 I'm an Indian citizen and I'm here all of you are equally Indian citizens and that is why all of you are here today the question is are we Indian citizens that is what this government wants us to answer and that is why we are offended we are offended because a set of politicians or political leaders who have had no role in the freedom movement who have had no role in the formation of this wonderful country they are the ones who are saying we will determine who the citizens of this country is and that is a very very offensive idea to all of us if the question is see there have been in the last ever since BJP came to power there have been disturbing trends as the speakers before me alluded to there have been disturbing trends and we know the color of the BJP the government and power in the center and the kind of violence that has been unleashed against the minorities lynching the beef-eating issue all those things and then finally the assault on 377 the JNK and then the Ayodhya issue so one after the other there has been undermining of the freedom of the minorities in this country and that has been an ongoing process but you did not see the kind of movement or the protest the solidarity that has been expressed by people across the country coming out on the streets and protesting starting from the young to the old for example in Shahin Bagh on the television I was surprised to see there was a 92-year-old lady a Muslim lady who spoke up and who said who's is Modi to ask about who my father is I can tell you who my father is he said some Shahid Khan some other Khan was the grandfather the great grandfather she mentioned some 10 generations and she said Modi is going to come and ask me about who my grandfather is asking to come and talk to me is what so powerful her statement was so that is a kind of revulsion and kind of jolt that this move has given to all of us to each one of us why is it so it's because see what what do you mean by citizenship why are we all so concerned about being a citizen of this country and why are we all so concerned about this move by the government by which they take an action in favor of a particular religion to the exclusion of a particular religion why are we all so offended it is because citizenship means a person who is domiciled in a particular country will start enjoying civic as well as political rights they are the persons who are going to determine the future of that country and that's what happened when we drafted the Constitution it begins by seeing we the people of India it does not say Indian National Congress it is we the people of India who gave the Constitution to ourselves now that people of India represented people of all communities all religion and that is the idea of the Constitution the Constitution says that this country is a representative of all the religions all the communities everybody who is here and so in part two of the Constitution which said who the citizens are at the time of drafting of the Constitution in 1950 there is no reference to religion at all it says whoever was found in India in 1948 all of them are Indians if somebody had migrated to Pakistan and had come back then there are certain conditions imposed that's how the Constitution recognized citizenship it never said if you're a Hindu then it is two years or five years if you if you're a Muslim then certain conditions no it was based on your right to reside in the place and you're claiming there is citizenship that's about it now what are we faced with we are faced with a parliamentary law this is not a Constitutional amendment mind you it's a parliamentary law now a question may arise if the Constitution does not provide for citizenship in a to be recognized in a particular way how is a parliament competent to do it there is a provision unfortunately as what is to be noted is that in 1947 India was faced with the specter of partition therefore people where there was an migration of people in large numbers many people were not sure about what their future is going to be so from March or early 1947 onwards there was a mass exodus of people going across the border this way and that way so in 1950 when the Constitution was framed the Constituent Assembly was alive to the fact that there could be a cross-border migration even in future therefore what they decided was let us enable the parliament to frame a law in future as far as as far as grant of citizenship as well as its termination therefore article 11 in the Constitution said parliament may frame a law in order to determine a grant of citizenship as well as its termination that's what it says now the question that arises is can the parliament disregard the Constitution and frame any law that it chooses if in the initial stages the Constitution did not recognize grant of citizenship based on religion can the parliament today amend it and say I grant citizenship to certain people belonging to some religion and to the exclusion of people belonging to another religion that's a very legitimate the question that arises and that is what we are asking the BJP seems to think and that that's apparent from the manner in which the Home Minister has addressed the nation in various fora as well as in the parliament that we have the power and therefore we decide and their only justification given for this kind of a classification which was mentioned by Mr. Manu Raj is that these Hindus and Buddhists and Christians, Parsis and Jains and Sikhs have faced persecution in these three countries and therefore we and they have migrated here because of religious persecution and therefore we grant them citizenship we think that they are in a very pitiable condition they've come here for better life we want to protect their interests and therefore we grant them citizenship now questions have been asked across the country why have you there are Muslims also persecuted Ahmadiyya's in Pakistan we have the Sri Lankan Tamils and from Sri Lanka we have the Christians from Bhutan you have the Rohingyas they're also from neighboring countries but they are not Hindus barring the Sri Lankan Tamils what happens to them there is no answer except to say that we have granted decided on granting citizenship to these people because they are persecuted and they have given the mic to Mr. Harish Chalve senior advocate of the Supreme Court who I understand was behind the drafting of this whole thing to say that the classification is fine Supreme Court has recognized under classification law need not encompass across the board for everybody and therefore there is nothing wrong in the classification it achieves the objects which are set up set out in the amendment namely we want to give a better status to the persecuted Hindus from across the board that is their answer of course on on the question of the validity of the classification much argument is being advanced but I want to go to a more fundamental question now does this amendment meet the core values of the Constitution forget about classification does can the Parliament enact a law which is highly discriminatory as against one particular religion and say I have the power and article 11 and therefore I can do as I want now there lies the fallacy because if you read the Constitution and the powers of the Parliament the Parliament derives its power to draft a law from article 245 of the Constitution and that article begins by saying subject to the provisions of the Constitution Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India so