Policy Brief Policy Center for the New South records. The Islamic Waqf Board, an elected legal body that oversees Sunni Islamic properties endowed for religious or charitable purposes, argued that there is no proof that a temple was ever destroyed to build the mosque, but stated that they respect the Supreme Court’s decision. However, the group of Hindu monks called Nirmohi Akhara, claimed the land in its entirety and asked for the right to build a temple there. The Hindu dieties Ram Lalla Virajman have also claimed that: “the deity of Lord Ram has jurisdictional rights and as such its right could not be divided and the entire piece of land should be handed over to the deity20”. Now, some wonder how long it will be until civil code is imposed. Indeed, Muslims in India are the world’s largest minority, and if they were a country, they would be the seventh-most populous in the world. But in the political imagination of Hindu nationalism they are seen as a threat. The Modi government is likely to table a Uniform Civil Code Bill21, which mandates implementing a common set of laws for all Indian citizens irrespective of their faith and abolishing Legal Pluralism: “Currently, India has separate marriage, property and adoption rules for people from different religions, but a code would wipe those out. That particularly worries the Muslim community, as it could mean that Sharia Law no longer governs their marriage, inheritance and succession rights22”. Certainly, Modi’s promise of economic reforms while restoring traditional Indian values to whom, but Indian leaders also promoted religious nationalism, and the UCC Bill is part of the BJP party outlook for “one India”. The editor Kapoor’s about the health of the world’s biggest democracy concerns are broader: “I think it’s bad for democracy. Especially the secular democracy we were brought up on, we were told it would be fair to minorities, fair to everybody…the government has a clear idea about where they want to take India and it has nothing to do with secularism23”. 20. Helene Regan, Swati Gupta and Manveena Sura. Hindus allowed to build on disputed holy site, India’s Supreme Court rules. CNN. November 9, 2019. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/08/asia/ayodhya-disputeindia-ruling-intl-hnk/index.html 21. Uniform Civil Code by 2020? Modi government likely to table UCC Bill in parliament in December 2019. October 09, 2019. https://www. timesnownews.com/india/article/uniform-civil-code-by-2020-modi-govtlikely-to-table-ucc-bill-in-parliament-in-dec/501855 22. Manveena Sura. In Secular India, it’s getting tougher to be Muslim. November 20, 2019. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/asia/ india-muslim-modi-intl-hnk/index.html 23. Manveena Sura. In Secular India, it’s getting tougher to be Muslim. November 20, 2019. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/asia/ india-muslim-modi-intl-hnk/index.html www.policycenter.ma The International Community’s Reaction to the Citizenship Amendment Act There has been international condemnation of India over the CAA. In the United States, a US federal panel on religion has urged the United States administration to consider sanctions against India’s Minister of Home Affairs Amit Shat, who said in 2018 that Muslim immigrants and asylum seekers from Bangladesh were termites and promised to rid India of them if New Delhi adopted legislation that provides a path to citizenship for religious minorities from its neighbors, but excludes Muslims. In another statement, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom reiterated similar concerns over the legislation, saying the then act: “enshrines a pathway to citizenship for immigrants that specifically excludes Muslims, setting a legal criterion for citizenship based on religion24”. This commission raised concerns over the proposed legislation even before it was endorsed by the Rajya Sahba (India’s upper house). It conceived of the bill as using religion as a pathway to citizenship to be against the core tenet of “religious pluralism”. Describing the bill as a “dangerous turn in the wrong direction25”, the American commission maintained that the bill undermined “the most democratic tenet26” and to demand sanctions against “Amit Shah and other principled leadership27”. Alongside the US Commission on international Religious Freedom, the US Ambassadorat-large for International Religious Freedom, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee similarly expressed their concern about the law28. However, Donald Trump during his visit in India last February, nevertheless hailed Modi as a defender of religious freedom: “we did talk about religious freedom, and I will say that the prime minister was incredible on what he told me. He wants 24. United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. December 9, 2019. https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releasesstatements/uscirf-raises-serious-concerns-and-eyes-sanctions 25. Prithvi Iyer. Analyzing global response to the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act. Observer Research Foundation. December 26, 2019. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/analyzing-global-response-tothe-controversial-citizenship-amendment-act-59529/ 26. Ibid 27. Ibid 28. 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 7