For a government which has attained a historical majority for the second time, just imagine the impact they can have if they focussed this energy on improving economic and human-life indicators instead. India still ranks 103 on the world hunger index, even below its less developed neighbour – Pakistan.
I hope they don't squander this majority away, but I fear they will.
* Indigenous people of Assam complain about illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
* BJP (party in power) promises to deport illegal immigrants
* NRC (National Registry of Citizenship) law is brought to identify and deport illegal immigrants, most of them believed to be Muslims. NRC is applied in Assam for the cost of 16 Billion INR. 1.9 million illegal immigrants are identified.
* It is found that 1.2 million immigrants are Hindus. BJP, a pro Hindu party, can't afford to deport 1.2 million Hindus.
* CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) is brought to give citizenship to all but Muslim.
* Protests erupt over this act being signed by government.
CAB is just an anti-muslim filter, and it's downright unethical.
If CAB was truly meant only to deny illegal immigrants, which is infact a right move from a country trying to support its citizens, why base it on religion?
Arguments that say that other religions are persecuted in the neighbouring states, what about Myanmar? The Rohingya persecution has been going on for years and our government has done nothing notable about it. What about Srilanka and the mass genocide of Tamils? Rohingyas and Srilankan Tamils are mostly Hindus. Why not extend the help to them too? Why focus only upon the Muslim majority nations?
The issue that is concerning is the fact that the act specifically makes it harder for Muslims to become citizens. The question here is whether the government is actually trying to prevent illegal immigration or trying to cut down Muslim population in particular.
This agreement was drastically violated, especially in the 1971 war when Pakistan Army deliberately targeted Hindus.
This site run by Muslim Bangladeshis documents some details http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/
This lead to a mass exodus of Bangladeshi Hindus to India. In fact, the Communist Party, advocated for their citizenship status much before Modi came to power.
There has been further persecution of Hindus, both in Pakistan and Bangladesh
Also, regarding Myanmar, note that this act also doesnt give refugee status to Hindus who are also being persecuted in Myanmar.
The first step is to make millions of people illegal.
Next is to give all but Muslims citizenship. Muslims would be stripped off their right to vote.
Even hitler would be inspired from such evil plans.
(Also from the comments everyone can see how heartless people can be)
Citizenship Amendment Act is a law to fast-track citizenship of 'persecuted religious minorities' in 3 neighboring countries Afghanistan/Pakistan/Bangladesh.
It is a case of positive discrimination (affirmative action for the Americans) towards Hindu/Christian/Sikh/Buddhist/Parsi refugees.
Here is the reddit thread explaining the Act in simple language - https://old.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/e9qhvb/cab_in_...
It does not affect normal citizens of India. It is also NOT a case of negative discrimination against Muslim refugees, like most detractors claim it to be. Official tweet from India's Home Ministry clarifies this - https://twitter.com/PIBHomeAffairs/status/120730412196068556.... The usual waiting period of 11 years stays as it is for them. For minority refugees, it is reduced to 5 years. That's all.
Every country has a database of its citizens. India was lagging far behind in this. Due to enormous population, porous borders and poor living conditions, there are a lot more undocumented immigrants in India than probably any other country on earth. The National Register of Citizens is an attempt to set that right.
Argument about CAB, should also include its counterpart NRC. When NRC is applied, you "exclude people" as illegal immigrants, and in CAB, you "include people" as legal, leaving out others. These laws can and will be amended as per the state's interest, which ultimately decides who to include or exclude.
Here is the reddit thread explaining the Act's intricacies and FAQ - https://old.reddit.com/r/IndiaSpeaks/comments/e9qhvb/cab_in_...
This thread has a lot of government propaganda shills.
Also, using multiple accounts this way will get your accounts banned on HN, so please don't do that.
I don't know if Modi is a hard core religious fanatic or if his hands are just tied down by RSS brass who are most likely inciting this nonsense, especially at a stage when the economy is in near doldrums.
The government has also passed the equivalent of patriot act in India.
CAB + NRC + Data bill => Orwelian fucking dictatorship all around.
What an awful time to be in India. Sadly, most people will wake up to the reality later than sooner.
