The story is here:
India’s parliament has passed a bill that would give Indian citizenship to immigrants from three neighboring countries — but not if they are Muslim.
The controversial Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) would fast-track citizenship for religious minorities, including Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
Opposition parties say the proposed law is unconstitutional as it bases citizenship on a person’s religion and would further marginalize India’s 200-million strong Muslim community.
The proposed law is about refugees. It does not “base citizenship” on a person’s religion but offers a fast-track to citizenship to those refugees who have faced religious persecution; these refugees are non-Muslims who fled humiliation, persecution, kidnappings, forced conversions, forced marriages, and even murder, at the hands of the Muslim majorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. Muslim Indians are being treated no differently from Hindu Indians; they all have the same rights as citizens, and this law does not “marginalize” 200 million Indian Muslims in any way.
The government, ruled by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said the bill seeks to protect religious minorities who fled persecution in their home countries.
That’s exactly right: the law does nothing more sinister than fast-track refugees who fled from religious persecution in India’s immediate neighbors. The law is supported by the BJP, which the mainstream media outside of India has long consigned to the outer darkness for daring to stand up for Hindu rights, in a country where 70-80 million Hindus were killed by Muslims. Mention the BJP and all right-thinking people are supposed to automatically reject whatever the party supports. It’s not just Hindus whom the BJP is helping with this law, however, but also the Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist, and Christian refugees who benefit equally; those who attack the law as promoting “Hindu supremacism” are ignoring all these other refugees. The law does not discriminate except in the most commonsensical way: the victimizer should not receive the same preferential treatment as the victims.
It cleared the Rajya Sabha, India’s upper house of parliament where the BJP lacks a clear majority, on Wednesday (December 10) with 125 votes in favor and 105 against.
The day before, lawmakers approved the bill 311-80 in the lower house of parliament — the Lok Sabha — which is dominated by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP.
The bill will now be sent to the President to be signed into law.
“I think it is, without exaggeration, probably the most dangerous piece of legislation that we’ve had because it amounts to truly destroying the very character of the Indian state and the constitution,” Harsh Mander, an Indian human rights activist and author, told CNN.
Mander said the very nature of the Indian constitution is that it is based on secular values.
This hysteria is unwarranted. The Indian state has not been “destroyed” by this law. Its citizens, whatever their religion, remain equal before the law. Free elections are still being held. India remains a government of laws. The secular constitution has not been amended, much less jettisoned. Human rights for all Indian citizens remain equally enforced – as they are not enforced in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, countries where all non-Muslims live in fear of persecution, and far worse.
“Central to the idea was that your religious identity would be irrelevant to your belonging, and it’s that which is being turned on its head. It’s extremely worrying,” he said.
But that is exactly the point: the Indians know that religious identity in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan determines everything. Non-Muslims in these three countries have been humiliated, persecuted, and killed for not being Muslims. Hindu, Sikh, and Christian girls have been kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam, and married off to Muslim men. Hindus and Christians have been murdered in Pakistan and Bangladesh; Buddhists have been killed in Bangladesh.
India decided not to any longer simply be a mute witness to this torment and with this new law has decided to allow these persecuted minorities, who have fled to India, to be given a fast-track to citizenship. Critics say this is discrimination against Muslims. Why are they not included in this program? But the answer is obvious: no Muslims are being persecuted, kidnapped, forcibly converted, or killed in Pakistan, Bangladesh, or Afghanistan. India is offering a rapid road to citizenship for those refugees — Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian refugees — who suffer from persecution by Muslims. The law is sensibly meant to cover only those refugees coming from India’s immediate neighbors – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh — it would not cover, for example, Christian refugees fleeing mistreatment in Egypt, Iraq, or Iran.
What “international law” is violated when fast-track citizenship is made available to those refugees who have been persecuted because of their religion? Do those protesting this law disagree that these non-Muslims have been persecuted, forcibly converted, even killed, by Muslims in their country of origin? Why should the victimizers receive the same benefits as those they have victimized? India cannot take in the persecutors and persecuted alike.
Modi celebrated the bill’s passing on Twitter. “A landmark day for India and our nation’s ethos of compassion and brotherhood!” he wrote. “This bill will alleviate the suffering of many who faced persecution for years.”
