MEPs were divided on Wednesday 29 January over the reform of India's citizenship law.
While the S&D, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups denounced discrimination against Muslims, the EPP, ID and Renew Europe felt that we should wait for the verdict of the Indian Supreme Court before making a decision.
At the opening of the plenary session, French MEP Thierry Mariani, on behalf of ID, called for the resolution, which was originally due to be voted on Thursday 30 January, to be withdrawn. In his view, this resolution is “unwelcome”, given that the Supreme Court is due to rule shortly. This request was rejected (111 votes in favour, 356 against and 12 abstentions), but MEPs accepted the request by German MEP Michael Gahler, on behalf of the EPP, to postpone the vote until the plenary session on 30 and 31 March, after the Court's decision and meetings with Indian officials in February (271 votes in favour, 199 against and 13 abstentions).
During the debate, both MEPs stressed that India is a democracy. “We have to be very careful, it's important that we do our homework to assess the situation”, Mr Gahler explained. According to him, the law, as such, does not remove an existing right, but is, on the contrary, positive discrimination. For Mr Mariani, every country has the sovereign right to choose its population.
They were joined by Dinesh Dhamija (Renew Europe, United Kingdom), who felt that it was necessary to wait for discussions with the Indian authorities and not to have a “colonial attitude”. Ryszard Czarnieski (ECR, Poland) said that with the postponement of the resolution, the “common sense and respect for (...) a State that has never tried to interfere in our internal affairs” had prevailed.
Scott Ainslie (Greens/EFA, United Kingdom), on the other hand, said the report shows that “the EU is capitulating, that it is giving up on its commitment to protect human rights”. “Do not allow the Indian government to use its diplomatic and political power to buy impunity”, he said. According to fellow countryman John Howard, on behalf of S&D, the law is “highly discriminatory”, “targets a specific religion and there is a clear threat to the secular nature of the Indian state”. “It violates the Indian Constitution, as it introduces the criterion of religion for nationality and violates international agreements”, added Idoia Villanueva Ruiz (GUE/NGL, Spain).
Commissioner Helena Dalli said that in India, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy had inquired about the risks of discrimination between refugees and migrants on religious grounds under the revised legislation. “It is the role of the Supreme Court to assess the conformity of the law with the Constitution, and we are convinced that the ongoing judicial process will help to ease the tensions and violence that have occurred in the country in recent weeks”, she added. (Original version in French by Camille-Cerise Gessant)