Policy Center for the New South people to have religious freedom, and very strongly29”. The European Union (EU) on the other hand has adopted a relatively neutral stance. The official statement of the EU in response to abrogate Article 370 of Constitution concerning the autonomous status of Kashmir stressed the: “importance of steps to restore the rights and freedoms of the population in Kashmir30”. The EU’s stance was mirrored by its response to the CAA. the EU’s ambassador to India Ugo Astuto hoped that the act would be in accordance with the “high standards” of the Indian Constitution. The rapidly evolving EUIndia strategic alliance based on shared interests could explain this neutral position. Previously deemed as a “loveless arranged marriage”, the Brussels-New Delhi alliance has strengthened in recent decades and the EUIndia Summit in 2017 that cemented bilateral ties on sustainable urbanization and climate change, amounted to an investment of €800 million in Indian solar projects. The EU’s big stakes in India thus partially explain its hesitation to take an explicit stance in condemning the CAA and Indian actions in Kashmir. More surprising was the reaction of China, which preferred to issue a joint statement with Pakistan. The paper is opposed “any unilateral sanctions that complicated the situation”. New Delhi, often considered a “natural balancer” to Beijing growing influence, was particularly sensitive to Chinese dissatisfaction. In the meantime, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, cancelled a December 2019 visit to Guwahati in Assam, amid violent protests in the northeast over the CAA. A Japanese media report had said he may consider cancelling the visit amid violent protests. After Japan, Bangladesh Foreign Minister AK Abdul Momen and the country’s Home Minister also called off their visits to India. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), declared that it was “increasingly concerned31” by the CAA because of its apparent discrimination against Indian Muslims. The Islamic institution has already expressed a sympathetic view towards disenfranchised Muslims as demonstrated 29. Peter Baker – Michael Crowley and Jeffrey Gettleman. Trump Sees Commitment to Religious Freedom in india as Riots Break Out. February 27, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/25/us/politics/trumpmodi.html Policy Brief in their desire to exclude primarily Muslim groups in fighting for liberation against oppressive regimes from the definition of terrorism. The United Nations also condemned this “draconian Citizenship Amendment Bill32” and asked for its immediate review. On Monday 2 March, UN Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCR) Michelle Bachelet informed India that her office has filed an application urging the Supreme Court to make the UN body a third in a petition filed by a former civil servant against the law33. The news has elicited a strong reaction from Raveesh Kumar, India Ministry of External Affairs spokesman: “our permanent mission in Geneva was informed yesterday (March 2, 2020) evening by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights that her office has filed an intervention application in the Supreme Court of India in respect to the 2019 CAA…The CAA is an internal matter of India and concerns the sovereign right of the Indian Parliament to make laws. We strongly believe that no foreign party has any locus standi rights on issues pertaining to India sovereignty34”. The intervention of the UNHCR in the CAA highlights not only the International Law arguments that must be taken into account, but also serves to signal how seriously the issues of citizenship and religious freedom are being taken by the international community. Amnesty International, said the bill, while inclusionary in its stated objective, is counterproductive in its structure and intent: “welcoming asylum seekers is a positive step, but in a secular country like India, slamming the door on persecuted Muslims and other communities merely for their faith of fear-mongering and bigotry35”, said Avinask Kumar, Executive Director of Amnesty India. The UNHR’s spokesperson, Jeremy Laurence, said in Geneva: “We are concerned that India’s new Citizenship (Amendment) 32. Narender Nagarwal. The Poisonous Law: The Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. December 2019. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/337948797_The_Poisonous_Law_The_Citizenship_ Amendment_Act_2019 33. Priya Pillai. Intervention of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the Indian Supreme Court: International Law and the Citizenship Amendment Act. OpinioJuris. March 5, 2020. http:// opiniojuris.org/2020/03/05/intervention-of-the-un-high-commissionerfor-human-rights-at-the-indian-supreme-court-international-law-andthe-citizenship-amendment-act/ 30. European Parliament. Situation in Kashmir (Debate). September 17, 2019. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-9-201909-17-ITM-018_EN.html 34. Suhasini Haidar and Kallol Battacherjee. UN rights body to move Supreme Court on Citizenship Amendment Act. The Hindu. March 4, 2020. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/un-rights-body-tomove-supreme-court-on-citizenship-amendment-act/article30970693. ece 31. Kabir Taneja. The Muslim 5 Summit and the OIC take on India’s Citizenship bill protests. Observer Research Foundation. December 24, 2019. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/the-muslim-5-summitand-the-oic-take-on-indias-citizenship-bill-protests-59470/ 35. India : New Citizenship Amendment Bill ‘reeks of fear-mongering and bigotry’. Amnesty International UK. December 12, 2019. https://www. amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/india-new-citizenship-amendment-billreeks-fear-mongering-and-bigotry www.policycenter.ma 8