The bill’s passage has drawn widespread opposition and protests, especially in the northeastern states.
Many indigenous groups there fear that giving citizenship to large numbers of immigrants, who came over the porous border with Bangladesh following independence in 1971, would change the unique ethnic make-up of the region and their way of life, regardless of religion.
The discontent is in Assam State, where the Assamese, three-quarters of whom are Hindus, do not want to be overwhelmed by ethnic Bengalis, whatever their religion. But only those non-Muslims who arrived before the declaration of Bangladesh’s independence in 1971 would qualify for this citizenship, not the nearly two million who left Bangladesh after that date. The Assamese are needlessly alarmed about being swamped by non-Assamese.
Critics of the bill say it is another example of how Modi and his BJP party have pushed an agenda of Hindu nationalism onto secular India, a country of 1.3 billion people, at the expense of the Muslim population.
How is rescuing Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, and Buddhists – along with Hindus — an example of “Hindu nationalism”? Modi’s party might have declared that it would fast-track only Hindu refugees, claiming – accurately – that Hindus are by far both the most numerous, and the most persecuted, of the religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. But it did not do so; this law does not reflect “Hindu nationalism.”
The BJP, which was re-elected in May, has its roots in India’s Hindu right-wing movement, many followers of which see India as a Hindu nation.
In November, India’s top court gave Hindus permission to build a temple on a disputed centuries-old holy site, which holds significance for both Hindus and Muslims. The ruling on the Ayodhya site was seen as a blow to Muslims and came at a time when Muslims increasingly see themselves as second-class citizens.
It was Muslims who destroyed the original ancient Hindu temple at Ayodhya, and used its ruins to build, right on top of where the temple had been, the Babri Mosque in 1527. Though thousands of Hindu temples in India were destroyed by the Muslim conquerors, the one at Ayodhya had been especially revered, for it was built on the very spot where the Hindu deity Rama was believed to have been born. The building of the mosque on the ruins of the temple was a symbol of Muslim triumphalism. Hindus who destroyed the Babri Mosque in 1992, in order to rebuild the Hindu temple that had once stood there, were only taking back the site that meant so much to them, but that for Muslims had no religious significance in Islam but, rather, possessed a political meaning as the symbol of Islam’s victory over Hinduism.
In 2018, India’s Home Minister Amit Shah said Muslim immigrants and asylum seekers from Bangladesh were “termites” and promised to rid the nation of them.
The government maintains the bill is about protecting religious minorities who fled to India to avoid persecution by allowing them to become citizens.
Isn’t that exactly what the bill is intended to do – giving citizenship to those who, as religious minorities in three Muslim neighboring countries, fled persecution. What better way to ensure they will never be returned to their countries of origin?
Shah said in a tweet that the bill “will allow India to open its doors to minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who are facing religious persecution.”
It is well known that those minorities who chose to make Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan their home had to constantly live in the fear of extinction,” Shah said. “This amended legislation by Modi government will allow India to extend them dignity and an opportunity to rebuild their lives.”
Modi tweeted that the bill, “is in line with India’s centuries old ethos of assimilation and belief in humanitarian values.”
“The bill uses the language of refuge and sanctuary, but discriminates on religious grounds in violation of international law,” said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch, in a statement.
What “international law” is violated when fast-track citizenship is made available to those refugees who have been persecuted because of their religion? When Jewish refugees were favored for resettlement in the U.S. after World War II, did that “discriminate on religious groups in violation of international law” or did that practice reflect the understanding that Jews had been especially ill-treated, and those who had survived the Holocaust deserved special consideration? Who would have called that policy a “violation of international law”?
Addressing parliament on December 9, Shah said that Muslims “will not benefit from this amendment because they have not been persecuted on the basis of religion.”
Speaking to the Rajya Sabha on December 10, he added: “Who are you worried about? Should we make the Muslims coming from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan citizens of the country? What do you want — that we give every Muslim coming from any anywhere in the world citizenship? … The country cannot function this way.”
