Policy Center for the New South to illegal migrants on the basis of their countries of origin and religion. The question is whether these factors are a reasonable basis to justify this differential treatment. This will be examined in the following section. The CAA classifies migrants based on their countries of origin, including only Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. While the Statement of Objects and Reasons (SoR) in the act contends that millions of citizens of undivided India were living in Pakistan and Bangladesh prior to partition, no reason has been provided to explain the inclusion of Afghanistan. The SoR also states that these countries have a state religion, which has resulted in religious persecution of minority groups. However, there are other countries which may fit into this category. For instance, two of India’s neighboring countries, Sri Lanka (a Buddhist state) and Myanmar (where Buddhism is the main religion), have had a history of persecution of Tamil Eelams (a linguistic minority in Sri Lanka), and Rohingya Muslims, who have been subjected to one of the most heinous persecutions in recent times. Meanwhile, there are other religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan (considered non-Muslims by the authorities of Islamabad since 19741), and atheists in Bangladesh who have faced religious persecution and may have illegally migrated to India. Shia Muslim communities, particularly the Hazaras, have been subjected to severe persecution in Afghanistan because of their religious beliefs: “The CAA, however, does not require members of the listed non-Muslim religious to provide any proof of persecution, yet omits Muslim minority communities such as Shia’s and Ahmadi Muslims who have faced severe persecution in Afghanistan and Pakistan due to their faith2”. Despite suffering from religious persecution, these minority communities have been explicitly excluded only on the grounds of their religious faith. Given that the objective of the CAA is to provide citizenship to migrants escaping from religious persecution, it is not clear why illegal migrants belonging to other neighboring countries, or belonging to certain religious minorities from these three specified countries, have been excluded from the act. There are surely some securities considerations. Indeed, India has been hosting large numbers of refugees without 1. By 2012, only 7% of Pakistanis considered Ahmadis as Muslims. The World’s Muslims: Unity and diversity. Pen Research Center: Religion and Public Life. August 9, 2012. https://www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/theworlds-muslims-unity-and-diversity-5-religious-identity/ 2. Harrison Akins. The Citizenship Amendment Act in India. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. February 2020. https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2020%20Legislation%20 Factsheet%20-%20India_0.pdf www.policycenter.ma Policy Brief any specific law in place since 1971, when a massive flow of people came from war-torn Bangladesh. It relied on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recommendations. According to the UN data India takes in between 150 000 to 200 000 people a year and in the first half of 2014, the UN Refugee agency counted more than 2 million people as refugees living in India. They arrived during peak migration crisis and conflicts, including partition of 1974, the Tibet crisis of 1959, the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, civil wars in Sri Lanka and wars in Afghanistan and finally the crisis of Rohingyas in Myanmar. To counter such flows, the Indian government conceived the CAA by amending the Citizenship Act of 1955 and make naturalization process easier, except for displaced persons of Muslim faith. Further, the CAA seems to shift the basis of Indian citizenship from Jus Solis to Jus Sanguinis (by right of blood). It should be noted that, under the Indian Constitution, while certain rights are available only to citizens, others including the right to equality mentioned in the Constitution’s Article 14 and the right to life and liberty mentioned in Article 21, was interpreted by the Indian Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati Case in 1973 as available to all individuals, and not exclusively to Indian citizens. Indeed, the Indian Constitution stipulates that a non-citizen is certainly a person, and is therefore also entitled to those rights. As Atul Kamar, a Supreme Court advocate, told the India Today: “the migrants or refuges from these countries may be of any religion. Once they have come to India by whichever means then excluding Muslim refugees from the benefit of CAB 2019 would prima facie violate Articles 14 (…) Articles 14 and 15 are not confined to the citizens. It gives benefits of equality to any person within the territory of India even to a foreigner3”. In other words, Article 14 is the fundamental core of Indian Constitutional law and it not does not apply only to citizens but also to noncitizens because the words used in the article are, “any person”. The National Human Rights Commission Vs State of Arunachal Pradesh in 1996 centered on Chakma refugees, who were undocumented immigrants from Bangladesh. The Court observed that the fundamental rights to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution also applied to Chakma refugees, though they were not Indian citizens. In light of that, the CAA is 3. Prabhash K. Dutta. Why Citizenship Amendment Bill needs to pass Article 14 test. December 9, 2019. https://www.indiatoday.in/newsanalysis/story/does-citizenship-amendment-bill-violate-fundamentalright-to-equality-1626641-2019-12-09 2