it's not as if the Parliament can draft any law that pleases that law drafted by the Parliament has to be subject to the provisions of the Constitution and schedule seven of the Constitution which mentions the items or the topics on which the Parliament can draft legislation mentions an item 17 citizenship naturalization and aliens therefore Parliament does have the power to draft a law on citizenship but its powers are limited by the provisions of the Constitution now what do the provisions of the Constitution say one of the basic structures of secularism and secularism has been interpreted and by has been understood by all of us as there is freedom of religion in the private sphere but the state shall not involve religion in any of its democratic and its public activities the state shall distance itself from religious propagation in any of its activities now that is made clear in article 28 which says no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of state funds why do they say that the Constitution says that because it wants a state to distance itself from religion in its governmental spheres now grant of citizenship is undoubtedly a sovereign function in that sovereign function can the Parliament say that the government shall take religion as the basis of grant of citizenship that is a question that arises I'll just mention a few other articles which are relevant one article 14 was mentioned by Mr. Manuraj which says any person is entitled to which given equality similarly article 21 which guarantees the fundamental right to life also applies to non-citizens also so when there are illegal immigrants from Muslim community are they not entitled to protection of life they're also entitled to be given the right to life under our Constitution the other thing is we have direct to principles of state policy which say article 38 state shall promote and secure and protect a social order which is informed with justice social economic and political and that shall inform all institutions of national life now so apart from that there is a further amendment which imposes fundamental duties on all of us and some of which are to abide by the Constitution and respects its ideals it doesn't say the provisions of the Constitution it says the citizen shall respect the ideals of the Constitution cherish and follow the noble ideals of the Constitution that inspired our national struggle for freedom that's my duty and therefore I'm here to speak up to uphold and protect the sovereignty unity and integrity of India to promote harmony and spirit of brotherhood among all transcending religious linguistic and other diversities now I ask these parliamentarians do they cease to have these obligations under the Constitution once they go inside the Parliament they continue to be citizens of this country and these fundamental duties are their obligations to they can't say I enjoy immunity inside the Parliament and therefore I can forget all these noble ideals of the Constitution and frame whichever law I want that's not what they are supposed to do and look at the manner in which secularism pervades all the laws so much so that in our election law representation of people's act 1951 which enables people to contest parliamentary elections and assembly elections and procedures are laid down in that if a candidate propagates or canvases for votes during the course of electoral process on the basis of religion it is treated as a corrupt practice and it's treated as an electoral offense now I want to ask a candidate cannot take any action based on religion while canvassing but after going and sitting inside the Parliament he can take action based on religion how is it fair he should reflect the same prohibition while acting as an MP also unfortunately in passing the citizenship bill all the BJP MPs have thrown the constitutional obligations into wins they've forgotten the core values of the Constitution and passed a law which is based only on religion nothing else no other explanation is being given by them the other argument which I think is very relevant is see there is a big what shall I say irreconcilable position between what is prevalent in Assam of about which the comrade will speak then what is prevalent in the rest of the country when we are saying what about the Sri Lankan Tamils what about Rohingyas what about the others who are coming across the border why don't you grant all of them citizenship do we really mean it I don't know but the as a means definitely don't want any kind of leniency in grant of citizenship because they have a major problem which resulted in a lot of heart and strife and finally the Assam Accord was signed in 1985 as a result of which people had to be identified as illegal immigrants and sent out because the Supreme Court in the case that involved the Assam Accord and the efforts of the central government to grant citizenship to all the illegal immigrants across the board there were certain enactments frame for that which went up to the Supreme Court and this present Chief Minister of BJP was a petitioner Mr. Sonawal he was a petitioner in those cases challenging the central government's efforts to grant citizenship to all illegal immigrants from Bangladesh now the assamese people have been agitating saying that our right to our own indigenous culture our language everything is being threatened by these outsiders and what does the Supreme Court say the Supreme Court agrees with the petitioner it says that all these outsiders if they are permitted to settle down in Assam they are going to be a threat to the preservation and promotion of the culture of assamese people now I want to ask is it our culture to abjure a particular religion it is not Indian culture is not that our culture is to live amicably with people of all religions and therefore are you not doing violence to that culture by saying my state's policy is to grant citizenship from for outsiders only if they belong to certain religion and not if they belong to the Islam the answer of the home minister is no no no as far as citizens Muslims who are already citizens are concerned it doesn't affect them in any way now I think that's a very very even a child will not accept that argument because we know what is happening a lot of my Muslim friends say that their children want to leave this country and go away because when a state proclaims that this particular religion is not a preferred religion of this government what is the message that is sent across that you are not wanted in this country today a brilliant student of Pondicherry University was asked to go out to the convocation hall because she was a Muslim for no other reason that is the kind of message that is being sent across therefore we've got to understand who is the central government what is their actual face who has engineered this amendment and what is their ultimate goal their ultimate goal is to convert India into a Hindu Russia their spokespeople have been repeatedly saying we will see to it that the Muslims and Christians no Muslim and Christian is left behind in India by 2021 one BJP core of spokesperson person announces in 2014 as soon as the first government BJP government was formed and this amendment act is only a translation of their dream therefore friends my fervent plea is let us be vigilant we have to understand the politics behind this move let us not allow it the agitations to die down we have to keep up the tempo and I would welcome many more discussions like this thank you