Introduction
Citizenship, a seemingly straightforward concept, is often mired in the politics of closure and restriction. It is a privilege bestowed by the state and a right demanded by those excluded. It gives the right to claim every other right in a country. However, the concept of citizenship in itself often carries a sense of exclusivity. States have used citizenship to define who belongs and who doesn’t, granting access to rights and resources accordingly. The partition of India in 1947 left millions stateless, and more recently, the contentious National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam rendered nearly two million people vulnerable to exclusion, sparking widespread debates. Globally, the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar and the Syrian refugee displacement highlight the precariousness of those stripped of citizenship or denied it altogether. In this vein, this essay focuses on Chakma refugees who have not received citizenship in India despite living here for more than 50 years. In this essay, by focusing on Chakma refugees, I explore the inherent paradox of citizenship– its tendency towards closure and restriction, while also being the field where marginalized groups fight for inclusion and establish their social and political legitimacy.
This essay delves into the plight of Chakma refugees in India, weaving together their history of displacement, religious persecution, and enduring struggle for belonging. It examines how the Indian state’s approach to their citizenship reflects a broader historical shift, marked by tensions between inclusion and exclusion, as seen in the amendments to the Citizenship Amendment Bill of 2016. This shift is further linked to India’s transition from a Jus Soli to a Jus Sanguinis regime of citizenship, which has significantly undermined the Chakmas’ ability to claim their rightful place as citizens. Finally, the essay connects these broader legal and policy changes to the ground realities of local politics, highlighting how citizenship is not just a top-down offer but also shaped by grassroots resistance and regional dynamics, as evidenced by the challenges faced by the Chakmas.
Background
The story of the Chakma refugees is one of displacement, resilience, and the ongoing fight for belonging. They were Buddhists and resided in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). CHTs comprised ninety-eight percent of the non-Muslim population, including Buddhists and other ethnic communities. During the partition, they requested to be included in India, but their request was rejected by the Boundary Commission. The territory was given to Pakistan in clear defiance of the desire of the people of the land to be included in India. Initially, 40,000 Chakmas were forced to leave East Pakistan due to religious persecution and the construction of the Kaptai Dam in their region. In the decade of 1960s, the number increased as they continued to come facing challenges on their own land. The Central Government of India gave them permission to settle in the then North-Eastern Frontier Agency, now known as Arunachal Pradesh. The settlement of the Chakmas in Arunachal Pradesh has sparked significant socio-political tension, with indigenous groups, led by the AAPSU, opposing their presence due to fears of demographic change and loss of land rights. While the Chakmas have contributed economically by transforming wasteland into productive agricultural land, their settlement is viewed as a strain on local resources. Also, their distinct Buddhist identity has further fueled ethnic divisions, leading to their perception as outsiders in a region predominantly composed of indigenous, Hindu, and Christian communities. What unfolds herein is the continuous struggle of stateless Chakma people in acquiring citizenship rights in India. The Chakma community’s numbers - estimated to be around 1,00,000 in Arunachal Pradesh as of now - are not merely a statistic but a central element in the ongoing struggle for citizenship, ethnic identity, and territorial rights. Despite being a legal refugee and living in India for more than fifty years, their story of denial of citizenship shows India’s citizenship regime, which is entangled with politics of closure and exclusion.
Citizenship and the Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion
The concept of citizenship is deeply entangled with the politics of inclusion and exclusion, shaping who belongs and who is marginalized within a society. Citizenship can be based on particularistic attributes like ethnicity or religion (ethnic citizenship) or political allegiance to a state (civic citizenship). This can be reflected by looking at any state’s law on citizenship. In India, the politics of ethnic and civic citizenship has manifested in various instances. For example, the Assam Accord of 1985 addressed the issue of illegal immigration from Bangladesh, leading to the creation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC). The NRC’s goal was to identify ‘genuine’ Indian citizens in Assam, but its implementation raised significant concerns about exclusion, as many individuals, especially marginalized communities, were unable to provide adequate documentation. The exercise highlighted the tension between ethnic citizenship, as it sought to protect the cultural identity of Assamese people, and civic citizenship, as it raised questions about the rights of individuals who may have lived in India for decades but lacked official recognition. Additionally, the treatment of Rohingya refugees in India exemplifies the selective application of civic citizenship principles. Despite international obligations to protect refugees, the Indian government has often prioritized security concerns and ethnic considerations over universal human rights. This approach underscores how citizenship policies can be exclusionary, favoring certain groups while marginalizing others based on ethnicity or religion.
