By Shaimin Raja
India’s recent decision to grant citizenship to a select group of Afghan Sikhs has ignited a complex debate about the country’s true motivations and the implications of its policies on regional relationships. While this move might be seen by some as a humanitarian gesture, it starkly highlights India’s selective approach to citizenship, especially when considering the exclusion of Afghan Muslims from this process. This selective granting of citizenship not only reveals underlying biases but also raises serious questions about the sincerity of India’s claims of friendship with Afghanistan.
The granting of citizenship to Afghan Sikhs comes at a time when the Indian government is reviewing over 400 applications from refugees, primarily focusing on non-Muslim minorities. This focus is in line with India’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), which provides a pathway to citizenship for religious minorities from neighboring countries, excluding Muslims. By choosing to prioritize Sikh migrants while sidelining Muslim refugees, India is reinforcing a narrative of religious discrimination that undermines its secular image and raises concerns about its commitment to universal human rights.
India’s decision to exclude Afghan Muslims from its citizenship process is particularly troubling given the demographic reality of Afghanistan, where Muslims constitute the overwhelming majority of the population. By excluding them, India is effectively disregarding the plight of a large segment of Afghan refugees who are fleeing the same dangers as their Sikh counterparts. This exclusion suggests a lack of respect and consideration for Afghanistan’s majority Muslim population, potentially straining India’s relationship with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
Furthermore, this selective policy raises serious questions about the credibility of India’s claims of friendship with Afghanistan. How can India present itself as a friend of the Afghan people when it is willing to help only a select group while leaving others to fend for themselves? This religious bias in India’s citizenship policy could be perceived as hypocritical, especially in the eyes of an Islamic country like Afghanistan. Such a stance may hinder India’s ability to foster genuine and balanced diplomatic relations with its neighbor.
The contradiction in India’s approach becomes even more apparent when we consider its treatment of Sikhs in other countries. While India presents itself as a savior of Afghan Sikhs, it has been embroiled in controversies over its treatment of Sikhs abroad, particularly in Canada. In Canada, the Indian government has been accused of persecuting Sikh activists and pressuring the Canadian government to crack down on Sikh separatist movements. This contradictory behavior complicates India’s position and raises doubts about the sincerity of its efforts to support Afghan Sikhs. Is this move truly about helping a vulnerable community, or is it a strategic move to polish India’s image on the global stage?
The timing of India’s decision also suggests that this may be more about domestic politics than a genuine concern for Afghan Sikhs. With rising nationalist sentiments and increasing polarization in India, the government’s move to grant citizenship to Afghan Sikhs could be seen as an attempt to appease its domestic support base. By positioning itself as a protector of non-Muslim minorities from Muslim-majority countries, the Indian government is likely catering to its nationalist supporters while further entrenching religious divides within the country.
Moreover, this decision could have broader geopolitical implications. Afghanistan, under the Taliban’s Islamic Emirate, may view India’s selective policies with suspicion. The exclusion of Afghan Muslims from India’s citizenship process could be seen as an affront to Afghanistan’s religious identity and sovereignty. This perceived hypocrisy may weaken India’s standing in the region and limit its ability to influence events in Afghanistan, particularly in the context of its competition with Pakistan for influence in the region.
The broader implications of this move also extend to India’s relationship with other Muslim-majority countries. India’s selective approach to citizenship and its treatment of Muslim refugees could strain its relations with countries in the Middle East and South Asia. These countries may view India’s policies as discriminatory and inconsistent with the principles of equality and justice that it claims to uphold. This could potentially isolate India on the international stage and undermine its efforts to project itself as a global leader in humanitarian and human rights issues.
In conclusion, while India’s decision to grant citizenship to Afghan Sikhs may appear as a noble and humanitarian act, it is fraught with contradictions and underlying biases that raise serious questions about the country’s true motivations. By excluding Afghan Muslims from this process, India is reinforcing a narrative of religious discrimination that undermines its secular image and strains its relationships with neighboring countries, particularly Afghanistan. The decision also highlights the Indian government’s strategic use of citizenship as a tool for domestic political gain, rather than as a genuine effort to support vulnerable communities. As India continues to navigate its complex regional relationships, it must carefully consider the broader implications of its policies and strive to uphold the principles of equality and justice that it claims to champion.