The government run by Modi is keenly aware of the country’s history – that is, the centuries of Muslim rule, when 70-80 million Hindus were killed. It knows, too, that while the percentage of the Hindu population in Pakistan has decreased from 24% in 1947 to 1.8% today, and in Bangladesh decreased from 22% in 1947 to 8.5% today, in India the percentage of the population that is Muslim has steadily increased from 9.8% just after Partition to 14.2% today. These figures tell us a good deal about how Muslims have thrived, while non-Muslims have suffered, in the subcontinent.
The new Indian law should be applauded; it does not “marginalize” 200 million Indian Muslims; it does not violate “international law” or “overturn” the Indian Constitution, as its opponents excitedly claim. It does exactly one thing: the law provides a fast-track for citizenship to all those who have suffered persecution, as non-Muslims, in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. It sensibly refuses to confer the same benefits on the Muslim victimizers as on their non-Muslim victims. In not backing down, Narendra Modi has proved that he is a stout protector of the persecuted, but not vengeful against their Muslim persecutors. Nor has he done anything to harm Indian Muslims. In history-haunted India, where the memory of those 70-80 million murdered Hindus vividly remains, what more can one ask?
Naildriver says
The USA should certainly follow India’s example and openly say we do not want Muslims.
Why opposition would prevail is a telling sign of how crippled our government has become from the. Islamic interests and traitors for Islam who buy our politicians –because of greed.
Shailesh says
US really need a man like amit shah. NO ONE CAN WIN AGAINST HIM, he destroyed the opposition in both house of parliament single handly point by point.he is also an election winning machine.
Ankit says
Indian government doesno such thing. Any muslim can seek indian citizenship including from indian sub-continent using legal channels.
Raje says
Yes…Muslims have lots of nations & land in middle east, they must settle there.
DBM echo says
If Muslims are vexed about Issue X, then 100 out of 100 non-Muslims should be for Issue X.
Mural says
Finally, a fair assessment of the new law. As usual, the muslim-loving left wing has hijacked this issue and is trying its best to make it look like BJP is committing some crime against Humanity!
Of course, we do not want muslims from Pak and Bangladesh. We have enough religious nuts from the ‘religion of Peace’ here.
Jaladhi says
The Indian law should be applauded and the West can learn something in giving refuge to the persecuted Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims from Muslim countries instead of allowing hoards of Muslims to their countries. Right now it is clear the West is allowing Muslims to come here and are preventing or throwing roadblocks to immigration of Muslim persecution victims!
paul 316 says
+1
gravenimage says
So true.
Ankit says
India is not giving citizenship to persecuted non-muslim minorities from any where. Pakistan, bangladesh were indian lands when violent muslim riots made british to carve out muslim majority areas out of it. Kashmir was also such muslim majority area but a princely state, so had choice of joining india or pakistan. It chose india when Pakistan imvaded it. It was agreed bw indian and pakistan Prime ministers that each shall protect its minorities. That is not the case in pakistan. During 1971 bangladesh liberation war pak army killed 3-4 mn bangladeshis, 2-3 mn of them being hindu. These minorities have right to refuge in india owing to failure of pak & bd in protecting them.
Truth Seeker says
Muslims from Pakistan have moved into Jammu and Kashmir over the past decades driving out Hindus by violence and persecution. This made Hindus of J&K refugees in their own nation.
By eliminating the Hindu minority in J&K, the invaders took over the state government and set up Muslim rule. The only recourse Kashmiri Hindus have had for this injustice under Congress Party national rule has been violent retaliation in areas where Muslims were a minority.
With the BJP winning power from the Congress Party, these things are now being accomplished to change this.
1. The BJP dissolved the state government of Kashmir, removing the Islamic coup government. The Constitution of India gives the central government this power.
2. The BJP dissolved Kashmiri statehood, making it a territory of India and preventing another Islamic separatist government to replace the one dissolved.
3. Those Muslims whose families were not in Kashmir prior to 1971 are now declared illegal aliens. They will be detained or deported.
4. Those non-Muslims persecuted in neighboring Muslim nations are given preferential immigration status, allowing non-Muslim residents to settle into Kashmir again.
