[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

[sbmthakur]

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.

[thewhitetulip]

Lol Pakistan doesn't recognize them as Muslims so it definitely isn't "sectarian".

At least think of some genuine sounding reason rather than this