8 ms·
Then why would the ruling party express dismay over hindus who were termed as illegal immigrants. They made the process easier, basically providing immediate ci
by pavish 7y ago
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.
- quantummkv 7y agoBecause 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 7y agoHow 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.
- quantummkv 7y ago>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?
- yumraj 7y agoPlease check the details of the bill before engaging in FUD. The CAA includes Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis...
- yumraj 7y agoBecause 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.
- mlnj 7y agoIf 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?
- sbmthakur 7y agoHow 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 7y agoIf 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 7y ago> 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 7y agoConstitution recognises Hindu religion. Hindu religion recognises atheism (Nastik). Null and void
- sbmthakur 7y agoThere'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 7y agoActually 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.