NEW DELHI: External affairs minister S Jaishankar on Saturday said that it is important to put the new Citizenship (Amendment) Act in the context of the 1947 Partition which divided the Indian subcontinent into two independent nations India and Pakistan
Responding to the criticism of CAA from the US and other parts of the world, Jaishankar said that there are a number of examples in which countries have fast-tracked citizenship.
During an interaction at a media event, the foreign minister advised critics to hold up a mirror to their own policies as he cited Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was about Jews from Soviet Union, the Lautenberg Amendment, Specter Amendment and “fast-tracking of Hungarians after the Hungarian revolution, fast-tracking of Cubans in 1960s”.
“So, if you were to ask me, have other countries, other democracies, fast-tracked on the basis of ethnicity, faith, social attributes, I can give you any number of examples,” the minister said.
“Look, I am not questioning the imperfections or otherwise of their democracy or their principles or lack of it. I am questioning their understanding of our history. If you hear comments from many parts of the world, it is as if the Partition of India never happened, there were no consequential problems which the CAA is supposed to address.”
So, if you take a problem and “remove all the historical context from it, sanitise it and make it into a political correctness” argument, and say, ‘I have principles and don’t you have principles’, “I have principles too, and one of them is obligation to people who were let down at the time of Partition. And, I think, the home minister spoke very eloquently on it yesterday”, he added.
“Now, if I were to also say, after all why is the situation important, because very often when you have something very cataclysmic, something really very major, it is not possible to deal with all the consequences right then and there.
“The leadership of this country had promised to these minorities that if you have a problem, you are welcome to come to India. The leadership thereafter didn’t deliver on the promise,” he added.
Jaishankar said it is “not just our predicament. If you look at Europe, many European countries fast-tracked the citizenship of people who were left behind in the World War or in some cases much before the World War Some historical issues which were not addressed…I have a moral obligation to that community”.
“So, the world is full of examples, and to me the context therefore is very important,” the minister said.
During the interaction, the Union minister also responded to questions on an Indian national, facing charges in a murder-for-hire plot to kill a Khalistani separatist on American soil and US Ambassador Eric Garcetti’s remarks a day earlier on its impact on US-India ties.
“You keep using India and Canada seamlessly, I would draw a line there, for a variety of reasons. Most notably that all said and done, American politics has not given that kind of space to violent extremist views and activities which Canada has done. So, I don’t think it’s fair to the US to lump them together. I would distinguish between the two,” Jaishankar said.
It is notable that the relations between India and Canada saw bitterness last year over allegations linked with the killing of Khalistani separatist and designated terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June in the Canadian city of Surrey. India denied the allegation as “absurd and motivated”.
Responding to the criticism of CAA from the US and other parts of the world, Jaishankar said that there are a number of examples in which countries have fast-tracked citizenship.
During an interaction at a media event, the foreign minister advised critics to hold up a mirror to their own policies as he cited Jackson-Vanik amendment, which was about Jews from Soviet Union, the Lautenberg Amendment, Specter Amendment and “fast-tracking of Hungarians after the Hungarian revolution, fast-tracking of Cubans in 1960s”.
“So, if you were to ask me, have other countries, other democracies, fast-tracked on the basis of ethnicity, faith, social attributes, I can give you any number of examples,” the minister said.
“Look, I am not questioning the imperfections or otherwise of their democracy or their principles or lack of it. I am questioning their understanding of our history. If you hear comments from many parts of the world, it is as if the Partition of India never happened, there were no consequential problems which the CAA is supposed to address.”
So, if you take a problem and “remove all the historical context from it, sanitise it and make it into a political correctness” argument, and say, ‘I have principles and don’t you have principles’, “I have principles too, and one of them is obligation to people who were let down at the time of Partition. And, I think, the home minister spoke very eloquently on it yesterday”, he added.
“Now, if I were to also say, after all why is the situation important, because very often when you have something very cataclysmic, something really very major, it is not possible to deal with all the consequences right then and there.
“The leadership of this country had promised to these minorities that if you have a problem, you are welcome to come to India. The leadership thereafter didn’t deliver on the promise,” he added.
Jaishankar said it is “not just our predicament. If you look at Europe, many European countries fast-tracked the citizenship of people who were left behind in the World War or in some cases much before the World War Some historical issues which were not addressed…I have a moral obligation to that community”.
“So, the world is full of examples, and to me the context therefore is very important,” the minister said.
During the interaction, the Union minister also responded to questions on an Indian national, facing charges in a murder-for-hire plot to kill a Khalistani separatist on American soil and US Ambassador Eric Garcetti’s remarks a day earlier on its impact on US-India ties.
“You keep using India and Canada seamlessly, I would draw a line there, for a variety of reasons. Most notably that all said and done, American politics has not given that kind of space to violent extremist views and activities which Canada has done. So, I don’t think it’s fair to the US to lump them together. I would distinguish between the two,” Jaishankar said.
It is notable that the relations between India and Canada saw bitterness last year over allegations linked with the killing of Khalistani separatist and designated terrorist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in June in the Canadian city of Surrey. India denied the allegation as “absurd and motivated”.