[pavish]

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.

[yumraj]

Because India is providing refuge to Hindus and other minorities who are being persecuted in neighboring Islamic nations.

In Pakistan Hindu teenagers are regularly abducted, converted to Islam and married away.

India is giving refuge to these people.

Muslims are not similarly persecuted in Islamic nations.

[smt1]

> 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.

[yumraj]

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.

[wizzwizz4]

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.

[smt1]

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.

[yumraj]

> that forced a sort of realpolitik tolerance

Jizya tax was imposed in large parts of India on non-Muslim populations[0]. Not sure how you can call it tolerance?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya#India

[sbmthakur]

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.

[smt1]

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.

[sbmthakur]

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?

[yorwba]

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.

[thewhitetulip]

What do you think Religious persecution is? Ahmedis have been declared non Muslims and are being prosecuted. This is the definition of religious prosecution

[cmonnow]

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.

[mlnj]

If Muslims are not persecuted in similar ways why not open the refugee status to such cases if they may arise? Why bar them on basis of religion?

[yumraj]

Because India was partioned in 1947 on religious basis.

Pak and Bangladesh, which are Islamic countries, can take care of Islamic refugees.

[mlnj]

Why does India have to do anything at all? There are other countries ready to help people of all religions, Christian, Hindu, Muslim alike.

[thewhitetulip]

If India was "Partitioned on religious basis", why do you think India is not a Hindu Rashtra since 1947?

Partition was unfortunate, but the constitution says that India is a secular socialist Republic, so your point is null and void

[sbmthakur]

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.

[mlnj]

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.

[sbmthakur]

> 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.

[thewhitetulip]

Constitution recognises Hindu religion. Hindu religion recognises atheism (Nastik).

Null and void

[smnrchrds]

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?

[yumraj]

> What is ignoble is the fact that they have exempted Muslims from refuge

That is the problem, this whole issue is being misrepresented. The law is about bulk/en masse citizenship of people based on a certain criteria.

Other refugees are still accepted, only their cases are dealt on a case by case basis.

[sbmthakur]

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.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/myanmar-new-e...

[sbmthakur]

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.

[yumraj]

Actually I personally think that that should be changed.

Post partition it is India's moral responsibility to provide a home to minorities from neighboring Islamic countries.

[quantummkv]

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?

[smt1]

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.

[yumraj]

Please check the details of the bill before engaging in FUD.

The CAA includes Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis...

[quantummkv]

>How about Farsi/Zoroastrians and Christians?

The actual bill does include them.

> Either you include Muslims, because all south asian muslims can also be claimed as indian ethnicity historically, or you disinclude everyone based on that argument.

The Muslims that have been living in India according to the laws of the country won't be affected. Those that willingly went to Pakistan during the Partition got exactly what they wanted so why would they want to come back?