5. Those surviving Muslim persecution are able to eventually return to their homeland in Kashmir.
6. Justice replaces violent mob persecution of Muslims, as the law is being enforced rather than ignored as it has been for decades by the Congress Party. Vigilante justice is replaced by the law.
This is one of the most brilliant political moves I have seen in my life. If it succeeds, Modi deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for making India a refuge for the persecuted instead of a place of increasing persecution.
Infidel says
They’ll never give that prize to Modi: they’re more likely to give it to Imran Khan or Mahathir Mohammed or maybe some Uyghur or Burmese Muslims
Infidel says
That said, Modi resembles Trump in one impressive way: he’s keeping his promises. Too bad his economy is struggling, but he has achieved quite a number of things – abolishing triple talaq, repealing Article 370 on Jammu & Kashmir, getting a Supreme Court judgment in favor of the Rama temple in Ayodhya, Citizenship Amendment Act. Next on the agenda is Uniform Civil Code (for people of all religions), National Registry of Citizenship for all India, Simultaneous elections for federal and state (to streamline activity and be more cost effective) and civil service and governance reforms. Further down the priority list is the development and popularization of Sanskrit to get over the issue of centrifugal linguistic forces, and resolve the issue of a Kerela temple that bans entry for women.
Bharani Komandur says
About the Swamy Ayyappa Temple in Sabarimala, Kerala, the Deity there is in Naishtika Brahmacharyam, wherein you do not interact with people of the opposite sex. It is worth noting that there are 7 temples in India, where men are strictly not allowed. It is also worth noting that women can visit any of the remaining 100,000 Ayyappa temples across the country. There is no restriction in any other temple. It is only at Sabarimala.
Infidel says
Bharani, I was talking about what’s on the Indian government’s agenda, not what I think. I actually think that temples should be free to make any rules they want, and that it’s up to devotees to determine whether they want to visit that temple or not. The rule does seem mildly silly in that when people, even married couples, visit temples, they don’t go there to make out (certainly not in India). However, temple establishments do have the right to exclude people on any basis whatsoever, and people who disagree can made a conscious decision to avoid/boycott them
Krishna says
The problem with Muslim immigrants in India from Bangladesh is they mutiply too fast
Just imagine you are living in state with majority English suddenly in 10 years immigrants flood and change demographics and even sign board will become in non English language like Bengali
This is what happening in state of Assam
So India need citizen amendment Bill or with better version of it
Infidel says
The CAA does have carve-outs: Bangladeshi Hindus coming to India cannot flood states like Manipur or Meghalaya. Why not add ALL Assam to the list of exemptions? Don’t deport them back to Bangladesh, but rather, resettle them in West Bengal, preferably east of the Hoogly. Or encourage them to scatter elsewhere in India.
peter says
Very much agree ! A very good suggestion . Hope people are listening .
Christopher Watson says
You don.t have to imagine it. Just come to England. Visit London, Birmingham and some towns in the north.
Infidel says
Why, do they have Urdu signs replacing English-only signs?
nicu says
They do right ! Here in Germanistan Muslims have 3 passports and many identities to get benefits !
Mural says
This is the new version of Jizya thay Dhimmis are paying. Jizya 2.0!
andrew mckendrick says
If India`s Muslims are so worried about persecution they can seek refuge in nearby Pakistan , Afghanistan or Bangladesh however ,don`t expect to see rush for exit anytime soon.
Vaibhav says
I don’t know why do Muslim Refugees come to secular countries when they have 57 Islamic countries to go to. It’s a part of a bigger plan to Islamise the Europe and other secular countries. If this rate of immigration continues then Europe will become Muslim majority by 2100. Sharia laws will be applied all over Europe and then the minorities of Europe will be persecuted just like they used to do it in medieval times. They killed pagans in middle-east,Zoroashtrians in Iran,Budhhists in Afghanistan,Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan, and the list goes on. I wish the world should end before we see a completely Islamised world full of tyranny.
gravenimage says
Muslims go to Dar-al-Harb to take over.
Carol the 1st says
It’s wonderful to read about this – my admiration for India and Hugh Fitzgerald increases.