Hopefully sense will prevail and supreme court rule this development as unconstitutional (not so hopeful though, based on recent judgements).
I remember in the Bay Area some Indians were campaigning and raising funds for Modi. I was shocked.
In Democracy like in USA "Supreme Court justices, court of appeals judges, and district court judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate, as stated in the Constitution." So this way president and government of the day can have rules favoring its ideology. In India "The Chief Justice of India and the Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President under clause (2) of Article 124 of the Constitution." In this the president of India is a titular body working on the directions of prime minister and existing government. So in both the system indeed Judiciary appears to be completely independent but seems government has an influence on it. So in China's communist system and democracy like USA and India its only a difference of semantics but the effect is similar. The government of the day can influence the judiciary.
The judiciary of the country doesn't agree with you.
One of the outcomes of this post is that the extreme bias in reporting in the media has reached HN. For any Hindus reading this, stop responding emotionally and instead try to document the various kinds of bias in media thoroughly. People like Vamsee Juluri have written about coverage of Hindu issues in prominent western media. Anand Ranganathan has logs of media bias on incidents of violence etc.
While I empathize with the people being detained, the headline is really misleading. Above makes it 21 thousands - or of that order.
It is very hard to be antagonistic in such circumstances - what is there to fight over, really?
It is possible that resources are getting scarce again and old battle lines are rediscovered as nations, classes and tribes restart old squabbles. There is less cheap oil per capita, cities are getting cramped and the radical change technology bought in the 90s and 2000s is slowing down so it isn't obvious that there are easy opportunities still opening up on that front.
In Bosnia, nationalist zealots killed civilians and committed genocide. If you've forgotten, look up Sarajevo and Srebrenica. There were murder camps put up by "Make Serbia Great Again" type nationalists. Their stated goal: "to contain the spread of Islam in Europe."
Only 25 years ago... And today the President of the United States is a man who sounds just like Milosevic. This rehabilitation of nationalism is the greatest disappointment of my lifetime.
While the arrow of progress is forward, the blips can last for a millenia.
Unknown how long the War of Capitalisms will be.
I'm old enough to remember the Berlin Wall and its extension across Eastern Europe, where the willingness to murder civilians who tried to cross it was regarded as an indicator of how totalitarian Communism was.
The border situation with communist countries was significant not only it proves intent of these countries to shoot on those trying to cross borders, but mainly it proves that situation there was so bad that people trying to leave even if that means risking death in border crossing.
And yes, it was of equally paramount importance for them as for the U.S. to control who can enter: this is how Communism works. If you let people leave, they vote Communism out of existence, with their feet.
We are a minority in this country and as one community we face the continued threat of right wing groups here., despite that I am amazed by the support of the same kind or worse right wing party in India.
- Ugyers in China
- US draconian immigration detention centers
- Now India is gettin into the mix
Not a lot of hope for the rest of the 21st Century, tbh.
Illegal immigrants are granted Indian Citizenship;
But Legal immigrants from Muslim community are denied Indian Citizenship;
If you are new to this issue, and want to understand the CAA/CAB in simple words -
This is for illegal immigrants.
No country in the world blindly accepts illegal immigrants.
In Pakistan Hindu teenagers are regularly abducted, converted to Islam and married away.
India is giving refuge to these people.
Muslims are not similarly persecuted in Islamic nations.
That's a gross generalization. See for example, the Ahmadis in Pakistan. Or more generally, the whole Sunni vs Shia split. India is supposed to be a secular country.
Anyways, most of the recent rukkus is in Assam and northeastern India. Most of the people fleeing Bangladesh aren't doing so because of religious persecution; that country doesn't have nearly as stringent islamic laws like Pakistan does. The official platform of the ruling party in Bangladesh, which has 300+ out of 350 seats currently in parliament, promotes secularism as one of four main tenants. There has been communal violence there, just like in India, but it is no Pakistan.
Hindus and Muslims alike leave Bangladesh for various reasons, but in the last four decades, it's mostly because of economic and ecological issues.
