This is especially disappointing considering the time, legal and administrative effort and money will be spent on trialing and detention of alleged non-citizens.
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.
This entire sequence is incorrect. The sequence dates back to the Assam Accord of 1985 when the current BJP was nowhere close to power. Then there was the Supreme Court mandated NRC process which was decided in 2013. Without mention of these, your so called sequence of events is nothing but a bunch of lies.
NRC was mandated by Assam Accord that was signed by Rajiv Gandhi in the last century. The NRC was carried out in Assam after the SC verdict in 2013 which directed the Government to do it.
For those of you supporting the government's take on this, and their argument that proper documentation is all it takes for being included in the NRC, how do you care to explain that the family of the former president of India 'Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed' was left out of NRC?
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.
To your question of religion based immigration, this ignores crucial background - After the Partition in 1947, there were Hindus and other minorities who remained in Pakistan(including current Bangladesh) and Muslims in India. There was the Nehru-Liaquat pact which curtailed further exchange of population provided the minorities were safeguarded.
This agreement was drastically violated, especially in the 1971 war when Pakistan Army deliberately targeted Hindus.
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
There are few misconceptions about the recently enacted CAA, that need to be clarified.
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.
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.
I think you should give this a read. How the Reich systematically did their deeds.
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.
Please. Hitler wrote a /book/ where he explained /everything/ in excruciating details. That is arguably the scariest part of Nazism. People /knew/ what they were signing for. Hitler /was/ legitimate.
There are few misconceptions about the recently enacted CAA, that need to be clarified.
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.
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.
au contraire, /r/India is India's version of /r/The_Donald. As a centrist, I have seen debates on /r/IndiaSpeaks but any contrary opinion on /r/India is not tolerated at all.
Again, the above view is the government line and is meant to misguide and create ambiguity. Read the CAA in combination with the NRC to understand how it is similar to the Nuremberg laws.
This thread has a lot of government propaganda shills.
Please don't break the HN guidelines by insinuating that commenters you disagree with are shills or astroturfing. After many years investigating this kind of thing on HN I can tell you that it is basically always an imaginary perception, and it degrades discussion badly, so it's not allowed here. Lots more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Also, using multiple accounts this way will get your accounts banned on HN, so please don't do that.
This is extremely bad but also completely expected. Concrete promises of economic growth are hard to deliver on, so the Politicians will focus on inciting religious differences instead.
This is beyond bad. The government has slowly inched to their religions roots and have made religious segregation their primary mandate. I mean, at this rate, we will be no different from Saudi Arabia or other countries where religion dominates all policy decisions.
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.
It will be shameful to be an Indian and not to oppose it, this is completely against the idea of India and the foundations of India. Today Gandhi and all the martyrs of Indian freedom struggle must be crying in their graves. India turned into a religious dictatorship with a handful of politicians using divide and rule and slowly peeling the democracy one layer at a time (by draconian laws, infringing human rights, infringing right to protest, and forcefully suppress dissent).
Hopefully sense will prevail and supreme court rule this development as unconstitutional (not so hopeful though, based on recent judgements).
This is one of the most hypocritical things of being an NRI. You watch people who want a good life in secular, liberal western democracies that makes immigration easy for them. The same people want the very opposite conditions in India.
I don't understand Indian system so probably my comment should be taken with grain of salt. But this shows that supreme court is not independent enough to preserve attack on democracy even when a fundamental tenet of the constitution is attacked, when the attack is coming from the very people who were suppose to safeguard it i.e. current government. So although there is a separation of powers in a democratic system, it looks like similar to what happens in China, where the courts need to listen to government.
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.
I used to believe the US Supreme court could be a bulwark against one party control, but the Republicans now admit (McConnel) that they stole a spot from Democrats and have been court packing since they got a republican president. I no longer so naive about courts in the US. We've basically lost judicial independence in only 3 years. 3 years is all it took!
Pretty much true. Also very sad considering the history of communal violence in south asia, which had trended towards getting better rather than worse in more recent decades.
I grew up in India and cherish where I came from, but the recent hard lurches towards a fascist ethnostate - often with the enthusiastic support of India's majority (including my family members) - sadden me deeply and make me wonder what the future has in store.
India is far from being a fascist ethnostate, unless you have been reading media reports which are filled with false details and crucial ommisions. In fact, there are colonial laws which prevent Hindus from even running temples or schools without being taken over by the state. Also, they are routinely the targets of violence which dont come to prominence in western media reports.
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.
> The Goalpara camp is one of at least 10 planned detention centres, according to local media reports. It is around the size of seven football pitches and designed to hold 3,000 people.
While I empathize with the people being detained, the headline is really misleading. Above makes it 21 thousands - or of that order.
Man. What is it with this wave of nationalistic zealotry that seems to be sweeping most of the world? Has it just been long enough since World War 2 that it's already time to re-learn these lessons?
If you look to the past (1945-1980) the general situation was improving at an unbelievable pace by an absurd magnitude. Resources were abundant and there was a lot that needed to be done, life got better very quickly.
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.
Only a (maybe tongue-in-cheek) theory, but perhaps the ruling classes see the writing on the wall in terms of economic/ecological/social collapse, and are starting to make preparations for large scale social unrest?
Even more recently, we saw the utter destruction brought by nationalists after the break-up of Yugoslavia no more than 25 years ago.
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.
A response to the threat of global warming. Historically major climate events have been a strong indicator of wars. Researchers have been predicting this for a while.