Hoping not to distract, but to instead “supplement” this topic, is a recent video with RAJIV MALHOTRA interviewing the Brit, Katie Hopkins:
Islam vs Britain – Katie Hopkins, UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MdhjdzY8kQ
Infidel says
Prime Minister Modi finally came out w/ a statement that totally blasted the anti-CAA talking points: “I challenge Congress and their allies if they have the guts they should openly declare that they will give Indian citizenship to every Pakistani citizen and that they will bring back Article 370 in Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh” . Which is precisely the argument. India is capable and willing to take in every Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jew, Jain and Parsi living in those 3 countries. It’s not capable of taking in every Muslim, though! And if it did, why would those countries still have a rationale to exist?
On a related note, Dacca has stated that it’s willing to take back its citizens, if proven.. That’s good: it’s not too difficult to prove to them which of their people are in India illegally. Already, Bangladeshis have started moving back to Bangladesh, for fear of being busted. Also, while Sheikh Hasina is right that her government doesn’t persecute Hindus or Buddhists, the point is that the religious persecution is done by the people of Bangladesh. Also, Dacca has seen coups that assassinated her father, and has had on and off islamic governments, so it makes sense for Hindus, Buddhists and Christians in that country to be apprehensive about the long term and seek refuge in India.
India has also mocked Pakistan’s national assembly for condemning the citizenship act, showing them the ‘pot, kettle’ analogy. Not only does Pakistan pass discriminatory legislation against non-Muslims: there is all the time stories of some poor non-Muslim minor disappearing, and finally surfacing as a new convert to islam and a new bride of some Muslim. A step above UK’s ‘grooming gangs’, also perpetrated mainly by ethnic Pakis.
LLetto says
Interesting
Infidel says
Hugh
That is the only mis-step of the Modi government – one that can be rectified. The BJP has created several carve-outs in north eastern states to protect the various scheduled tribes there. In other words, all these refugees from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan can’t settle in states like Manipur or Nagaland or Sikkim or other north eastern states, but they can settle in certain areas of Assam. What the Modi government should have done should have been to exempt all of Assam in the carve-out: they wouldn’t have to take any Bengalis. Those people could go to Bengal or anywhere else in India (linguistic considerations would drive most of them towards West Bengal anyway).
Also, this is not totally correct: anybody who’s left Bangladesh b/w 1971 and 2014 (which is the cutoff date in this act) who is a non-Muslim does qualify for Indian citizenship. The question here is: should such people be allowed to settle in Assam, where by the sheer numbers, they’d threaten to make Assam another Bengal? That answer should be no, and that’s one thing that Modi’s government can and should fix: those people can settle anywhere else in India
Hugh Fitzgerald says
I stand corrected. Thank you.
gravenimage says
Thanks, Infidel.
Infidel says
Every country has the right to decide how many people it wants to give citizenship to, and to who. Like it’s impossible to get citizenship in any of the Gulf Arab countries unless one is a Muslim. And guess what: it’s not a violation of any international law: they’re all well within their rights. In Maldives, the law requires every citizen to be a Muslim.
Like I said yesterday, there are 4 categories of people in India:
– Indian non-Muslim citizens
– Non-Muslim settlers
– Indian Muslim citizens
– Muslim settlers
The NRC by itself would get rid of settlers – both Muslim and non-Muslim, but wouldn’t touch Muslim citizens. The CAA would intervene and prevent the non-Muslim settlers from being deported to Muslim countries. The BJP’s political enemies are trying to claim that the NRC would get rid of not just Muslim settlers, but Muslim citizens as well.
As I cited above, Modi had the right response: would the opponents of this law be willing to take in every Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Afghan citizen? B’cos that would be the effect if Muslims were added to this law
Hugh Fitzgerald says
I stand corrected. Thank you.
Infidel says
For this latter statement, I was correcting Meenakshi Ganguly, not you. You wrote a pretty excellent piece
PS You no longer write long run-on sentences. What gives? ?
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Old age.