Meanwhile, in Assam, there has been more than a century of Assamese vs Bengali (both hindus and muslims, both from India and Bangladesh like) vs other tribal/ethnic groups. This has resulted in several partitions of Bengal (which also caused economic decline, which also caused more refugees), and several carve outs of Assam into a bunch of other states due to many insurgencies.
If Pakistanis persecute Ahmadis, who are Muslims, we from outside cannot even imagine the day to day life of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and others in Pakistan.
Jizya tax was imposed in large parts of India on non-Muslim populations. Not sure how you can call it tolerance?
In other times and in other parts of the world, not even that has been the case.
At least think of some genuine sounding reason rather than this
CAA does not differentiate within Hindu castes saying 'Only Dalits are oppressed, Brahmins are not oppressed, so we won't give citizenship to Brahmins'. It speeds up process for all Hindus.
CAA do not differentiate within Christian sects saying 'Only Protestants are persecuted, Catholics are not persecuted, so we won't give citizenship to Catholics'. It speeds up process for all Christians.
Similarly, CAA does not differentiate within Muslims saying 'Only Shias are persecuted, Sunnis are not persecuted, so we will give citizenship to Shias'. It keeps speed same for all Muslims.
Pak and Bangladesh, which are Islamic countries, can take care of Islamic refugees.
Partition was unfortunate, but the constitution says that India is a secular socialist Republic, so your point is null and void
Interesting scenario. Doesn't that make the person an atheist? The constitution of India doesn't recognize them, unfortunately. I would push for their inclusion once the constitution recognizes atheism.
Null and void
How many scriptures have you read? Bhagwad Gita? Ved? Ramayan? Mahabharat?
Gita itself doesn't have the word Hindu in it.
Hindu word was created by Arabs and it is a short of Al-Hind, i.e. those living beyond River Hind aka Indus.
Again, null and void
What is ignoble is the fact that they have exempted Muslims from refuge, while there is a literal genocide against the Muslim minority (Rohingya) happening in their neighbouring country, Myanmar. A country with which they share more than 1600 km of border.
How could this act be interpreted as anything but a action to further victimize and marginalize the Muslims?
It is quite a sad irony that Myanmar's excuse for the atrocities they do against the Muslims is that they are not citizens, but illegal immigrants in Myanmar. Is this a sign of what is to come to ~200 million Indian Muslims?
That is the problem, this whole issue is being misrepresented. The law is about bulk/en masse citizenship of people based on a certain criteria.
Other refugees are still accepted, only their cases are dealt on a case by case basis.
Post partition it is India's moral responsibility to provide a home to minorities from neighboring Islamic countries.
Israel provides citizenship to any persecuted Jews that come for refuge to their homeland. This has been widely accepted in the world. Then why should it be illegal for India?
The CAA includes Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis...
The actual bill does include them.
> Either you include Muslims, because all south asian muslims can also be claimed as indian ethnicity historically, or you disinclude everyone based on that argument.
The Muslims that have been living in India according to the laws of the country won't be affected. Those that willingly went to Pakistan during the Partition got exactly what they wanted so why would they want to come back?
http://archive.vn/qdQL3 https://archive.vn/TIy5h http://ncrb.gov.in https://archive.md/u0PDB https://archive.vn/KThMP
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again.
India was partitioned on the basis of religion, so how did we end up with one (now two) Islamic countries and one secular. Regardless how you look at it, Hindus got the short end of the stick.
A Tamilian sacrifices Goat to his God. But this is not accepted by the Brahminic Hinduism as a way of worship in their temples. But all of these are merged into a false identity of "Hindu".
Who is a hindu according to Indian law ? One who is not Muslim or Christian or Jain. Because there is nothing else that commonly unites them. Hindu is a western term for the land beyond Indus and it is not a religion for all these years (until the politicians decided to use it to suit their purposes). Saivam, Vaishnavism, etc. were the original religions of this land. Not this abomination called Hindutva.
Let's not confuse religion with culture. By the above logic:
An average Pakistani has more in common with Hindu/Sikh Punjabi. A Bangladeshi had more in common with Hindu Bengali. Indonesian Muslims have more in common with Malay. Central Asians with watch other than Arabs, Africans with each other. Yet, there is singular Islam. Same goes for every other religion.
