Asylum system can't be a halfway house

India has long grappled with balancing compassion for the persecuted with the need for clear asylum rules. This requirement was evident yet again last week when it allowed persecuted immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, belonging to six minority communities - Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Parsis - who had entered India on or before December 31, 2014, to continue to stay here, even if they no longer possess a valid passport or travel document. While this step is admirable, as a robust democracy, it is not enough. India must open its doors to all persecuted people.

Opening the gates, however, requires creation of a legal framework for an asylum system. Pakistan was created as a state for Muslims, whereas India chose to remain non-denominational. Given the violence and displacement of Partition, the Indian leadership left the door open for non-Muslims to migrate to India. Their right of entry was not codified until Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) 2019. That law ensured that non-Muslims from the three countries who came to India before December 31, 2014, were not treated as illegal migrants. Last week's order extends this timeline. Yet, the order also creates the perception of a country concerned only with the persecution of a few. This is regrettable, considering India has been open to asylum for persecuted individuals and groups.

A well-designed asylum framework would recognise special historical circumstances while ensuring due process for all other applicants. It would also align India with international practice and guarantee that the country remains a shelter for those persecuted for religious beliefs, political views and sexual orientation, irrespective of religion, while at the same time ensuring that the open door is not misused.