The Lower House of India’s Parliament (Lok Sabha) has passed an amendment bill to the existing citizenship law. As a result, refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, who have been residing in India for at least five years and belong to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religions, have been deemed eligible for Indian citizenship. Muslim refugees do not possess this eligibility because they can potentially reside in Muslim-majority countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Since religion has been made the basis for eligibility in this bill, it is being viewed as contrary to the concept of India being a secular state. Similarly, since it affects Muslims, criticism and protests have been ongoing from their side. In this context, in response to a question, esteemed teacher, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has clarified his principled stance. The summary of his position is as follows.
I fundamentally consider the law restricting migration between states to be incorrect. To me, it goes against basic human rights. This earth is Allah’s earth, and all human beings have an equal right to live on it. It is among the basic human rights that a person, according to their circumstances and needs, should be able to move to and reside in whichever region they desire and make it their homeland. In certain situations, this migration is not voluntary but becomes an inevitable demand of faith. If it becomes difficult to maintain the worship of Allah in an area, and people cannot freely practice their religion, then faith requires them to leave that place and move to a location where they can openly express and practice their religion without any hindrance. The Qur’an has referred to this as Hijra, and there is a warning of hellfire for those who avoid migrating under such circumstances. The directive is states as follows:
اِنَّ الَّذِيۡنَ تَوَفّٰٮهُمُ الۡمَلٰٓٮِٕكَةُ ظَالِمِىۡۤ اَنۡفُسِهِمۡ قَالُوۡا فِيۡمَ كُنۡتُمۡؕ قَالُوۡا كُنَّا مُسۡتَضۡعَفِيۡنَ فِىۡ الۡاَرۡضِؕ قَالُوۡۤا اَلَمۡ تَكُنۡ اَرۡضُ اللّٰهِ وَاسِعَةً فَتُهَاجِرُوۡا فِيۡهَاؕ فَاُولٰٓٮِٕكَ مَاۡوٰٮهُمۡ جَهَـنَّمُؕ وَسَآءَتۡ مَصِيۡرًا
[Even at this instance, people who are not willing to come out of the cities where they are being persecuted, tell them O Prophet that] people whose souls will be claimed by the angels in such circumstances that [while endangering their faith] they were being unjust to their souls; they will ask them: “What circumstances were you in?” “We were totally helpless in this land,” they will reply. The angels will say: “Was not the land of God spacious enough for you to migrate in it?” So, it is these people whose abode is Hell, and what an evil abode it is. (4:97)
Consider the current situation where the persecution of Muslims is occurring in China, and what is happening with the Rohingya and in Myanmar. In light of these circumstances, if people wish to migrate in obedience to Allah’s command, where can they go? People are being forced to change their religion and millions are being deprived of their citizenship. If they wish to migrate due to persecution or as a consequence of war and conflict, they are being denied acceptance. The question arises: who has granted the pre-existing residents the right to bar the path of those who come later?
Only the Creator of this universe holds the right to evacuate an area or impose restrictions on any place. No group, race, or nation possesses this right. This land belongs to Allah Almighty. He has given it to humankind, transcending all distinctions of color, race, and religion. People may choose to live wherever they wish. This is a divinely granted right from Allah that no one can take away.
It is stated that the origin of humanity is from Africa, which means that people migrated to spread across the world. If this migration was permissible for the earliest humans, then how can it be forbidden today? Those people who migrated and settled in Australia or America centuries ago, did they have any entitlement, did they go with any visa or passport? How can they deprive others of the right they deemed rightful for themselves? This is the same case in other parts of the world. As a result, some regions are lying empty like vast deserts, and in some places, there are no means for people to earn a living. Therefore, in my view, it must be included in fundamental human rights that no restrictions can be imposed on migration on God’s earth. Such restrictions cannot be placed on the basis of race or color, nor on the basis of religion or birth, nor on the basis of how long someone has been settled in an area. This restriction on the fundamental right of migration is the compulsion of the nation-states of the present age. Every modern state is guilty of this compulsion. This is a collective oppression by the nation-states against fundamental human rights, against which humanity should strive vigorously to attain liberation.
After establishing this principle, consider that in the concept of a modern nation-state, it is an accepted principle that the basis of citizenship will be geography. This means that a defined territory will be called a country, and its inhabitants will be called its citizens. The rights of citizenship will be the same for all inhabitants, with no discrimination or division based on color, race, language, or religion. Now, if India is a modern nation-state, making religion the basis of granting citizenship is against that fundamental principle on which the modern nation-state is founded. Ideally, you should have stood at the position where if people from other countries, facing oppression, persecution, deprivation, and violation of established citizenship rights, come to us, our doors would be open for them, and we would be ready to grant them equal citizen rights. If you could not stand at this position, then at least you should not have moved away from the position where the modern era’s nation-state stands. If you decided to grant citizenship to certain people, then religion should never have been made the basis for accepting or rejecting them, as it contradicts the concept of the nation-state on which the state of India is founded.
The positive aspect of the concept of the nation-state was that it based citizenship on geography rather than color, race, or religion. Had it remained on this foundation, it would still have been somewhat beneficial to the world, as it introduced regions where individuals could rise above the distinctions of color, race, and religion and achieve nationality. Now, if even this aspect does not remain, the limited utility of the nation-state, which ensures its survival, will also not remain.
In my opinion, such actions by states are based on oppression and aggression. They are contrary to basic human rights and also against the concept of a modern nation-state. Instead of being distressed by these actions and raising slogans of national pride, we Muslims should take a principled stance that wherever persecution occurs in the world, whether it is against Muslims or any other nation, we will condemn it and raise our voice against it. If only our Muslim governments—whose doors are closed even to Muslims—were granted the resolve by God to declare that wherever there is persecution in the world, wherever there is oppression and injustice, wherever the market of war and conflict is heated, wherever human rights are violated, wherever people are harassed and their citizenship is denied, our doors are open for those people. They may come and make our land their homeland. Pakistan should stand firm on this position. Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Gulf states, and other Muslim countries should adopt the same position.