Absolutely not. Tamil Sithar songs, Kannada Lingayata principles all oppose caste systems and make fun of vedic practices. Sanatan Dharm is all about discriminating people based on birth/caste.
This is a common new-age trout. Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world, with an extensive set of scriptures, rituals, rules, and culture.
It's like a banyan tree with many roots. Just because it doesn't enforce a particular branch (sect) with the rigor that other religions do, it doesn't mean the tree doesn't exist. It exists old and strong.
Hindutva is simply a way for a group of people to power grab by forging "us vs them" bugs in human nature.
I'm simply stating that things are never as simple as they seem.
There are plenty of disgusting comments to peruse here, though I'd like to highlight this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21823490
> I don't really understand where the genocide is coming from. At the worst you will be deported back to your homeland. If your homeland is genociding you it's not India's problem.
I'm really hoping that people who express such sickening views will be banned from HN.
One of the comment declared openly, "I am a Hindu, I am a Nationalist, hence I am a Hindu nationalist" - which is a straight lift-off of Indian PM Modi's interview . BTW Modi conducted 2002 Gujarat massacre and got banned from entering US until he became Indian PM.
Read the Reuters interview from 2013 , and with remarkable clarity he lays down his religious fundamentalism on table. Now that he runs India, he is acting on these designs quite openly.
So if you want an Xist to get banned, you don't need to provide references that they support X, but that they do so in a way that is against the rules (such as exclusively posting about X). Also, you shouldn't do that in the comments but by emailing email@example.com with the relevant facts, so that the mods can decide on the correct action to take without publicly putting anyone on the spot.
Some of the accounts that I called out are again in here repeating same governmental propaganda. Let's see if something can be done about them.
Best course of action is destroy them ideologically and let other sane people downvote them to hell
India has a very broken socio-political ecosystem. Deeply broken on religious/linguistic/caste and other affiliations. The problems compound with the shortage of resources. Every group feels they deserve to have access to resources more than others.
Plus the contemporary politics is dominated by historical revisionism, guilt, inferiority complex and feelings of exacting retribution. This is not just with religion but even things like languages and caste too.
The fact that economy got this far after 1990s is largely also due to lack of real competition(Post cold war most India's competitors were still recovering).
My guess is things will be hard for India from here on. Its really a country with a horse carriages attempting to win a F1 race.
The government in its election pitch made this one of the major points that they would execute if they came to power. So please don't be under the assumption that the people that voted don't want this to be implemented.
Think of it as technical debt in the codebase. It has to be addressed before you can execute a growth strategy on your product or it will come to haunt you later.
How many people who voted for the current government do you think would know what NRC meant when they voted? Infact, does the general mass understand it even to date?
I'm sure I can find some atrocity attributable to religion X too. Should everyone from religion X be punished?
Continuing to harp on an non-issue like this in public is the reason why the voters keep voting Modi in and the opposition out.
Given the opposition, the CAA law might be struck down. The absurdity of much of this thread is that measures which help active victims of genocide are being opposed.
The book Blood Telegram, by Gary Bass about a state department memo, documents one aspect of how this genocide was buried.
"those creating violence can be identified by their clothes itself". It was a reference towards skull caps that Muslims wear usually, and protests first started inside two historically Muslim University campuses.
"... seeing the riots and torching happen, citizens of country are becoming even more resolute that with this law Modi (Indian PM) has saved India". - Terming protests as riots, and saying that Muslims create conditions for violence, and hence excluding them from getting citizenship was the right move.
Re-electing somebody with such a huge majority clearly states, people of India are happy with present government.
Don't put up your propaganda as voice Indians.
Being an Indian, I'm very happy with BJP, and I'm not Hindu.
Must be a Hindu atheist
I'm a Roman Catholic for your confirmation.
I don't belong to BJP IT cell, you can search on google with my username, I have accounts in many development related sites from long back.
A Roman Catholic follower of Sadhguru baba!
A Roman Catholic describes Indias ancient caste based education system.
