India is a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country where diverse communities have coexisted for centuries. The Indian Constitution defines the nation-state as a secular, democratic republic, guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens regardless of religion, race, gender, etc.
In recent years, however, religion has increasingly influenced national policy and public discourse. In the state of Assam, citizenship determination processes have drawn international concern for their disproportionate impact on Bengali-speaking Muslims. Meanwhile, the 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has sparked nationwide debate for introducing religion as a criterion for acquiring citizenship, a shift that many view as undermining India’s secular foundation.
Citizenship Legislation in India
The evolution of India’s citizenship laws reflects the country’s ongoing struggle to balance inclusion and national identity within a complex socio-political context. The introduction of religion-based criteria under the CAA, 2019 has prompted scholarly and public debate regarding its compatibility with India’s constitutional vision of equality and secularism.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) is a law passed by the Indian Parliament on 11 December 2019, amending the Citizenship Act of 1955. It provides a path to Indian citizenship for certain religious groups, namely Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, who entered India on or before 31 December 2014. The Act reduces the residency requirement for these groups from 11 years to 5 years.
Darshana Mitra – An Overview of Citizenship Legislation in India
Citizenship Determination process in Assam
Assam, like other Indian states, is ethnically and religiously diverse states, Assam’s immigration policies have been shaped by long-standing ethnic and identity-based conflicts. The Assam Movement (1979–1985) led to the signing of the Assam Accord, introducing the concept of “illegal migrants” into India’s citizenship framework.
- National Register of Citizens (NRC) – An administrative process that excluded 1.9 million people from its final 2019 list.
- Foreigner’s Tribunals (FTs) – Quasi-judicial process that have declared over 160,000 individuals as foreigners (as of December 2024).
These processes have raised widespread concerns about their impact on women, minorities, and intergenerational rights, particularly among Bengali-speaking Muslims.
Impact on Bengal speaking Muslim community
The Assamese Hindu community forms the majority population, while Islam is the second-largest religion in the state. The Bengali-speaking Muslim community, with deep historical roots in Assam, shares linguistic and cultural ties with Bangladesh, an outcome of colonial migration, shifting borders, and conflicts. Despite generations of residence, with many born in India, they are often perceived as outsiders and face social stigma. Limited access to documentation and burden of proof on the individual, has further exposed them to exclusion through the NRC and FT processes, heightening their vulnerability to statelessness and rights deprivation.
Disproportionate Impact on Women
International human rights standards oblige State Parties to guarantee women equal rights to acquire, change, or retain their nationality. However, in practice, some countries continue to apply gender-discriminatory nationality laws or administrative procedures that can result in the deprivation of nationality, often through unequal access to documentation and verification processes.
Policy Brief, 2020
Potential Consequences
As discussed in the Deprivation & Statelessness page, the deprivation of nationality carries grave human rights implications.
In Assam, the exclusion of 1.9 million people from the NRC and over 160,000 declared foreigners by FTs illustrates the scale of vulnerability. While official data remains unavailable, evidence suggests that Bengali-speaking Muslims face the highest risk, including in situ statelessness, arbitrary detention, and violations of fundamental rights due to deprivation of nationality.
Shardul Gopujkar – Consequences of Foreigner Status in Assam
Detention in Assam
In 2023, the state established India’s largest detention centre in Matia, located in Assam’s Goalpara district, with a capacity to hold up to 3,000 individuals. While detention in cases of citizenship determination is often framed as a temporary measure pending repatriation to another country with verified nationality, such repatriation is rarely possible in Assam. Many detainees have no recognized citizenship elsewhere, leaving them vulnerable to broader human rights risks associated with prolonged detention and statelessness.
Immigration detention refers to the “deprivation of an individual’s liberty, usually of an administrative character, for an alleged breach of the conditions of entry, stay or residence in the receiving country”. Due to the lack of a clear detention policy in many countries, such detentions do not meet the standards of international human rights law safeguards. This leads to arbitrary practices, including prolonged confinement without case-by-case assessment on the need for detention, lack of due process, and minimal safeguards. Although detention for deportation is meant to be administrative, many states apply penal measures, leading to significant gaps between domestic practices and international legal norms.
Human Rights and Immigration Detention
International human rights standards establish a presumption against the arbitrary detention of refugees, asylum seekers, and migrants, emphasizing that vulnerable groups, such as children, stateless persons, pregnant women, the elderly, and persons with disabilities, should not be detained.
While detention of asylum seekers and immigrants is permitted only in exceptional circumstances, it must be governed by domestic legislation aligned with international human rights standards. Such detention must be necessary, proportionate, and reasonable, assessed on a case-by-case basis and only be for a minimal period of time. These safeguards apply regardless of immigration status, and all detainees are entitled to extensive rights and safeguards, which authorities must uphold in both letter and spirit.
Alternatives-To-Detention
-Alternatives to detention (ATD) are any legislation, policy or practice, formal or informal, that ensures people are not detained for reasons relating to their migration status. It is a legal requirement under international human rights law to consider multiple alternatives to detention before detaining an individual. The following are key factors to consider against detention.
-Children cannot be detained due to their parent’s or their migration status, and family unity should not justify their detention. Alternatives must be pursued for the whole family.
-Refugees have the right to contact UNHCR, and all immigration detainees are entitled to consular assistance as part of due process.
-Proper documentation supports these alternatives, helping prevent re-detention and enabling access to work, healthcare, and housing. Legal frameworks are essential to ensure accountability and uphold standards.
Course: Citizenship & National Identity
Exploring the relationship between citizenship and national identity, statelessness, and religious minorities.
To further explore the intersecting issues of citizenship, deprivation, and their consequences,
Related Resources
Find digital tools produced in cooperation with partners and researchers from different regions.
Coverphoto: by Andrew Renneisen/Getty Images
