The Union Government, fulfilling its promise outlined in the election manifesto, has enacted the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, successfully passing it in both houses of Parliament. This historic legislation aims to end decades of oppression and persecution endured by Hindu minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Notably, the primary beneficiaries of the CAA are Dalits, who form a significant majority of the minority Hindu population in these countries. The Act offers a path to liberation for Dalits, who have long been deprived of civil rights and subjected to systemic discrimination by the dominant Islamic population under these regimes since the Partition.
During the Partition, while many Hindus from East and West Pakistan sought refuge in India, a large number of Dalits were forcibly prevented from crossing the borders. Local Muslim populations retained them in Pakistan, relegating them to degrading occupations such as manual scavenging. In contrast, upper-caste Hindus, particularly those with substantial landholdings, were compelled to flee, leaving behind properties that were subsequently seized by the Muslim majority in the newly formed nation. To this day, Dalits in Pakistan and Bangladesh continue to face social marginalization and are coerced into menial labor.
In Pakistan, Dalits comprise approximately 80-85% of the three-million Hindu population. Representing 42 distinct castes, such as Bhils, Meghwals, Odhs, and Kohlis, most Pakistani Dalits reside in Sindh, with smaller communities in southern Punjab and Baluchistan. These Dalit Hindus live in dire poverty, with over 70% remaining illiterate. In Bangladesh, Hindus make up about 8.5% of the total population, amounting to approximately 14 million people. Of these, over 6-7 million are Dalits.
Reports from Pakistan highlight that, compared to upper-caste Hindus, Dalits endure the harshest forms of discrimination, including abduction, rape, accusations of blasphemy, and grinding poverty. They are arguably among the most persecuted religious minority groups in South Asia. Meanwhile, in Bangladesh, systemic religious persecution, often orchestrated by Jamaat-e-Islami, has left minority communities in a state of severe distress. Violence against Hindus, incited by the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, has escalated steadily since the country’s liberation war.
A significant portion of Hindu refugees from Bangladesh are Dalits, and they have faced tragic fates even in India. The infamous Marichjhapi massacre of 1979, perpetrated under the CPM government in West Bengal, saw almost all victims being Dalits. It is estimated that over 15,000 Dalit refugees perished in this state-sponsored violence, succumbing to police gunfire, starvation, and disease.
Why Did Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Advocate for All Dalits to Return to India?
The current plight of Hindu minorities in Pakistan is a direct consequence of the errors made during Partition, evolving naturally from those historical missteps. The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB) seeks to rectify these past mistakes by offering a lasting solution.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, had foreseen the dire predicament that Hindu minorities would face in an Islamic republic. This foresight led him to strongly advocate for a “transfer of population” between India and Pakistan. Dr. Ambedkar urged all Dalits trapped in Pakistan to migrate to India “by any means available,” emphasizing that placing trust in Muslims or the Muslim League was a perilous course for Scheduled Castes.
He cautioned Dalits in Pakistan and Hyderabad against aligning with Muslims solely out of a shared resentment toward upper-caste Hindus, dismissing this perspective as “a grave mistake.” His warnings resonate today as a prescient critique of the challenges faced by Dalits and other Hindu minorities in Pakistan.
“I would like to tell the Scheduled Castes who happen to be impounded inside Pakistan to come over to India by such means as may be available to them. The second thing I want to say is that it would be fatal for the Scheduled Castes, whether in Pakistan or in Hyderabad, to put their faith in Muslims or Muslim League. It has become a habit with the Scheduled Castes to look upon the Muslims as their friends simply because they dislike Hindus. This is a mistaken view,” Dr Ambedkar said. (The Free Press Journal, November 28, 1947)
Ambedkar was unequivocal in his criticism of Nehru and the Congress, condemning their policy of Muslim appeasement as a key factor behind their neglect of the Dalit community. Delivering a public address at Jullunder, in October 1951, Dr Amebedkar said, “There was no place for the Scheduled Castes in the heart of the Congress Party and added that Nehru suffered from Muslim mania and his heart was pitiless to the Scheduled Castes.” (As cited in Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission, Dhananjay Keer, p. 438)
Dr. Ambedkar firmly believed that life for non-Muslims in an Islamic republic was inherently untenable. “Islam is a close corporation, and the distinction that it makes between Muslims and non-Muslims is a very real, very positive and very alienating distinction. The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is the brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is fraternity, but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt and enmity,” Babasaheb Ambedkar wrote in his magnum opus, Pakistan or Partition of India.