I have a question - As a Roman Catholic, what is your opinion of India's ancient caste system?
Regarding, Indian caste system,
Initial attitude of caste was not the way it is practiced as now. There used to be free movement across castes.
Workers are called Shudras, Business people are called Vaishyas, Warriors are called Kshatriyas, Intellectuals/people who pursued Knowledge are called Brahmins.
But, like anything, an elite group have exploited it.
By restricting movement between castes, so they and their children can benefit from higher social status.
Initial intent is not bad, but the way it turned out and the consequences were really bad.
Ancient Indian education system wasn't caste based for your reference, It is the caste system, which spoiled everything.
Yeah, caste system is bad. India would have been in better place is it isn't exploited.
Take for example the standard right wing apologies for the caste system. That it evolved from something good to something bad. Caste system as a discriminatory tool existed even during the Ramayana and was practised by Lord Rama.
I am quoting from Hari Prasad Shastri's translation of Valmiki Ramayana.
"During the Dwapara Yuga it is a great crime for one of Shudra birth to perform such practices. At this time, in thine empire, a rigid penance is being undertaken by a wretched Shudra, O Prince, and this is the cause of the death of that child. An act of mortification that is prescribed is well done and a sixth of the merit goes to the king who rules with justice.
On this that Prince approached the one who had given himself up to rigorous practices and said "Blessed art thou, O Ascetic, who art faithful to thy vows ! From what caste art thou sprung, O Thou who hast grown old in mortification and who art established in heroism. I am interested in this matter, I, Rama, the son of Dasaratha. What purpose hast thou in view? Is it heaven or some other object? What boon dost thou seek by means of this hard penance? I wish to know what thou desire in performing these austerities, oh Ascetic. May prosperity attend thee! Art thou a brahmin ? Art thou an invincible Kshatriya? Art thou a Vaishya, one of the third caste or art thou a Shudra? Answer me truthfully!" Then the ascetic, who was hanging head downwards, thus questioned by Rama, revealed his origin to that Prince born of Dasaratha, the foremost of kings, and the reason why he was practicing penance. Hearing the words of Rama of imperishable exploits, that ascetic, his head still hanging downwards, answered "O Rama, I was born of a Shudra alliance and I am performing this rigorous penance in order to acquire the status of a God in this body. I am not telling a lie, O Rama, I wish to attain the Celestial Region. Know that I am a Shudra and my name is Shambuka." As he was yet speaking, Raghava, drawing his brilliant and stainless sword from its scabbard, cut off his head."
Roman Catholic Christians have no interest in studying the Hindu caste system, Hindu scientific and mathematical contributions, teachings of Sadhguru baba etc. Your profile history exhibits an exorbitant amount of Hindu right wing apologetics and has zero, zilch, nada about the practice of Roman Catholicism. So, I strongly encourage you to stop astroturfing.
I think, I clearly mentioned it is bad.
So what was your thought like, Indians just sprung up during Ramayana, people did exist before and they can also read and write.
As per Hinduism, Ramayana is not the ancient texts, there exists many texts before it. It is kind of recent one.
I'm Roman Catholic by birth but I'm going to pursue Hinduism in future, I don't speak about Christ because I live in India, and no.of people who discuss about it is less. I haven't read any Hindu texts, but I did read Bible.
Hinduism regarding to righteous living, have got it completely covered. Which is what I'm interested in knowing.
I'm generally interested in ancient history, religion and philosophy.
Hinduism had a very good coverage regarding philosophy and the living culture which is able to survive in modern times.
I didn't delve into Hinduism, but I'm going to after 2 or 3 years. Right now my focus is else where.
I'm not astroturfing, I'm generally interested in religion and anything which broadens my understanding, Hinduism seems to fit very well into it.
If you just hate that they are able to get too many things right, I can't do anything.
[Preparation for a genocide under way in India: Dr. Gregory Stanton](https://www.sabrangindia.in/article/preparation-genocide-und...)
I am an Indian citizen in India. Haven't received any such notification.
Um, No. The CAA bill does not decide citizenship based on your religion. There are many factors but religion is not one of them. Most of the illegal migrants are from the neighboring countries. The fact that these are Muslim majority countries is not something the Indian government can or should do anything about.
