Border Communities and Citizenship: The NRC, CAA and the Erosion of Constitutional Values in India

Guest post by Bushra Ali Khan. Bushra is an anthropologist and journalist with expertise in border security studies, AI regulations and international law. Her work navigates the intersections of climate change, human rights and geopolitics. She is a Guest Member at the Women in Refugee Law (WiRL) think tank at University of Sussex and a Feminist Foreign Policy Fellow supported by The Asia Foundation (US) and IMPRI (India).

India’s National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, represent two of the most polarising policy measures introduced in recent years, particularly in border states like Assam. These measures, aimed ostensibly at addressing illegal immigration and preserving national security, have profound consequences for the social fabric of India's border communities. The NRC and CAA not only challenge the idea of citizenship but also have far-reaching implications for India's constitutional values and international human rights standards. One of the most alarming consequences of the NRC process is the creation of stateless individuals – people stripped of their citizenship due to the inability to produce necessary documentation. In border regions, where displacement, poverty and illiteracy are rampant, acquiring official documentation is an enormous challenge. Generations of families have lived in these areas without proper papers, either due to displacement by natural disasters, economic migration or other socio-political factors. 

In Assam, ​​where a state-specific NRC was implemented, over 1.9 million people were left off the final list in 2019. Many of these individuals, often from marginalised communities, are at the risk of legal limbo, facing possible detention or deportation. Statelessness is not just a bureaucratic inconvenience; it is a condition that denies individuals access to basic rights such as education, healthcare, property ownership and employment, therefore creating an underclass of people without the protection of the law. The CAA complicates this further. While it provides a pathway to citizenship for non-Muslim refugees from neighbouring countries, it specifically excludes Muslims from the same protection. This sectarian approach to citizenship is not only discriminatory but also contradicts the constitutional guarantee of equality. For many Muslims living in border regions, who may already face difficulties in proving their ancestry, the combination of NRC and CAA results in a heightened risk of statelessness. 

Detention Centers and Fear of Deportation 

The ​experiences of border communities, particularly those who cannot easily access documents, reveal a troubling pattern of arbitrary detentions, intimidation and discrimination. Residents often live in fear of being detained or harassed, regardless of whether they possess valid documentation. The militarisation of border control has further deteriorated the trust between local communities and the state. The heavy-handed tactics employed by India's Border Security Force (BSF), in conjunction with the uncertainty introduced by NRC and CAA, undermine the democratic principles of justice and fairness. It creates a divide between those who are perceived as real citizens and those who are perpetually under suspicion due to their location, religion or socioeconomic status. 

These ​experiences also differ significantly based on religious identity within the border communities. Minority groups, particularly Muslims, often face heightened scrutiny, harassment, and exclusion, as they are disproportionately targeted under both state policies and local biases. The CAA’s exclusion of Muslim refugees from the pathway to citizenship only deepens this divide, reinforcing suspicions and amplifying fears of disenfranchisement among Muslim populations. Meanwhile, individuals from majority religious groups, such as Hindus, may encounter fewer obstacles or benefit from institutional biases that grant them greater leniency or access to resources. This differential treatment exacerbates the systemic discrimination already faced by marginalised communities, further straining their relationship with the state and deepening the sense of exclusion and vulnerability. 

The Act is, therefore, in direct violation of India’s commitment to international human rights standards. India is a signatory to several international conventions, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which emphasise the right to equality and non-discrimination. By creating religious distinctions in its approach to citizenship, India is violating the principles of these international frameworks, further isolating stateless individuals and rendering them vulnerable to persecution. The international community has raised concerns about India’s policies on citizenship and border control, particularly in the context of the NRC and CAA. Amnesty International, USCIRF and the United Nations have all issued statements urging India to reconsider these measures, citing their discriminatory nature and the potential for large-scale human rights violations. Despite this, the Indian government has shown little willingness to reverse or significantly amend these policies. 

To protect the rights of those affected, both within its borders and in compliance with international obligations, India must reassess the implementation of the NRC and CAA. At the very least, reforms are needed to ensure that no person is rendered stateless or placed in detention solely due to the inability to prove citizenship. The introduction of clearer, more inclusive criteria for citizenship, coupled with legal safeguards for marginalised communities, would go a long way in mitigating the harmful effects of these policies. 

Conclusion 

India stands at a critical crossroads where the intersection of border control, citizenship, and human rights has become a contentious and defining issue. While policies like the NRC and CAA are ostensibly designed to address ​​​​illegal immigration, they have pushed the boundaries of what is constitutionally and ethically acceptable. These measures disproportionately target vulnerable border communities, fueling social tensions, creating statelessness, and eroding the foundational principles of secularism and equality. More than just administrative tools, these policies are part of an intentional move by the right-wing ruling party to otherize Indian Muslims. By selectively favouring non-Muslim immigrants through the CAA, the government reinforces a dangerous narrative that frames Muslim communities, particularly in border areas, as more likely to be illegal or suspect, thereby deepening their marginalisation and exclusion. The deliberate merging of immigration control with religious identity has far-reaching social and political consequences. It not only exacerbates divisions within Indian society but also solidifies the ruling party’s ethno-nationalist agenda, threatening the country’s pluralistic ideals. In this light, the NRC and CAA are not simply immigration policies; they are instruments reshaping the social and political landscape, driving religious communities further apart, and undermining India’s core values of inclusivity and justice. 

At this pivotal moment, India must decide whether to continue on a path of exclusionary, divisive policies or to reaffirm its commitment to human rights and equality for all citizens, regardless of religion, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. Border control is vital for national security, but it must not come at the cost of human dignity or the erosion of constitutional values. The future of India's democracy and its social cohesion depend on this choice. 

Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or post a comment here or on Facebook. You can also tweet us.