Infidel says
Another thing I meant to correct – the 70-80 million number. Will Durant had one number for the pre-Mughal period of 1000-1526 AD, while KS Lal had another number for the Mughal era of 1526 to 1857. So it’s fair to add those numbers, instead of treating them as one and the same, and if one does that, the death toll grows to something like 150 million people over the complete 800 year period
mortimer says
The bill responds to the fact that Islamic aid and abet the persecution of their minorities.
mortimer says
correction: The bill responds to the fact that Islamic COUNTRIES aid and abet the persecution of their religious minorities
Infidel says
No, it doesn’t: non-Muslims from other countries, such as Iran, Egypt, Nigeria, Qatar, et al can’t come to India to be admitted as refugees. Only the 3 Muslim countries in India’s neighborhood
mortimer says
If Muslims are truly persecuted for being the ‘wrong sort’ of Muslim in their countries, I bet, India will accept them.
However, there will not be many in that category. Muslims won’t be persecuted by other Muslims in most cases.
Infidel says
No, India shouldn’t – and won’t. Take Shias, for example. In the 15th century, India had a major Shia sultanate in the south – the Bahmani empire. That empire was at constant war w/ a Hindu kingdom called Vijayanagar, and it ended w/ Vijayanagar being razed to the ground. Today, that city is just an archeological site.
Sure, Shias may be persecuted in Sunni countries, but once they’re a majority, they turn things around. Look at Lebanon. Same would be true of Ahmadiyas.
No, India has this act right: Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Sikhs, Jains and Parsees/Zoroastrians.
No Shias, Sunnis, Ahmadiyas, Sufis, Bahais, Ibadis, Druze or anyone else from these 3 countries
Kerry Wade says
To a Muslim who wants to come to my country, for whatever reason, my answer is “No, you are a security risk, you can never come here.”
Daksh Kushwah says
Exactly.
Infidel says
In India, the silent majority seems to be supportive of this, which is why despite all the student uprisings all over India, a lot of prominent personalities have kept very quiet. Since they don’t wanna destroy their reputation by openly and publicly opposing something so popular
Carol the 1st says
+100
Faustas says
If the rationale is to protect persecuted minorities in neighboring countries, should the law not also apply to Shiite Muslims, who are also persecuted by the Sunni majorities in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh?
Amar says
That’s sectarian conflict in an officially islamic nation. That apart, in 1947 we gave away the land of pakistan and bangladesh for muslims, all sects. Shias and ahmedis were at the very forefront in the movement to cut up our nation and create an islamic state. Now that they have exactly what they demanded, their sectarian conflicts are their internal matter. The non islamic populations are caught up in this mess for no fault of their own and we will help them.
Infidel says
Very good point. Not to mention that Shias and Ahmadiyas don’t like Hindus any more than Sunnis do, and in India, they associate more w/ Sunnis than w/ Hindus. So there’s no reason to have a carve-out for them
gravenimage says
Faustas, Shi’ites also present a threat to all Infidels.
Cab says
@Faustas Sweety it’s exactly Shias and Ahmadiyaas(the ‘persecuted’ minorities) who were forerunners for partition of India !
They deserve to live in their ‘Islamic heaven’.
Moreover Indian muslim HATE Ahmadiyas that it’s really funny to see them burning school buses and beating police officers to include muslim victims in CAB.
Muslims being muslims and kaffirs being dumbo kaffirs.
peter says
During the partition these are the people who fought for partition and did not want to stay in India although Gandthi and Nehru wanted very much these people to stay in India . They said no and Gandhi the master of politics went on to fast till India paid Pakistan 38 crore rupees in those days as part of the deal and again now they are saying that India is unfair when India says enough is enough ! You cannot win with the circular logic of Islam and muslims ! Let them rot in their own self created hell!
Sagar Kar says
hah!! such a factual article, this is what journalism should be like, people can write anything they want on opinion pages but journalism must have some stantard that is facts about narratives. Gives the full context of history as well. The law was not even a big deal, most people in India were like – ‘well this should have been done a long time ago, why is BJP pretending it has done something great’ contrarty to abolition of article 370 when most people were like ‘well, this is a big deal’ . but the violent attakcs on public property by mobs have led to normal people wondering ‘ what’s the issue if we look out for people who are religiously persecuted, where will they go?’ . it’s a question we all must ask, does’nt this violence and venner given to justify this violecne represent a deep rooted hatred for Hindus?