And regarding the other fact that the bill allows fast citizenship to Hindus and Sikhs coming into India, why shouldn't it? The people of these religions are persecuted outside in some countries (Read about what Pakistan did in 1971 in Bangladesh and also read the data for the religious markup of the Pakistani populace form 1947 to 2019) and India, being their historical homeland should welcome them.
Israel also has laws for accepting persecuted Jews to the safety of their homeland. There are no protests for that, then why should India face protests for it?
> Food inflation, unemployement, and all markers of quality of life are down
Food inflation (specifically the onion prices that I assume that you are referring to) is due to the two months of unusual extra monsoon this season that destroyed the crop. I think we can safely assume that the government cannot control rain and cannot magically grow food out of thin air.
> Israel also has laws for accepting persecuted Jews to the safety of their homeland.
Since when did Pakistan and Israel become yardstick for human liberty and democracy? And, isn't it better to use diplomatic channel to stop the persecution in neighboring countries?
Create a Hindu-Muslim divide? If it is being created now, then how come India was partioned in 1947 on religious basis?
And now we are taking a step backwards by creating this divide. Many of these people speak the same language, have the same culture and have lived their whole life in India, and the government just decides to stripe them from their citizenship, because they belong to a specific religion?
How is this in any manner ethical?
It does not apply to Indian citizen regardless of religion.
I belong to the current generation, I am hindu and I do not believe that.
India's secular nature is what binds this country together. I do not want my friends to be persecuted in the country they were born in and lived all their life, because they belong to another religion.
This is against every core value the constitution of India was drafted upon.
Edit: This reply may seem out of context, because the previous comment has been edited by the author.
People born after 1970, those who have born and lived all their life in India, those who hold school certificates, voter IDs, even Passports, can only prove their citizenship by providing documents of their ancestors.
How can anyone justify this?
Was there a plebiscite at that time regarding if India should be Hindu or secular? If not how can we say that India chose to be secular.
2. You won't learn this from the media's narrative about it, but: the reason why most protestors are protesting the Citizenship Amendment is not because muslim refugees (from Pak., Bangla. and Afghan.) are excluded, but because everyone else (non-muslim refugees [i.e. persecuted religious minorities from these officially "Islamic states"]) is now automatically granted Indian citizenship. Protestors are worried about loss of jobs and demographic replacement by these new citizens. So, most protestors are not protesting muslim exclusion, they're protesting anyone's inclusion.
Why would the protests be occurring most strongly in predominately Muslim areas? This is backed up by numerous international media reports, including comments from people who are protesting.
"NEW DELHI—Protests against a new citizenship law favoring non-Muslim immigrants erupted in violence in a Muslim-dominated part of the Indian capital where communal tensions have flared in the past, as the prime minister appealed for calm.
“People are opposing this law because it discriminates against the Muslims,” said Chaudhary Mateen Ahmad, a former Congress party legislator in the Delhi Assembly from Seelampur, the northeastern Delhi area where protest violence broke out on Tuesday afternoon. “They are saying the law should treat everyone equally; there should be no discrimination.”
The new law eases the path to citizenship for individuals from persecuted religious groups from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, but only if they aren’t Muslim. That distinction has set off alarm in India’s 200-million strong Muslim community, who say the law, along with a separate national registry, could be used to disenfranchise many Muslims. The law has also alarmed Indians who view its singling out one religious group as betraying the country’s secular tradition of protecting all religious groups.
The protests on Tuesday followed weekend demonstrations by students and local residents near the Jamia Millia Islamia University in New Delhi, in which police chased protesters into the campus, fired tear gas and beat them with batons, injuring several students. Students in several Indian cities have been holding protests in support of the Jamia students."
And while Police action on Jamia students is condemnable, it must be noted that protestors did get violent and the Police had to resort to strong measures as a response.
This is not true at all. There are minority sects within Islam, depending on the country. The followers of those do get persecuted on religious grounds (look up Shias, Ahmediyas, etc.) by the majority.