We won the Cold War. Now everyone doesn’t have to pick a side for survival. Plenty of spare time for navel gazing and wondering who is keeping you down.
While the arrow of progress is forward, the blips can last for a millenia.
In india nearly 50% of the population is illiterate and even more are incredibly poor. If these people are expected to produce certificates of birth and others its just impossible for them. This NAA law is not about immigration its about stripping voting rights from a huge chunk of muslims and reducing their population from 200Million
> yes shooting on sight those trying to illegally cross is 100% OK
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.
While i do not want to defend the position of anovikov, i have to note there is a big difference in border protection against entering a country and leaving a country. This is e.g. explicitly stated in UDHR, which recongizes a human right to leave any country, and only right to enter a country of citizenship.
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.
Big difference. They shot those trying to leave, not enter.
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.
As a Muslim immigrant entrepreneur living in the Valley, I had to call my parents to allay their fears of the current law. A community of 200 million feels threatened.
I don’t understand how immigrants from India support modi. Is it because he panders to our immigrant egos?
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.
This is disgusting and I feel it is a crime. Freedom is of the most precious things living humans have. So maybe progressive part of the world will wake the f.. up and apply some pressure.
Then why would the ruling party express dismay over hindus who were termed as illegal immigrants. They made the process easier, basically providing immediate citizenship for hindus and other minorities, excluding muslims.
This is downright unethical and should be regarded as a crime.
> 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.
Personally I think Ahmadis, who Pakistan doesn't consider Muslims, should be given refuge in India.
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.
In Tudor England, there were times when Protestants / Catholics were persecuted more than, say, Jews. I know very little about contemporary politics, but that conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.
Yup. Historically, because of a long tradition of practices such as jizya, historically (now it varies from country to country) there tended to be much more tolerance of "lateral" religions such as Christianity and Judaism in muslim lands than other sects of Islam, which were considered dangerous heresys. South Asia was kind of unique because there was often muslim sultanate leaders over very large non-muslim populations, and that forced a sort of realpolitik tolerance.
Increased taxation (and, yes, even slavery) is sort of tolerance when compared to war and genocide. If you can enslave somebody as a punishment, you're treating them as free otherwise – treating them as a person by default.
In other times and in other parts of the world, not even that has been the case.
Ahmadis and Shias are victims of sectarian conflict. CAA only covers religious persecution. By your reasoning, CAB should've also covered LGBTQ, atheists, disabled and those sufferering political persecution. But it's not possible to accommodate everyone and every form of persecution in one bill.
Sectarian conflict isn't religious persecution? Most of the other religious minorities, just like Ahmadis and some Shia groups are persecuted via the same Pakistan's blasphemy laws.
Yes, it's not same and is something akin to India's caste discrimination. Besides, it complicates things. Tomorrow, what if the Pakistani state declares Wahabis and Salafists as non-Islamic? Do we pass an amendment to accommodate them too?
If your aim is to protect all people against religious persecution, of course you should keep your list of persecuted groups up to date and extend protection to Wahhabis and Salafists if they need it. Ideally, that process shouldn't require amending the original law, but only a judicial decision that (whatever specific actions are taken against the persecuted group) constitute religious discrimination according to the criteria outlined in the law.
What do you think Religious persecution is? Ahmedis have been declared non Muslims and are being prosecuted. This is the definition of religious prosecution
As per the Indian Government, they are still Muslims and the conflict is sectarian. I do hope that they're somehow rescued from Pakistani state's oppression. But it's understandable why they are not covered in CAA.
Sectarian persecution is different from religious persecution.
For example
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.
How can Muslims be religiously persecuted in countries with Islam as their state religion? Note that the amendment only deals with only religious persecution. Other forms of persecution, which could be sectarian, linguistic, ethnic, political etc. are not covered by the amendment.
If a Muslim wishes to reject the teachings of Islam and live a life free of Islam, how would India help them? Ex-Muslims are murdered all the time in Islamic countries. The persecution is religious and the person is of a Muslim origin. Go on.
> If a Muslim wishes to reject the teachings of Islam and live a life free of Islam,
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.
Giving persecuted religious groups refuge is a noble act.
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's not the entire truth. Myanmar doesn't have any state religion. And even Hindus from Myanmar, who have suffered violence are not covered in the amendment.
There's no immediate citizenship to anyone. They will need to prove that they have come from neighboring countries who have Islam as their state religion.
Because the Hindus are other minorities (Sikhs, Buddihsts, Jians, etc) are historically from India. Its their homeland and they are persecuted elsewhere, mostly in Pakistan (read about what they did in 1971 war in bangladesh. That was a genocide)
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?
How about Farsi/Zoroastrians and Christians? 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.
> 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?
Sorry but in this particular case the authorities went back as far as 5 decades. What kind of moral abomination is that. If they were fine with the persons living in country for few years than leave them alone. Instead they're asking them to prove their citizenship after the decades had passed and few in those places have any documents at all. Knowing very well that they can not really deport them anywhere they instead determined to put them in the concentration camps forever. I have some proper words for such actions but I am afraid I'll be banned if I spill it.
Endorsing Citizenship Bill will eventually trickle down to separate countries for Muslim/Sikh/Christian/Parsi/Buddhist/Jain/SC/ST Communities in India aka http://archive.vn/tUrIv
Someone needs to tell anonymous somewhere to help and join India's youth against a fascist government. This is the final straw. India's ban on internet is straight up challenging the Democratic pillars
This is bad and I fear that the next thing they are going to do is remove socialist and secular from Preamble which was added in the 42nd amendment in 1976
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.
