link to page 1 
December 18, 2019
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
In December 2019, India’s Parliament passed, and its
emotive, religious-based issues to consolidate political
President signed into law, the Citizenship Amendment Act
support.
(CAA), 2019, altering the country’s 1955 Citizenship Act.
For the first time in independent India’s history, a religious
The Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019
criterion has been added to the country’s naturalization
India’s Citizenship Act of 1955 prohibited illegal
process. The changes sparked significant controversy,
immigrants from becoming citizens. Among numerous
including large-scale and sometimes violent protests.
amendments to the act since 1955, none contained a
Opponents of the CAA warn that Prime Minister Narendra
religious aspect. In 2015 and 2016, the Modi-BJP
Modi and his Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party
government issued notifications that Hindus, Sikhs, Jains,
(BJP) are pursuing a Hindu majoritarian, anti-Muslim
Buddhists, Parsis (Zoroastrians), and Christians (but not
agenda that threatens India’s status as an officially secular
Muslims) who came to India from Pakistan, Bangladesh, or
republic and violates international human rights norms. In
Afghanistan before 2015 would be exempted from laws
tandem with a National Register of Citizens (NRC) planned
prohibiting citizenship for illegal immigrants. A Citizenship
by the federal government, the CAA may affect the status
Amendment Bill, meant to formalize these exemptions, was
of India’s large Muslim minority of roughly 200 million.
introduced in July 2016, but was not voted upon until
January 2019, when it was passed by the Lok Sabha. The
Context: India’s Hindu Nationalist Government
bill was not taken up by the Rajya Sabha (Parliament’s
India’s population of more than 1.3 billion includes a Hindu
upper chamber) following resistance from opposition
majority of about 80%, as well as a large Muslim minority
parties and street protests in India’s northeastern states.
of above 14% (see Figure 1). Prime Minister Modi, a self-
avowed Hindu nationalist, took office in 2014 after his BJP
In December 2019, seven months after a sweeping
won the first outright majority in 30 years in the Lok Sabha
reelection that expanded the BJP’s Lok Sabha majority and
(the lower chamber of India’s bicameral legislature). That
improved its standing in the Rajya Sabha, the bill passed
majority was expanded in May 2019 elections, providing an
311-80 in the former and 125-105 in the latter. Its key
apparent mandate for pursuing Hindu nationalist policy
provisions—allowing immigrants of six religions from
goals. Among these were abrogation of Article 370 of the
three countries a path to citizenship while excluding
Constitution, which provided special status to Jammu and
Muslims—may violate certain Articles of the Indian
Kashmir, previously India’s only Muslim-majority state
Constitution (see text box). The CAA was immediately
(announced in August 2019 and accomplished in October),
challenged in the Supreme Court by scores of petitioners,
and construction of a Hindu temple at the Ayodhya site of a
but the Court has refused to issue a stay on implementation
historic mosque destroyed in 1992 (enabled by a long-
and is deferring hearing petitions until January 22.
awaited September 2019 Supreme Court ruling).
Selected Articles of the Indian Constitution
Figure 1. Religious Demographics in India, 2011
14. The State shall not deny to any person equality before the
law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India.
15. The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any
of them.
The government argues that the three specified countries
have a state religion (Islam), resulting in the persecution of
religious minorities. Proponents say that Muslims do not
face persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan,
Source: Census of India, 2011.
and that the CAA is constitutional because it addresses
Hindu nationalists tend to view India’s history as a series of
migrants rather than Indian citizens. Yet it is not clear why
humiliations at the hands of foreign invaders (Mughal
migrants from other neighboring countries with state (or
Muslims and later British colonialists). As a consequence,
favored) religions, such as Sri Lanka (where Buddhism is
they have rejected the secularism propounded by founders
the official religion and Tamil Hindus face persecution) and
of the modern Indian state such as Jawaharlal Nehru and
Burma (where Buddhism enjoys primacy and Rohingya
Mohandas Gandhi. In 2019, many analysts contend that the
Muslims are persecuted), are excluded from a path to
Modi-BJP government is responding to significantly slowed
citizenship. In addition, oppressed Muslim minority
economic growth by becoming even more reliant on
communities such as Pakistan’s Ahmadis and Shias enjoy
no protections under the CAA.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
International Responses
Islamia University and skirmished with hundreds of
Pakistan’s government condemned the CAA as
demonstrators there. To date, the unrest has spread to at
“discriminatory legislation.” The lead U.S. diplomat for the
least 20 other university campuses and 17 cities across
region, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for South and
India, with at least 6 people killed in related violence, 4 of
Central Asia Alice Wells, expressed “genuine concern” that
them shot by police in Assam. A planned summit meeting
social issues such as the CAA “not detract from India’s
in Assam between Prime Minister Modi and Japanese
ability to stand for the values and to stand with us in trying
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was postponed due to the
to promote, again, this free and open Indo-Pacific.” Yet
unrest, an embarrassment for the BJP government.