As I responded to another similar comment, this is not true at all. There are minority sects within Islam, depending on the country. The followers of those do get persecuted on religious grounds (look up Shias, Ahmediyas, etc.) by the majority.
But that is happening to Hindu, Sikh and other minorities.
The situation is different. Hindu & Sikh have just one home country, Shia have other Shia majority countries.
That is not true. Protestors are protesting the problems existing minorities (specifically Muslims) thanks to the combined power NRC and CAB gives to the government.
In short, You can stay in the country if you are non-minority (everyone except muslims) you dont have to product proof like ancestry and stuff.
But if you are a minority, you got to produce proof, show your ancestors, and even after you do, you might be "admitted to camp" and after "investigation" you will be "asked to leave"
And that's the funny part. Where is such a person supposed to leave to? They were born in India, lived all their life in India. They have never seen another state let alone another country.
CAB + NRC is just a play to render millions of poor Indians 'Stateless'.
Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
> Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
By this rationale, couldn't one claim citizenship to any country? When I arrive at a foreign border I don't say, "Allow me entry, I am a citizen, prove otherwise."
I understand that further from the border this encroachment is less justified, but still I don't think citizenship is granted until proven otherwise.
We didn't arrive at the border today, we were born here, and now we are being asked to stand in line to submit documentary proofs of not only ours but of our parents and grandparents.
But if you're talking of your specific case, were your parents and/or grandparents born here or did they come to India after 1947?
The single point of controversy is whether the Citizenship Amendment Act can omit a refugee on the basis of religion. The supreme court can issue a ruling on this and end the matter.
If you have a specific reason to suspect and investigate an individual, that's a different matter.
That's not a requirement in this case.
People simply living in their hometown don’t have a choice.
India follows jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of blood) as opposed to the jus soli (citizenship by right of birth within the territory). The state cannot just assume that a person has the Right of blood.
Regarding 2 - the government handpicked only those countries which have Islam as state religion, and ignored others like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan and China.
The largest refugee population in India are Sri Lankan Hindu Tamils living for more than 30 years who were not included. Since including Sri Lanka would force them to include Myanmar which means Rohingyas will have to be accepted too.
The CAA is just a new political tool since Ram temple is now settled.
Politics like fire needs its fuel.
Who cares about Economic growth,
IIT/IIM students getting jobs abroad,
Farmers committing suicide,
Petrol price rising, &
All other useless things...
when we can argue and fight about our religion all day long?
I don't support pan-India NRC. But Assam NRC was rooted in Assam Agitation that happened in the last century. It was in the direction of SC's decision in 2013 that has prompted the Govt. to conduct NRC in Assam. It's not a BJP invention.
> Regarding 2 - the government handpicked only those countries which have Islam as state religion, and ignored others like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan and China.
The Govt. has chosen to address only religious persecution with this bill. India is pretty much entirely open for Nepalese and Bhutanese, so I don't see any reason to include them. India has accepted a large number of refugees from Sri Lanka (Tamils) and China (see Tibetan refugees). Both of them aren't victims of religious persecution. As for Myanmar, I think Government is fairly concerned due to violent acts of Rohingyas. Also, note that excluding Myanmar excludes Hindus from Myanmar too.
Every few days there is a report in Pak media where yet another Hindu teenager girl is abducted and converted to Islam.
It is India's right and duty to provide refuge to these people.
Surely you can't argue that Muslims are being prosecuted in such a manner in Islamic countries.
This applies to refugees from neighboring countries. What is wrong with that?
If that makes me a bigot, not sure how, but I'll take it.
Non-Muslim minorities from neighboring Islamic countries are being given refuge to save them from religious prosecution.
But if we let those legitimate preferences and biases override _individual_ human rights, then we are going down a very dangerous road indeed.
Seeking refuge when we are persecuted is a right that each of us has individually and unconditionally. That's why you are not allowed to apply it selectively based on religion. This is a moral imperative and it is the law.
I have no stake in this argument, I am an atheist, but please, a little respect for the beliefs of others.
Christian history (crusades, Latin America, US history) would like to have a word with you.
Most major religions of this world are guilty of imperialism.