What absolute non-sense! There is no such religion called Hinduism. An average Hindu Punjabi has more in common with an average Muslim Pakistani (Language, Food, Music, etc.) than a Hindu Tamilian. But the Punjabi/Rajasthani and Tamilian or both clubbed into a single Hindu religion.
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.
Name may be modern, but Hinduism refers to Sanatan Dharm that is indigenous to India.
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.
> Name may be modern, but Hinduism refers to Sanatan Dharm that is indigenous to India.
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.
Well said. Hinduism has historically always been one of the most diverse and heterogeneous religious on the planet! And that's what made it incredible resilient in the past; it simply reflected whatever local groups worshipped/beleived, and it could vary wildly between village to village.
Hindutva is simply a way for a group of people to power grab by forging "us vs them" bugs in human nature.
Throughout this thread you have commented lies about the partition and India as a religion based country. India was not and is not a country based on religion. You cannot be more wrong about it. Pakistan chose to be a Islamic Republic while India had all different kinds of people wanted to live as a free country after the British left. Religion was the last thing on anyone's mind. The freedom struggle was lead by people of all faiths regardless of their beliefs focusing on uniting India, not dividing it on the basis of religion.
It's rare to see such rabid government propaganda on HN, like some of the posts in this thread. The activity in this thread is comparable to pro-government posts seen on threads about Chinese internment camps and the Social Credit System.
> 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.
Pleae don't "highlight" flamewar comments that obviously break the site guidelines. That feeds them and encourages more like them. Flag them instead, as the site guidelines ask.
Every time there is a thread about the Indian government doing something questionable, there are people here ready to justify it and defend the government.
I called out these pro-government accounts pretty heavily in a thread sometime back and my comments got flagged on basis of not providing references and calling their comments as propaganda. How much of references can you provide when you know the person is just sending you on a wild goose chase. And the comments are propaganda, repeating governmental lies.
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 [1]. BTW Modi conducted 2002 Gujarat massacre and got banned from entering US until he became Indian PM.
Read the Reuters interview from 2013 [1], 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.
HN doesn't prohibit people from being wrong or unquestioningly repeating government propaganda so long as they don't exclusively use HN for ideological battle and respect the other rules.
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 hn@ycombinator.com with the relevant facts, so that the mods can decide on the correct action to take without publicly putting anyone on the spot.
I mailed dang and he didn't agree with me and I respect that, since I agree with his assertion that I was being aggressive which fueled ideological battle even more.
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.
I don't think government IT cell people are lurking here. I believe the sickening comments are coming from real people who have fallen for Hindutva propaganda. It is sad that a section of educated Indian has such regressive views.
>>It is sad that a section of educated Indian has such regressive views.
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.
> 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.
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.
This assumes people vote on election manifestos, which is far from the truth, at least in India.
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?
Depends on which investigation one chooses to believe the one presided over by Modi shill or multiple independent ones that gave forensic evidence that the fire started inside and was likely an accident. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godhra_train_burning#Banerjee_...
Considering how you continue to bring up an issue that was disproved multiple times at every level (That too during Congress rule so you cannot accuse Modi of manipulating investigating agencies and courts), It might have been.
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.
cause Our courts never really rule for justice when muslims are in the receiving end. Time and time again. Gujarat riots, babar masjid and many more. This is a non issue for fascists but it is for the victims.
Exactly. People with such overly idealist mindset don't think through the fact that, what they consider to be a safe bubble around them, will eventually be shrunken by someone/some group, with even bigger mindset.
Exactly, so it is a good thing that Hindus who have emigrated from an actual genocide(not a speculation) with scant notice in major media both in India and abroad, are finally getting a chance at citizenship
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.
True. Yesterday Indian PM issued these statement in an election rally:
"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.
Sadly, this is no propoganda. One would be astonished at the amount of hate an average voter in this country now has. It is mostly frustration with the state of everyday affairs. Inflation, low wages, unemployment, population density all of it combined with a religious party leading everyone to believe that Muslims are the cause of all this. It is a classic right-wing trope throughout the world. Nothing different here.
Is there any rule, that only Hindus are allowed to follow Sadhguru. He is what he is. When somebody is good, I don't think there is anything wrong with mentioning that.
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.
I think I should make it very clear. All of your arguments are Hindu right wing talking points that are laughable to non-Hindus. You would not know this, irrespective of your protestations to otherwise, because you are a Hindu.
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.
> Yeah, caste system is bad. India would have been in better place is it isn't exploited.
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.
Heard of the NRC? No matter how much you toe govt line, they'll still harass you at NRC centre and the day you'll suffer personally you'll realise how wrong you are.
> This government is going nuts trying to create a hindu muslim divide.
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.
Once NRC is applied, anyone who can not prove citizenship with documents dating back to 1971, will be treated as illegal immigrant. And, only Muslim illegal immigrants can't get citizenship.
> 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?
If you are clear with the partition of India, Pakistan divided itself from India to be a primarily Muslim country. India on the other hand, chose to be secular. India is home to all major religions in the world.
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?
> Perhaps the current generation has an issue with Hindus getting the short end of the stick.
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.
Any Indian citizen knows how poor documentation is in India.
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.
1. Nobody was stripped of citizenship. They couldn't prove they had it in the first place.
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."
You forgot one important detail. All those three countries have Islam as their state religion and Muslims are unlikely to be persecuted there on religious grounds.
