LETTER | I refer to Malaysiakini's, Dr M backs secular principles only when Muslims are minorities”.  

I am confused. Is P Ramasamy a state assemblyperson from Malaysia or an official from India’s External Affairs Ministry?

We recall that the Indian foreign ministry recently rebuked Prime Minister Dr Mahathir for his comments on India’s Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) that critics argue was discriminatory against Muslims. 

“The Citizenship Amendment Act provides citizenship through naturalisation to be fast-tracked for non-citizens who are persecuted minorities from three countries. 

"The act does not impact in any manner on the status of any citizen of India or deprive any Indian of any faith of her or his citizenship. Therefore, the prime minister of Malaysia’s comment is factually inaccurate,” the ministry said.

While the ministry considers Mahathir’s comment as “factually inaccurate”, Ramasamy speaks of Mahathir as being not “well informed” when the prime minister commented on the CAA.

According to Ramasamy, the CAA “is a special one meant to address a specific long-standing problem of religious discrimination, forced conversions and displacement” in what he calls “the Muslim theocratic states of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan".

While Ramasamy concedes that the CAA does not address the plight of other minorities like Myanmar and Sri Lanka, he could only muster the words “not perfect” when speaking of the CAA. 

That’s rather apologetic of the CAA, curiously from a Malaysian assemblyperson. 

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), on the other hand, has expressed its concerns that the CAA is “fundamentally discriminatory in nature”. 

The CAA gives priority to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians residing in India before 2014, but excludes Muslims, including minority sects. According to Jeremy Laurence, a spokesperson with the OHCHR, the CAA will have a discriminatory effect on people’s access to nationality.

The CAA also appears to undermine India’s commitment to equality before the law enshrined in its constitution and its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (Icerd) to which India is a state party.

We recall that Icerd, which was thrust into the public debate last year, prohibits discrimination based on racial, ethnic or religious grounds. 

It defines “racial discrimination” to mean “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".

It is no wonder that diverse crowds across India have protested in force against the discriminatory CAA. Chants have been heard at these protests of the preamble to the Indian constitution, with its promises of social, political and economic justice, freedom of thought, expression and belief, equality and fraternity.

Rohit De, an associate professor of history at Yale, and Surabhi Ranganathan, a fellow for International Law at the University of Cambridge, have referred to the protests against the discriminatory CAA as India “witnessing a rediscovery of the republic - and of (the Indian) constitution as its blazing torch”.

But in Malaysia, an assemblyperson speaks of the CAA only as “not perfect”. Which law is perfect?

If Ramasamy considers Mahathir as less and less right on international affairs, he is no better then, at least on the CAA.

Let’s call a spade a spade.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.