| >> It discriminates people based on religion.
>> Now, there are some arguments that say we already have different laws for different religion casts etc. But that argument is shallow, misguided at best, blatantly malicious at worst. I respectfully submit that your argument is even shallower.
There are separate personal laws for different communities, all non-Hindu communities have exemptions under various laws (Right to Education being one particularly damaging example, the Endowment Acts being another).
All these laws discriminate against and put the majority community at a disadvantage vs. the minorities. >> Because such things are there because the idea of being secular overrides even having consistent laws. Because it allows people to practice their religion. This principle has allowed the policy-making process to be hijacked by vote-bank politics, in which every two-bit political party outdoes itself to woo minorities by offering sops, at the expense of the majority. Case-in-point: The Trinamool and Mamta Bannerjee. >> Because then it only helps people who are fleeing from religious persecution from being a Hindu, and it does not help if you are fleeing from religious persecution from being a Muslim.
Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are Muslim-majority countries. By definition, you cannot be fleeing religious persecution. Offered without evidence: The only Muslim immigrants from these countries are economic immigrants, and there is no humanitarian imperative to offer them citizenship. >> No, this "religious persecution" thing is a very clever way to mask the actual intent behind this act. And in fact, this religious persecution clause is not even present in the actual law [1]. The act is a set of directions to the government machinery. It does not have to explain itself, and certainly does not have to contain the words "religious persecution". |