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.
> All those three countries have Islam as their state religion and Muslims are unlikely to be persecuted there on religious grounds.
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.
> Muslims are not similarly persecuted in Islamic nations.
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.
Protests in eastern part of India is against giving citizenship to any illegal immigrants(regardless of religion) in India. In other parts its because, excluding a religion from giving citizenship to Illegal immigrants shouldn't be the nature of India although I think that its constitutionally valid(IANAL) (as they are illegal immigrants and constitution doesn't protect them)
> So, most protestors are not protesting muslim exclusion, they're protesting anyone's inclusion.
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'.
> It is not the citizen's responsibility to prove he is a citizen, it is the government's responsibility to prove that he isn't.
> 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.
You cant just wake up one day and suddenly proclaim everyone a non citizen. In that case this is a non-government having been elected by non-citizens! Right?
You can when that was the campaign promise of the election and you won the super majority to do so. Regardless of personal opinion, they did this the democratic way. We will see what the Supreme Court rules.
It is a violation of India's obligations under international law. Specifically, Part 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which India is a signatory of.
No, this is not a violation. It is a crime to enter India illegally, so detention cannot be considered arbitrary.
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.
Naive comment as I don't know much about India... but I suppose people that were able to participate in the elections did so because they already have some form of ID and are in a census, so they would remain citizens?
Crossing a border and simply existing are very different. One is a very conscious action, and generally people are doing it on their own volition and know there are restrictions to exit and entry.
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 1 - the government now wants to repeat Assam NRC exercise all over the country. Why? Why do we need to prove our citizenship now all of a sudden?
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.
This is all drama to keep the public distracted from the real issues like a crumbling economy, deteriorating law and order, budget shortfalls in almost all sectors. This has been a recurring play BJP playbook seen throughout the last 6 years.
> Regarding 1 - the government now wants to repeat Assam NRC exercise all over the country. Why? Why do we need to prove our citizenship now all of a sudden?
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.
This is very wrong and misleading comment. protestors are protesting due to targeting a minority without naming them, and amending constitution on the basis of religion, in a secular country with a secular constitution.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/indians-protesting-ci...
Religions are (emotionally charged) opinions and as such they are not beyond criticism. You don't have to be neutral towards any particular opinion, belief system or culture.
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.
Sometimes it's Muslims doing the massacring, sometimes it's Muslims being attacked by governments (Uyghur), by Buddhists (Burma), etc. It's almost as if religion is not really the issue, just a proxy for expressing other sentiments...
A few different ones including insecurity around national identity, needing someone to blame for things going wrong, generalising some extremist using religion as justification to the religion being extremist (you can use any one of them...), general xenophobia, ...
During the crusades it was the crusaders who massacred muslims when they took Jerusalem. When Saladeen retook it, he did not massacre anyone and turned out to be more civilised by the christians.
I agree, but we collectively seem to agree that was a bad thing. Is it less evil now? Why should a similar wrong be tolerated if we recognise the damage it has caused in the past?
This is not a case of `stripped of citizenship`. India just built detention camps for illegal immigrants in the country. I think every country in the world does this to illegal immigrants (and later deported). The protests that are happening in the eastern part of India is against giving citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Anyone who is not able to prove their citizenship will naturally be declared illegal immigrant and then have an option to apply for citizenship depending on their religion. This applies to anyone who IS NOT a Muslim.
Millions of poor and illiterate people in India have no documentation proving their citizenship, let alone documents going back decades proving that their ancestors were Indians. We all know how the route of detention camps go when the number of detainees goes up to millions.
With NCR everyone will have to prove citizenship(probably, govt hasn't given any clarification regarding this) regardless of the religion. CAB bill doesn't immediately give citizenship to non Muslims in India. It specifically states that its for people from those three countries. The people who is living in India who is not from these countries regardless of religion will be declared illegal immigrant(again, not clarified)
Heh, this reminds me of the dumb anti-gay marriage refrain that goes something like, "Gay people aren't discriminated against, they can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they want, just like the rest of us!" It's depressing that so many people think that's a good argument when it reinforces their bigotry.
> The people who is living in India who is not from these countries regardless of religion will be declared illegal immigrant(again, not clarified)
This essentially is 'stripping citizenship`.
The government is essentially saying this: "We are not doing wrong right now. So bear with us.
After CAB debacle is done, NRC comes in and the government will again say: "We are not doing anything wrong right now too. You just have to follow the laws already passed and PROVE YOUR CITIZENSHIP"
> With NCR everyone will have to prove citizenship
Why?
Why do I need to prove my citizenship at the whim and fancy of government. What is the purpose of this exercise?
This exercise in a small state of Assam cost government coffers around 2000 crores. Add to this the cost citizens had to bear in gathering documentary proofs of their forefathers from land revenue offices, the affidavits, court and legal fees, the time and energy spent and the fear of being thrown into a detention centre - a no mans land.
This is all a ploy to gather power at the Center and the government's reaction to the protests has been testimony to that. Shutting down the Internet, jailing opposition leaders, declaring college students as terrorists and accusing them of sedition for protesting the government has been a constant theme for the last 2 terms for the Center. A Police State is the vision for this current government.
India's hunt for illegal immigrants is transparently aimed at the country's Muslims. Any suggestion otherwise is just wrong.
The government, over the last few years, has subjected many of its citizens to a bureaucratic nightmare to prove their citizenship. In many cases, all it takes to be declared a foreigner is for a neighbor to file an "objection" letter, which amounts to nothing more than an accusation. From there, the onus is on you to prove your own nationality to the nightmare that is India's legal system.
