grants a random set of people a monthly allowance of a certain sum of money without explaining why those people deserve the allowance? If that was possible, a lot of MPs and MLAs in India would have their spouses, or close relatives receive massive sums of money monthly, in order to secure their own financial future.