“According to Muslim canon Law the world is divided into two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war). A country is Dar-ul-Islam when it is ruled by Muslims. A country is Dar-ul-Harb when Muslims only reside in it but are not rulers of it. That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans-but it cannot be the land of the ‘ Hindus and Musalmans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of the Musalmans only when it is governed by the Muslims. The moment the land become subject to the authority of a non-Muslims power, it ceases to be the land of the Muslims. Instead of being Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb,” he further stated.
Substantiating his argument for a population exchange, he explained, “To the Muslims, a Hindu (and any non-Muslim) is a Kafir. A Kafir (non-believer in Islam) is not worthy of respect. He is a low born and without status. That is why a country ruled by the kafir (non-muslim) is a ‘Dar ul harb’ (i.e. the land of war) to a Muslim, which must be conquered, by any means for the Muslims and turned into ‘Dar ul Islam’ (i.e., land of Muslims alone). Given this, not further evidence seems necessary to prove that the Muslims will not obey a Hindu (or for that matter any non-Muslim) government.”
Recalling an incident from history, Dr Ambedkar argued that the ‘leading Muslims’ will always support ‘fanatic Muslims’ who commit mass murders of Hindus, because for ‘ leading Muslims’ the acts of ‘fanatic Muslims’ were ‘justifiable by the law of the Koran’. He knew that the minorities in Pakistan would not get justice even if the country is ruled by so-called moderate Muslims.
Rationale behind Ambedkar’s call for Population Transfer
Dr. Ambedkar’s deep concern for the plight of Dalits in a hostile nation drove him to advocate for a population exchange between India and Pakistan, inspired by the voluntary transfer of populations between Greece and Bulgaria. He proposed a similar arrangement to the leaders of both nations, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic solution to safeguard Dalits and the other minorities. As a realist and a nationalist, Dr. Ambedkar vehemently supported the idea of a population transfer. His vision was to create ‘homogeneous’ societies in both India and Pakistan, aiming to resolve the communal issues once for all.
Defending his idea of exchange of population, Dr. Ambedkar said, “Some scoff at the idea of the shifting and exchange of population. But those who scoff can hardly be aware of the complications, which a minority problem gives rise to and the failures attendant upon almost all the efforts made to protect them. The constitutions of the post-war states, as well as of the older states in Europe which had a minority problem, proceeded on the assumption that constitutional safeguards for minorities should suffice for their protection and so the constitutions of most of the new states with majorities and minorities were studded with long lists of fundamental rights and safeguards to see that they were not violated by the majorities. What was the experience? Experience showed that safeguards did not save the minorities. Experience showed that even a ruthless war on the minorities did not solve the problem. The states then agreed that the best way to solve it was for each to exchange its alien minorities within its border, for its own which was without its border, with a view to bring about homogeneous States. This is what happened in Turky, Greece and Bulgaria.”
He empathized with the concerns of the ordinary Hindu and sought to address a pressing question: would the creation of Pakistan resolve the communal issue in India? He asserted that the only solution to ending the communal divide was to make Hindustan homogeneous, and the only way to achieve this was through a population exchange.
Dr Ambedkar explained his standpoint: “The question that concerns the Hindus is: How far does the creation of Pakistan remove the communal question from Hindustan? That is a very legitimate question and must be considered. It must be admitted that by the creation of Pakistan, Hindustan is not freed of the communal question. While Pakistan can be made a homogeneous state by redrawing its boundaries, Hindustan must remain a composite state. The Musalmans are scattered all over Hindustan—though they are mostly congregated in towns—and no ingenuity in the matter of redrawing of boundaries can make it homogeneous. The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population. Until that is done, it must be admitted that even with the creation of Pakistan, the problem of majority vs. minority will remain in Hindustan as before and will continue to produce disharmony in the body politic of Hindustan.”
While introducing the Citizenship Bill in the Lok Sabha, Amit Shah unequivocally clarified that the Bill is neither against Muslims nor minorities, noting that it does not mention Muslims even once. Instead, the Bill seeks to recognize the true victims of Partition—the persecuted minorities of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan—by granting them their rightful claim to Indian citizenship. With the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), the NDA Government has partially realized a vision cherished by Babasaheb Ambedkar but left unfulfilled during his lifetime.
By offering citizenship to Dalits, who are born into servitude and condemned to live a life of penury and ignominy, the CAA provides them with a chance for safety, dignity, and hope in their motherland. Why, then, did the Congress oppose this humanitarian legislation so vehemently? Why did they resist a law that could save millions of Dalit lives, victims of the Partition’s tragic legacy? When will they finally break free from the “Muslim-mania” that Dr. Ambedkar once accused Nehru of perpetuating? (2019)
References:
1. Pakistan or partition of India by Dr B. R. Ambedkar
2. Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission by Dhananjay Keer
Discussion about this post