Under India's new citizenship law, Hindus (and members of most other religions) swept up into this mess can simply petition for citizenship. Conveniently for the current government, Muslims cannot.
Well, in every other place in the world, the government doesn't wake up one day and ask citizens to prove they are Citizens.
This is what happens if you elect bombastic incapable governments. The government doesn't realize that by their own logic they aren't elected by citizens anymore. By their own logic, they need to hold elections again I guess.
This is not a recent thing. Read about Assam Accord of 1985 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assam_Accord
The protests in eastern part of India is to uphold this accord. The current government has diluted the accord to give citizenship to these illegal immigrants(excluding Muslims, LTTE, etc) with the CAB bill.
I am from Assam. Your view is a blatant lie. My immediate right and rear neighboring families in my village are of Bihari origin and they have been living for 4 generations. This is just a small example. Thousands of people who were originally from rest of India have been living there. People of Assam are not protesting against the Indian citizens that have come from the rest of India and settled in Assam. Assamese people( & NE people by large) have been fighting against illegal immigrants from Bangladesh for more than 4 decades. The people's view in Assam is, illegal immigrants are illegal regardless of their religions, be it Hindu or Muslim and should be either deported or distributed across all the states of India so that pressure on small NE states doesn't create demographic imbalances. NRC was a mandate of Assam accord which was the culmination of 6 years long protests of the same issue during 1979-1985. Now this new law called Citizenships Amendment Act(CAA) decrees to grant citizenship to the Hindu immigrants detected by NRC exercise and deny to Muslim immigrants. Not only it provides citizenships to illegal Hindu immigrants, it also paves the way for future Hindu & Buddhist immigrants from Bangladesh to these small states which share porous borders with Bangladesh. Fear of indigenous people becoming a minority is not misplaced. Indigenous people of a state named Tripura has already become minority owing to the influx of Bangladeshi immigrants over a period of time.
There has always been anti-bengali sentiment in assam, even under the British. It was one of the reasons Assam was split away from Bengal in the first place. My family is from the Siliguri Corridor, bordering Assam, and there are plenty of people (from various ethnic groups) living there that migrated not only from Bangladesh/East Bengal but other parts of Assam/North East India in order to flee violence.
I am aware of that. I am also aware of the Nellie massacre. I am not sure how far you read Assam's history. The dis-trust of Bengali language imposition originated during the British era who brought many Bengali babus from Bengal for administrative jobs to their newly acquired Assam(most of the current's NE states). The result was, from 1836 to 1873, Bengali became the official state language in Assam. and for a community whose identity is primarily based in the Assamese language, it was a big blow. Even in present time, in Barak valley of Assam, Assamese is not recognized as a state language. Some politically motivated leaders still keep talking about throwing out the Assamese language from the entire state. Only between 1991 and 2011, the share of Assamese speakers in the state fell from 58% to 48%. This is matched by a quick rise in the share of Bengali speakers from 22% to 29% during the same period. Let's be clear, Bengali is the fourth largest speaking language in the world. All the immigrants from Bangladesh are speakers of Bangla. The suspicions of Bangla as an imposing threat to Assamese identity will remain.
Very much true, and there is certainly a lot of historical baggage there. Also, in earlier times, administratively, Assam itself was much larger before many insurgencies caused the state to be split up, and before that, Bengal was much larger (before the British split it up): https://southasiablog.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/how-did-parti...
Most of the protesters that were interviewed had the demand for a better economy, job opportunities for the youth and better infrastructure. It's less about them vs us, but for a better state of affairs for everyone. Because none of that is available and the government is now giving away citizenship to anyone coming in, the economy will take much more strained than before and things will be difficult for everyone.
It's not that simple; in that part of India (the northeast), there is all sorts of dynamics between different ethnic AND religious groups. The Assamese versus the Bengali vs many tribal groups who speak various Tibeto-Burmese languages. Then there is various religions. Hindus, Muslims, tribal animists, various Christian groups, etc. Between India and most of Bangladesh there isn't much of a natural border. There has been en masse migration after 1947, 1971, and more recently.
> This is not a case of `stripped of citizenship`. India just built detention camps for illegal immigrants in the country.
That's a really disingenuous way of putting it, as I think you know.
Several million people who have lived in India for generations in some cases, who have never been offered or asked for citizenship papers, have suddenly been declared illegal. To prove their citizenship they need to provide documents that were rarely ever created in rural India. This is hardly just sweeping up random migrants.
> The protests that are happening in the eastern part of India is against giving citizenship to illegal immigrants.
That may be true in the east, but the largest and most vocal protests are in the opposite direction.
For all the messy comments against Indian government,
To make things clear.
CAB (Citizenship Amendment Bill) made for illegal migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh (Three Islamic countries).
Who is an illegal migrant:
Anybody who came to India after 1971 from these countries.
To whom does this rule apply:
Illegal migrants who entered India till 2014.
What does it say:
If one came to India before 2014 and stayed in India for certain years, they can become India citizens.
How many years:
For Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Jain, Buddhist and Parsi 5years.
For Muslims 11years.
Why segregation based on religion?
Because of persecution of minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan.
Pakistan, Non-Muslim population fell from 23% to 3%.
Bangladesh, Non-Muslim population fell from 22% to 8%.
Afghanistan, I don't know.
Because, religious minorities from these three countries don't have any other place to go except India.
