6 ms·

Because India is providing refuge to Hindus and other minorities who are being persecuted in neighboring Islamic nations. In Pakistan Hindu teenagers are regul

by yumraj 7y ago

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.

mlnj 7y ago
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?
- sbmthakur 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 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 ago
        Constitution recognises Hindu religion. Hindu religion recognises atheism (Nastik). Null and void
        sbmthakur 7y ago
        That's a popularly held belief but it's not exactly true. https://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-an-atheist-while-being-a-Hindu/answer/Rami-Sivan https://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-an-atheist-while-being-a-Hi...
        thewhitetulip 7y ago
        Quora? Seriously? I've read scriptures which say being a Nastik is a part of being Hindu. How many scriptures have you read? Bhagwad Gita? Ved? Ramayan? Mahabharat? Gita itself doesn't have the word Hindu in it. Hindu word was created by Arabs and it is a short of Al-Hind, i.e. those living beyond River Hind aka Indus. Again, null and void
- yumraj 7y ago
  Because India was partioned in 1947 on religious basis. Pak and Bangladesh, which are Islamic countries, can take care of Islamic refugees.
  - mlnj 7y ago
    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 7y ago
    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
smnrchrds 7y ago
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?
- quantummkv 7y ago
  India is not the historic homeland of the Muslims. Arabia is. They should be the ones taking other Muslims in, given the fact they have ample resources to do this.
- sbmthakur 7y ago
  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-evidence-reveals-rohingya-armed-group-massacred-scores-in-rakhine-state/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/myanmar-new-e...
- yumraj 7y ago
  > 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.
smt1 7y ago
> 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.
- sbmthakur 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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 7y ago
      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?

by yumraj 7y ago

mlnj 7y ago

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?

sbmthakur 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 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 ago
      Constitution recognises Hindu religion. Hindu religion recognises atheism (Nastik). Null and void
      - sbmthakur 7y ago
        That's a popularly held belief but it's not exactly true. https://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-an-atheist-while-being-a-Hindu/answer/Rami-Sivan https://www.quora.com/Can-you-be-an-atheist-while-being-a-Hi...
        thewhitetulip 7y ago
        Quora? Seriously? I've read scriptures which say being a Nastik is a part of being Hindu. How many scriptures have you read? Bhagwad Gita? Ved? Ramayan? Mahabharat? Gita itself doesn't have the word Hindu in it. Hindu word was created by Arabs and it is a short of Al-Hind, i.e. those living beyond River Hind aka Indus. Again, null and void
yumraj 7y ago
Because India was partioned in 1947 on religious basis. Pak and Bangladesh, which are Islamic countries, can take care of Islamic refugees.
- mlnj 7y ago
  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 7y ago
  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

smnrchrds 7y ago

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?

quantummkv 7y ago
India is not the historic homeland of the Muslims. Arabia is. They should be the ones taking other Muslims in, given the fact they have ample resources to do this.
sbmthakur 7y ago
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-evidence-reveals-rohingya-armed-group-massacred-scores-in-rakhine-state/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/myanmar-new-e...
yumraj 7y ago
> 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.

smt1 7y ago

> 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.

sbmthakur 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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?