Sagar Kar says
* facts above narratives
gravenimage says
India Offers Refuge to Real Refugees, and is Savaged for It
……………….
Grimly true. I hope Modi stands strong.
Infidel says
So far he has. He made a brilliant point when he challenged his opponents to openly state that they were willing to give every Pakistani citizen Indian citizenship! Even secular Indians are not so stupid to say yes
gravenimage says
Thanks, Infidel.
Md Afzal Ansari says
You have to speak about all religions dark side in india modi government is mast dangerous party leader of world who play card the religion agenda and did same things to other caste
Bhavin says
There are 53+ Islamic country in the world but all Muslim wants to live in non Muslim country only. Why? Just because they won’t get freedom in Islamic country.
Avtar says
They claimed they need a country of their own for not being treated as second class citizens in India. Now they want to return to the country where they claimed they were being treated as second class citizens. Any logic here?
Infidel says
Both Muslims and woke SJW Leftists hate logic, since it has a tendency of consistently weakening their arguments
libertyORdeath says
It’s no problem for Pakistan and Bangladesh to separate from India on the basis of religion. No issue with the persecution enshrined in the laws of the Islamic republics. But when India tries to help those subjected to persecution or worse its the most dangerous thing they can do. Has the world gone mad? Will this regression continue? Freedom loving people of the world must unite and say no more.
Chand says
This only one half of the situation. Along with this new Citizenship act the govt is beginning a nationwide counting of citizens. This was done in the state of Assam recently and then hundreds of thousands of bonafide Indan citizens were mistakenly left out, both Hindus and Muslims.
So now all the non Muslims declared to be non citizens, whether real or by mistake, can apply for Citizenship under this new act. But no Muslim can. If a non Muslim cannot prove Citizenship he/she will still be given citzenship.
A Muslim on the other hand will have no such opportunity and will be in serious trouble.
Thus nationwide protests are happening, by Muslims and non Muslims.
Hugh Fitzgerald should narrate the whole truth about this issue and mention this impending counting of citizens, called the NRC or the National Registry of Citizens.
This is thus a direct attack on secularism and a discriminaton on religious grounds.
Citizenship to persecuted minorities from the neighbouring countries should be awarded by a different method.
Amar says
What different method do you propose?
Infidel says
As I pointed out in the previous thread that you posted in, you are lying by conflating Indian Muslims w/ Bangladeshi Muslims (since India doesn’t have millions of Paki or Afghan Muslims the way they have Bangladeshi ones). Hugh painstakingly laid out all the details pretty thoroughly, including the reasons that Assam is protesting this law. In fact, that’s been the only mis-step of Amit Shah, which they can correct by giving ALL of Assam exemption from having to take in any Bangladeshis
The NRC is a simple project: determine who is a citizen and who isn’t – pretty much like our census here in the US. It’s after that that deportation of illegal immigrants happens, and what the CAA does is protect non-Muslims from being deported to a Muslim country, which would be inhumane.
infidel says
Amazing logic U have…
infidel says
I mean Mr Chand
gravenimage says
Chand has always been pro-Islam–no matter the cost to the victims.
infidel says
As of now, Muslims are going berserk all over India, rioting and torching and destroying public property and vehicles… BTW, these are peaceful protests of peaceful people.
sidney penny says
from a peaceful religion
Dee says
It’s about survival. When they created the state of Pakistan, it was because muslims could not get along.
This should be a lesson to Israel , know that even if you gave muslims everything their little hearts desired , they would still agitate, protest , and slaughter , until Islam is dominant.
What a good and brave leader..
sidney penny says
“It cleared the Rajya Sabha, India’s upper house of parliament where the BJP lacks a clear majority, on Wednesday (December 10) with 125 votes in favor and 105 against.”
Who were the 105 who voted against it? Let us name and shame them for not supporting this bill.
Binoy says
I am an Assamese and must say that Assam angle was nicely presented n the suggestion to exempt it from CAA is the way out.
Jenny Allen says
the problem with this law is the difficulty in finding a way to know if a Muslim convert to Christianity is authentic. These people are as persecuted as other Christians, so they also need protection.