One such law, the Citizenship Amendment Bill (hereinafter, ‘CAB’), introduced in 2016 in India, is an example of how citizenship is closely associated with the politics of inclusion and exclusion. CAB was introduced to make it easier to grant citizenship to the non– Muslim communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who faced religious persecution. The Chakma refugees of Arunachal Pradesh fitted perfectly into the ambit of the CAB 2016. They were Buddhists who had entered India from what is now Bangladesh and were religiously persecuted. However, the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh protested against granting citizenship to Chakma people. What followed was an amendment in CAB 2016 that excluded from the ambit of the provision the people living in the area covered under “The Inner Line” from getting citizenship. Since Arunachal Pradesh is covered under this amendment, the people living there, including Chakmas, were excluded from claiming citizenship through CAA 2019. This can be seen as a deliberate attempt by the government to exclude a particular community from acquiring citizenship. Despite the political allegiance of the Chakma people towards the Indian state since the partition, they were excluded from acquiring citizenship rights. Here, ethnic citizenship in which citizenship is given based on ethnicity is seen to be given preference by the government against the notion of civic citizenship which is based on political allegiance. The politics of inclusion and exclusion by the Indian state can also be seen in India’s transition from Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis-based citizenship.
Jus Soli to Jus Sanguinis Approach of Citizenship
India initially adopted a Jus Soli approach to citizenship, which is based on granting citizenship to whoever is born in a particular territory. The application of jus soli aligns with the inclusive ethos of the Indian Constitution as it does not discriminate based on religion, race, or ethnicity. The inclusive nature of Jus Soli in the Indian context reflected the commitment of the Constitution to provide equal rights and opportunities to all individuals, regardless of their ethnic or cultural background. By recognizing citizenship based on birth within the country, the Indian Constitution upheld the principles of equality and non-discrimination, ensuring that marginalized communities like the Chakma had a legal pathway to citizenship and participation in the democratic process. In my view, despite facing challenges and being considered peripheral to the dominant Hindu and Muslim identities in India, the Chakma could assert their citizenship rights through legal mechanisms based on the principles of Jus Soli.
However, India has gradually transitioned from a Jus Soli regime to a more Jus Sanguinis-oriented approach to citizenship, which is based on descent and ethnicity for granting citizenship. This shift has taken place due to the concerns of illegal immigration and to preserve the cultural and ethnic balance. This can be seen in the citizenship laws that have been enacted and amended by the state. The Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 2003 introduced provisions for citizenship by descent for persons of Indian origin, indicating a move towards recognizing citizenship based on familial ties and descent. CAA 2019 introduced provisions for expedited citizenship based on religious identity. This legislation, in my view, while not explicitly Jus Sanguinis, reflects a shift towards considering religious affiliation in granting citizenship, moving away from a purely territorial-based or birth-based (Jus Soli) approach.
To me, India’s transition from the Jus Soli regime to Jus Sanguinis-based citizenship has had adverse effects on Chakma’s claims to citizenship. Under the Jus Soli approach to citizenship, some of the Chakma people who were born in India were able to claim citizenship based on their birth in India. Article 5 of the Constitution declares that a person who has been born in India, among other criteria, shall be a citizen of India. While article 5 clearly supports the Jus Soli approach, the Chakmas were in a unique legal position due to their status as refugees. They were actually born in CHTs (now Bangladesh) and thus only some of their descendants who were subsequently born in India were eligible for citizenship under Art. 5. Additionally, Jus Sanguinis’ approach to citizenship, which is based on lineage and ancestry, makes it challenging for Chakma to claim citizenship. Section 4 of Citizenship Act 1955 grants citizenship by descent. It provides that any person born outside India, on or after 26th January 1950 but before 1st July 1987, shall be a citizen of India by descent, provided that either of their parents is an Indian citizen. Some of the Chakmas who were born during this period could be eligible for this but the condition that their parents should be Indian citizens does not get fulfilled. Similarly, in the same section, for persons born after 1st July 1987, the provision requires that at least one parent be an Indian citizen at the time of the child’s birth. Thus it reinforces the idea that citizenship is determined by the nationality of the parents, not by place of birth. This Jus Sanguinis based citizenship makes it even harder for the Chakmas to get citizenship. Lastly, even those Chakmas who are eligible for citizenship are not able to get it due to the complex political environment in Arunachal Pradesh and the state’s reluctance to grant them citizenship. Despite the hurdles faced by Chakma due to the government’s politics of exclusion, they have continued their battles for citizenship both in the political arena and in the legal sphere.