NRC (National Register for Citizens) is aimed at moving illegal immigrants to detention camps or they are free to leave to there actual country.
During NRC one(Everybody in India) needs to prove there citizenship.
This Bill is applicable only for illegal immigrants(It has got nothing to do with Indian Citizens), If somebody wants to come to India legally, they can come.
Why you try to repeat the Indian government propaganda. Just make one correction first Bangladesh is a secular nation like India with Muslim majority. This is the wisdom and adherence to secularism of India’s administration during that time (not sure but it was Indira Gandhi at that time, who insisted that Bangladesh should be a secular country like India, after it was freed by Indian military). This was overturned by ordinances for a short while but than those ordinances were termed illegal by Sheikh Hasina. So before claiming about Bangladesh as Islamic country get your facts correct, as it stands for more than a decade it’s a secular country.
A persecuted person is persecuted irrespective of religion. CAA could have made it clear keeping India’s secular fabric intact, but it didn’t . As the current administration is bent upon making India a religious dictatorship, this is used as backdoor for that idea. NRC+CAA combined is like a rocket and a war head, making it a missile to launch an all out attack to weed out Muslims from India. So the intentions were nefarious with this act.
This has been declared repeatedly by current Indian government many times that they will conduct NRC nationwide, so the fears of Muslims are genuine. May be it will be nice if you read the bill yourself and see if they used the term Muslim anywhere in it.
Please don’t be a Wikipedia warrior, read the whole article and related links as well, get the information correct first. Ziaur Rehman tried to change secularism as fundamental tenet of constitution in Bangladesh, which is restored by Bangladesh’s Supreme Court [1].
Hope India’s Supreme Court can stand up to this current government’s religious dictatorship and uphold India’s secularism. At present they are postponing it until Jan 22, let’s see.
> Persecuted Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Hindus have only India.
Get your facts right before claiming something. For Buddhists India is not a good country as refugee, Dalai Lama and others have been in India for over 40 years, they are still considered as refugee not given passports, they travel as stateless (they are persecuted buddhist with evidence and proof). Top 10 places by population for buddhists in the world are China, Thailand, Myanmmar, Japan, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Korea. [1]
For Hindu's it's the same story. Tamil Hindus persecuted in Sri Lanka who came to India are still stateless and are considered refugees, so India failed to even help Hindus. Also for your information following are the places with large Hindu Population Indonesia, Nepal, Malaysia, Bangladesh (it's a secular country), Sri Lanka [2].
So don't claim they don't have a place to go as India itself rejected Tamil Hindus and did not grant them any rights and this CAA still excludes them, because it will deteriorate India's relations with Sri Lanka.
India has the second highest population of Muslim's in the world, higher then Pakistan according to Pew Research [3]. Being a secular country it has to give equal status to any prosecuted individual irrespective of religion. So this NRC+CAA is against the very idea of India and principles of its foundations.
Hopefully instead of this government driven propaganda people look at real numbers will notice that the whole exercise of NRC+CAA is done with malicious intent, there is nothing good in it with dates set arbitrarily.
This is done by learning from British system of dividing India along Muslim and Hindu to stay as authoritative power as long as possible.
If India is not a good place, then why Dalai Lama is staying in India, he could have gone to some other countries.
Buddhists who came from Tibet considers China have occupied their place, neither did these guys ever ask for Indian citizenship, When Dalai Lama goes to other place, he does it that way because to be an example indicating China have occupied their land and it rightfully belongs to them.
One cannot get a citizenship of a country and ask for a country from another country.
As an Indian we would be more than happy to have such people.
Next regarding Tamil Hindus of Srilanka, Many people from SriLanka live here in TamilNadu.
Nobody is denying them in India, They don't want to loose their land in SriLanka.
If they come to India, they need to start from scratch, which is painful for anybody.
> If India is not a good place, then why Dalai Lama is staying in India, he could have gone to some other countries.
This place is part of his own country historically called south Tibet, read Simla accord [1]. It was the ingenious diplomacy of Nehru to let China accept the McMahon line in 1962 war settlement, instead of using airplanes to fight back (at that time India had superior air power, but as new country will suffer tremendously). So in the end China got 阿克赛钦 (Aksai Chin) a dreary icy dessert and India got fertile south Tibet which is present Arunachal Pradesh. People in India might not know this is called to win some you lose some and Nehru is fantastic to see it as a visionary, India still lacks a leader like him and Gandhi.
I hope current leadership in India instead of thumping chest, understand it that to resolve a conflict, war is not the way. Also doing a worship of war machines doesn’t bring peace [2]. Mind and education are the most important tools to win any battle including with oneself, not the demonising of education.
There are protests in Tamil Nadu against the exclusion of Tamil Hindus by local Indians [3] , so again get your facts right before claims.
Pakistan includes both West Pakistan (currently Pakistan) and East Pakistan (currently Bangladesh)- based on 1947 partiton, until 1971 when India helped Bangladesh gain independence from Pakistan.
Both 'Pakistans' had a responsibility to protect minorities as per Nehru - Liaqat pact, and they both failed.
It can, because Jinnah himself had assured all minorities of Pakistan the safety. AFTER partition, the rioting mobs killed and drove out Hindus, later Ahmadiyyas, and more recently Christians.
Just goes to show you the importance of secularism and it's need to be bastioned.
Using the same protected grounds under which people seek asylum, to discriminate is inherently unprincipled.
All things being equal, non muslims may well have more pressing claims to refugee protections.