Trump Administration criticism of India on human rights
grounds has been relatively muted. The U.S. Commission
HRW called on Indian authorities to show restraint after
on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) expressed
reports that police were using excessive force against
being “deeply troubled” by the CAA’s establishment of “a
demonstrators, and said internet shutdowns are a
legal criterion for citizenship based on religion,” and it
“disproportionate, unnecessary” violation of India’s
urged the U.S. government to consider sanctions against
international legal obligations (an unprecedented internet
Home Minister Amit Shah “and other principal leadership”
shutdown in Kashmir of over four months continues). The
(India’s External Affairs Ministry rejected USCIRF’s
Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists called on
criticism as “neither accurate nor warranted”).
police and paramilitary troops to “desist from the use of
unlawful force and ill-treatment against demonstrators.”
Human Rights Watch (HRW) claims that the CAA violates
India’s international legal obligations, as well as Articles 14
Indian leaders have been unmoved by the demonstrations.
and 15 of the Indian Constitution. It said New Delhi’s claim
At a December 15 rally, Prime Minister Modi said that the
that the law seeks to protect religious minorities fleeing
opposition’s protests confirmed for him that passage of the
persecution in neighboring countries “rings hollow” given
CAA was “1,000 percent correct.” Two days later, Home
the exclusion of Pakistani Ahmadis and Burmese Rohingya.
Minister Shah said there was no chance that the CAA
The U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human
would be withdrawn, despite opposition protests.
Rights called the CAA “fundamentally discriminatory in
nature,” saying it appears to undermine India’s
The National Register of Citizens
constitutional commitment to equality before the law.
India’s National Register of Citizens (NRC), established in
1951, has not been updated despite a 2013 Supreme Court
Domestic Indian Opposition and Street Protests
order compelling the federal and Assam governments to
Opposition to the act appeared quickly across India,
begin an update process. In mid-2018, the BJP-led Assam
including through public letters signed by more than 1,400
government published an NRC draft that was criticized for
writers, scholars, and scientists. Numerous political figures
seeking to oust the Bengali immigrant population from
and parties have denounced the act; Sonia Gandhi,
Assam. Facing an August 2019 deadline, all of Assam’s
president of the opposition Congress Party, accused the
roughly 33 million residents had to prove through
Modi government of creating an atmosphere of religious
documentation that they or their ancestors were Indian
tension to forward its political interests. The chief ministers
citizens before March 25, 1971, when Bangladesh gained
of Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, West
independence from Pakistan and large numbers of Bengalis
Bengal, and the National Capital Territory of Delhi have
illegally crossed into India. The final citizenship list,
said they will not implement the CAA, calling it
published on the last day of August, omitted about 1.9
“unconstitutional.” A Home Affairs Ministry spokesman
million residents, more than 5% of the state’s population.
said that state governments have no powers to refuse
Nearly all of those omitted reportedly are ethnic Bengalis,
implementation.
and nearly half are Muslims. They have until December 31,
2019, to appeal to quasi-judicial “Foreigner Tribunals” and
Violent protests broke out in the northeastern states of
may be relegated to newly-built detention camps.
Assam and Tripura a day after the bill’s enactment, spurring
the federal government to deploy thousands of troops,
The U.N., USCIRF, and independent human rights groups
impose a curfew, and cut off internet and mobile phone
have expressed concerns about the NRC. The New Delhi
service in much of Assam. (Opposition in Assam is driven
government maintains that the NRC update is a fair and
in large part by a perception that the CAA will nullify
non-discriminatory process driven by the Supreme Court
provisions of the Assam Accord of 1985, which set March
that does not impose a religious test or render any persons
1971 as the cut-off date for “legal” migration. Indigenous
“stateless.” Home Minister Shah repeatedly has stated that a
groups in several northeastern states abutting Bangladesh
nationwide NRC law will follow implementation of the
fear that naturalizing large numbers of Bengali immigrants
CAA and require all of India’s current residents to prove
will alter the region’s culture and demographics, and
eligibility for citizenship. The CAA and NRC are seen as
threaten access to education, jobs, and government
closely linked, as the former is said to help protect non-
subsidies. The government sought to address these concerns
Muslims who are excluded from the latter. Critics contend
by exempting certain tribal areas of six northeastern states
that only members of “approved” religions will be protected
from the CAA’s provisions.)
by CAA provisions, while others will have little recourse,
thus forwarding the alleged Modi-BJP project to undermine
Large-scale and sometimes violent protests have also raged
India’s secular ethos.
in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh, as well as in Delhi,
where police stormed the largely Muslim Jamia Millia
K. Alan Kronstadt, Specialist in South Asian Affairs
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Changes to India’s Citizenship Laws
IF11395
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11395 · VERSION 1 · NEW