Citizenship: a Top-down Offer or a Product of Local Politics
The Chakma community’s quest for Indian citizenship has been a long and arduous journey, marked by legal battles and bureaucratic hurdles. Various statutory bodies in India, including the Supreme Court, the NHRC, and the Election Commission, have recognized the legitimacy of their citizenship claims. For instance, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments in NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996) and Committee for Citizenship Rights of the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2016) declared the Chakmas to be legal migrants and upheld their right to Indian citizenship. The NHRC played a proactive role in defending the Chakmas’ human rights, particularly against violence and discrimination by local groups such as the All Arunachal Pradesh Students’ Union (AAPSU). The Commission’s efforts included filing writ petitions to ensure the Chakmas’ safety and legal recognition, highlighting the humanitarian dimension of their plight. The ECI’s intervention facilitated the inclusion of eligible Chakmas in electoral rolls following the Delhi High Court judgment of 2000. This acknowledgment provided some Chakmas with at least limited political participation rights. Despite these acknowledgments, however, the Chakmas continue to live without the full benefits of citizenship rights. The process of granting citizenship remains slow and limited, with only a small percentage of the community successfully obtaining legal recognition. This delay is largely attributable to protests from local communities, particularly the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU), and the state government’s reluctance due to fears of ethnic imbalance.
While these challenges highlight the role of local politics in shaping citizenship, it is also important to view citizenship through an international lens. Global frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) emphasize that citizenship is integral to human dignity and the realization of fundamental rights. Article 15 of the UDHR states that “everyone has the right to a nationality,” and “no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality nor denied the right to change their nationality.” By failing to grant citizenship to the Chakmas, the Indian state not only denies their human rights but also falls short of fulfilling its commitments to international norms.
By excluding Muslims and prioritizing specific religious groups, the CAA, 2019 has entrenched a framework that conflates citizenship with religious identity, deviating from India’s constitutional ethos of secularism and equality. In the case of the Chakmas, despite fitting the profile of religiously persecuted individuals, their exclusion from the Act due to geographical constraints, such as the “Inner Line” provision, underscores the inconsistencies and inequities within the CAA framework. CAA, 2019 while addressing short-term political objectives, fails to provide sustainable solutions for marginalized groups like the Chakmas. Instead, they risk deepening social divisions, undermining the constitutional values like equality, secularity and inclusivity and also evading India’s commitments to international human rights frameworks. Balancing the legitimate concerns of indigenous communities with the rights of displaced groups requires a nuanced approach that goes beyond exclusionary policies and fosters dialogue, compromise, and integration strategies.
Thus, the Chakmas’ struggles illustrate that citizenship is not solely a top-down offer from the state but is shaped by the interplay of local opposition, national policies, and global human rights standards. Addressing their plight requires a holistic approach that integrates local realities with constitutional values and international obligations, ensuring that citizenship remains a bridge to inclusion rather than a barrier to rights.
Conclusion
While the Chakmas’ struggle for citizenship exposes the contradictions within India’s citizenship regime, it also presents an opportunity for a more inclusive approach. Their story underscores the need for a multifaceted approach that transcends the limitations of legal frameworks and acknowledges the realities on the ground. Granting citizenship based on court rulings and facilitating integration through education, healthcare, and employment will end their long state of limbo and will ensure equal rights. Finally, promoting empathy and understanding among all parties involved- the Chakmas, the indigenous Arunachalis, and the government- is essential for fostering a sense of shared belonging. By implementing a combination of legal remedies, social integration efforts, and collaborative dialogue, India can strive towards a more inclusive citizenship regime.
By Ritik Kumar Ritik Kumar is a II Year B.A., L.L.B (Hons.) student at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru, with a strong focus on socio-political research, particularly in the fields of citizenship and marginalized communities. He has interned with organizations like Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra and Nanda Kishore Associates, gaining hands-on experience in legal research and community engagement. Ritik is an active member of the Moot Court Society and Law and Technology Society at NLSIU, where he has honed his legal skills and contributed to seminars on cyber law and technology.
References Singh, Deepak K. “Lost in Transition: A Narrative of Non-Existence.” Economic and Political Weekly 51, no. 36 (2016): 46-54. Cooper, Frederick. “Citizenship, Inequality, and Difference.” In Historical Perspectives in Citizenship and Belonging. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2018. Izzat, Moosa, “The Chakmas' Struggle for Citizenship: Breaking down India's Citizenship Acquisition Regime.” NUJS Law Review 15, no. 3-4 (July-December 2022): 346-358. Jayal, Niraja Gopal. “Legal Citizenship and the Long Shadow of the Partition.” In Citizenship and its Discontents: An Indian History. Cambridge, Mass. & London, England: Harvard University Press, 2013. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Assembly Resolution 217A, 1948. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
The Constitution of India, 1950.
The Citizenship Act, 1955.
Comments