The merits and priority of a migrants application can be determined without destroying India's secular fabric.
You are mostly right, except the last part where "This Bill is applicable only for illegal immigrants".
The thing is, the Indian government also plans to implement a National Register of Citizens (NRC) in tandem with this bill where all citizens are supposed to prove that they really are "Indian". This diabolical CAB bill now makes the burden of proof for citizenship criteria only applicable to India's Muslim minority by giving an explicit exemption to all non-Muslims.
So yes the bill is innocuously worded but the intent behind it along with the NRC is registrar is mala fide at best and fascist at worst.
OP isn't mostly right. They know what they're saying. It almost reads like a Govt Press Conference where they pretend to be neutral while taking an obviously anti secular decision hoing that nobody catches up with it
Some of you guys are actively flagging my post to support the government disinformation and propaganda on this thread.
Let me repeat: The NRC and CAA need to be read together. When read together you understand how close it is to the Nuremberg laws.
The current Indian government has nothing to offer and is a repressive regime baring its fangs. Companies should be advised to stay clear of the region for a while.
There are examples of people living in the UK for long enough to be entitled to British citizenship, yet denied it and threatened with deportation because they cannot prove it.
I do not know if that is a reasonable fear in this case because I do not know the general social attitudes in India right now, but how would you relax someone who is scared the same may happen again?
It seems to be pretty much aimed at reducing muslim citizenship, because of how it treats people from different religions and the clear preference for hindu in the government. Do you any response for that? It seems analogous to the us muslim ban.
If a section of society "A" that is oppressed by "B" is being helped by government how is that illogical ?
For some reason if that section "A" are Hindus suddenly people claim that to be anti-muslim.
Hindus in neighboring counties have no place to go, government of India made that simpler for them to get citizenship because of bad behavior of prominent religions in those counties.
When there's a dominant group (A) that makes laws to help itself because it feels under threat against a much weaker group (B), it's pretty easy to see that A did an unfair and unreasonable thing. In the US this is the current party in power making laws against immigration of Muslims and claiming the 'other' is illegitimate, in India, it is?
And how do you prove that? And after proving, what is the guarantee that it is going to be remembered? What is the guarantee that after it is remembered once, it will be kept that way?
Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed's nephew was left out of the NRC for the second time. We can't even get our electoral rolls correct repeatedly; people who have voted from the same area for 40+ years are left out mysteriously.
> NRC (National Register for Citizens) is aimed at moving illegal immigrants to detention camps or they are free to leave to there actual country. During NRC one(Everybody in India) needs to prove there citizenship.
This Bill is applicable only for illegal
Either you are intentionally ignoring that CAA and NRC are going to go hand in hand or you are ill informed.
In NRC everyone has to show documents, that itself is wrong at so many levels. They did this in Assam but they found out that Hindus are being left out of the Registry, and that's why they brought this bill, to leave Muslims out of the NRC. This way, only Muslims will be "illegal migrants" because other non Muslims are going to get citizenship according to CAA
> To whom does this rule apply: Illegal migrants who entered India till 2014.
And how are you going to check of someone is a migrant? Any govt proof won't work and we have to "prove" our parents grandparents documents. India isn't known for documentation is it?
Edit: Family member of a former president was left out od NRC Assam, he was a Muslim.
Religious persecution must be done on State-sanctioned grounds (like an official religion or a theocratic state based on Constitution). Any other persecution could just be a particular party's policies e.g. Tomorrow a Buddhist party could come to power in Bangladesh and persecute, say Jews. That does not have Constitutional sanction. Next week a different party might persecute a different religion.
> Sri Lankan Hindu Tamils being prosecuted in Shri Lanka.
And 4 lakh Hindu Tamils were given asylum in India in past 40 years. Proof - https://twitter.com/PIBHomeAffairs/status/120730426394626867...
Currently there is no persecution going on there as civil war is over. If in future, they get ill-treated again, a new version of CAB might be brought.
There have been many instances of citizenship granting based on particular cases throughout India's 70 year post-independence history. This CAB is just one of them. It's neither the first, nor last.
cAB is the first time that a party has selectively handed out citizenship to win Bengal elections and to keep only Muslims out of the NRC. During Assam NRC, Hindus and Muslims both were kept out, so they brought a loophole before the nationwide NRC so that they can hand out citizenship to non Muslims.
> Pakistan, Non-Muslim population fell from 23% to 3%.
Mainly because Bangladesh was separated from Pakistan.
> Why segregation based on religion?
India is a secular country. Why is there any mention of religion at all? And, other neighboring islamic countries don't give citizenship automatically if you are Muslim.
> This Bill is applicable only for illegal immigrants(It has got nothing to do with Indian Citizens), If somebody wants to come to India legally, they can come.
Everyone has to prove their citizenship in NRC. The requirements for NRC is ridiculous. Producing documents dating back to 1971. Landless, poor people, people from flood prone areas, tribals and other disenfranchised communities will have tough time producing documents. Only Muslims can not get citizenship through CAA, if they fail to get into NRC. And, what will be the proof of religion? What will happen to Atheists? Does it mean that you either become Hindu or leave country.
Your post is coated with misinformation and propaganda in the guise of informative post.
> NRC (National Register for Citizens) is aimed at moving illegal immigrants to detention camps or they are free to leave to there actual country.
Hmm, so when someone does not have any citizen documents of any country, what is "their actual country"? Or would they in practice be destined for the camps?
What a sham. Saying that "it only applies to illegal immigrants" is bullshit
1. NRC = prove that your ancestors were here before 1951 by records. Which most Indian people (of any religion) can't. So most people will be left out of the citizenship registry.
2. CAA = if you're not a citizen, but a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Sikh or Christian, you get citizenship. (excluding Muslims)
So effectively, it says, if you're not Muslim, you get citizenship. If you're Muslim you go to detention camp.
The government in power has strategically choose this move to strengthen their vote bank in upcoming elections in Assam[1].
There are other neighbouring countries like Nepal, China, Sri lank, Myanmar etc. where minorities are facing the same level of persecution which is conveniently ignored because they did not find in the current agenda of the government.
For the first time in Indian history, There is a citizenship law which discriminates based on religion.
Talking about NRC. It is going to be yet another blow to already struggling Indian economy after demonetization[2] & poor rollout of GST[3].
With NRC government will make entire population loose hundreds of hours of man power individually by making them go through a bureaucratic, unthoughtful, ill defined process to prove their citizenship. Moreover, NRC has already proven to be a failure when the government executed it[4]
Assam NRC has cost 1.3 thousand crore and Assam is 3% of the entire population. This government doesn't have funds to run day to day operations (it has delayed payment of taxes to states), where will it bring so much money?
Also why is it needed? Because government could not do any good work. Economy is in a free fall, unemployment rate is highest in 45yrs
Government is taking no interest in solving internal crises which has reached an alarming rate. Economist, Major corporates, industrialist has been raising concerns on the same. Instead, government are finding ways to keep the religion divide alive. What a shame!
Your comment is disingenuous and obfuscates the logic of the issue.
The combo of the NRC+CAA ensures that Indians without papers are liable to be in internment camps. If you don't have papers, you are declared an illegal. There are a lot of Indians who don't have formal documentation. There is also a lot of corruption that makes it possible for officials to reject formal documents. You then get declared illegal.
Once in an internment camp, you cant go anyplace else. If you are a muslim, you don't have the option of getting out of the camp at all. if you are a poor Indian or a dissenter of any sort, you will face the same logic and all documents you produce will be deemed unfit.
A single internment camp costs 40Crores to make. To house just the northeast's so called illegals, you need close to 25K crores. This is a government that has just recently said no to primary education budgets for lack of cash. You think they have the budgets for large scale concentration camps? No. They are building up for a pogrom.
This is straight up Nazi policy.
The other question I keep asking is how is this a legitimate government if all the voters themselves have been designated illegal/noncitizens by default?
Last question and a prediction, why is the government transferring the workload of proving citizenship on to the population? This is to make people protest. Given enough protests, they will flip the policy to say, "hear hear, no, we will find the illegals for you, no need to stand in queues." Once they do that, they will form squads and informers like in Nazi Germany and hunt down the "unwanted."
Because the past actions have left us with no faith in its abilities to act responsibly. In November 2016 the government just woke up one night and declared the highest denominations of Indian currency as illegal tender (not just not legal, but possession of it beyond a set date would be treated with jail time). This was apparently to curb black money. Everyone knew that black money was almost never stored in cash, but in land and real estate. Tonnes of evidence then came up how BJP candidates themselves distributed boxes full of newly monetized notes to the ones they favor. This was during a time when the common man stood in queues at cash points to withdraw their own money only to be rationed a fraction of it due to distribution problems with the newly minted notes.
The effects of this gimmick was the obliteration of the small sector economy throughout the country and is now the backbone of financial crunch the country is facing. Also it completely failed to nail the black money problem it was proposed to solve. Widespread corruption and the BJP candidates themselves made sure that their rich friends cleaned up the money (I got all kinds of acquaintances who did).
We do not live just in the present. My optimism with the current government has eroded by their actions in the past. When such laws alienate an entire community of people by their religion (or skin color or economic status) and we are talking about holding them in detention camps, do we keep calm and let the atrocities begin to unfold or do we protest?
Let me get your argument straight here: You are saying that because the British tried it and it didn't work that makes it ok to try again? Are you hoping for failure or success here?
Anyway, to address your question:
Because then the British were a small minority, exhausted by WW2 attempting to oppress a large majority who clearly had natural justice on their side.
This time it is a large majority attempting to victimise a smaller minority for a reason which historically has led to wars, genocides and mass killing.
Pre-independence India was divided by political islamists believing Two-Nation theory (that Muslims cannot live with other religions). After bloody partition that killed millions of Hindus, and again the two genocides in Kashmir and Bangladesh - illegals from both countries continue to pour into India. We don't need lectures from other countries on how to handle our problems.
Upholding secular values after such a bloody partition is one of the most civilised things our country has ever done.
Bharat ka hi zuban hai ye "lectures".
Forgetting that is just tragic.
Work on empathy.
ok. everything US does, India does it too.
Fashion - yay yay, lets buy that cloth.
Entertainment - did you watch that movie, it got released last friday.
Education - Ha ha. lets both go down that road. India survives because in the past ancestors were educated and righteous. Gave Indians good brain. Why? may be meditation? its fine. leave that for now.
Medical/pharma - We have lots of lab rats in one country, and we have regulations control board in other country. Shake hands.
Business - Goes hand/ under the table.
Corruption - We share same mind set.
Money is a scam. Anything that it touches, makes a cancer out of it.
And the sad part is that this is what they had promised. This hate and divide is what the BJP has preached and yet the people voted for them even for a second term. In some ways people are getting what they voted for.
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.