Modi parades his hatred of Muslims — and makes a mockery of India’s constitution

[Cpt. Rishwat]

mukulika banerjee


Today is the 70th anniversary of India’s constitution coming into force. It was finalised after independence from British rule, and January 26 is celebrated each year as Republic Day. When I was a child, my grandmother and I would anxiously scan the Delhi skies for rain, desperate to attend the great parade on the majestic Central Vista, not just watch it on television. She was full of stories about the vanished world of maharajas and their pomp, of bejewelled elephants and horses flashing rubies, and she loved the parade for the memories it prompted.

I, too, loved the colourful military regiments in magnificent uniforms and starched turbans, the myriad festive floats showing India’s diversity of language, ecology, religion, food and culture and the grand finale of fighter jets whirling the Indian tricolour in the sky. Combining Latino carnival with Soviet-style militarism, the Republic Day parade always thrilled.

In 1950, when India became a democratic republic, granting citizens universal suffrage despite the widespread poverty and illiteracy, its leaders were ridiculed abroad for their overambition. Even Clement Attlee, the British prime minister, although more warmly disposed than his predecessor, Winston Churchill, advised caution.

But the plans were deliberately audacious, intended to establish a new template of republican nationalism that was to be pluralist, inclusive and universal, rejecting the fatal European models of nations based on a single language, religion or ethnic group.

Ever since, the Republic Day parade has celebrated India’s constitutionally enshrined diversity.

But this year’s parade takes place amid a growing assault on those values. For several years, the Hindu nationalist government of the prime minister, Narendra Modi, has been systematically undermining the status and independence of the republic’s key institutions, including those, such as the supreme court and the election commission, that help to safeguard minority rights.

More recently the government has blockaded the Muslim-majority population of Kashmir, suspending civil rights. India slipped 10 places in the Democracy Index in 2019 because of such “erosion of civil liberties”. Then, last month, the government passed an amendment that ties Indian citizenship to religion — quite contrary to the constitution.

The new law fast-tracks the granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants who apply for it, provided they belong to one of several listed religions — none of them Islam.

The government argues that this provides refuge to threatened religious minorities in the predominantly Islamic Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, but it says nothing about persecuted Muslims in any neighbouring countries including Burma.

The amendment is linked to the new National Register of Citizens. Although India already has the world’s largest biometric digital identification database, the new register empowers local bureaucrats to require any person whose citizenship status they deem “doubtful” to produce proof of their date and place of birth, and those of their parents.

Many Indians, especially the poor, lack these documents — so the government has said they too can be granted citizenship under the amendment. But, of course, the amendment does not apply to Muslims — of whom India has 200m. They figure disproportionately among the poor who lack documents, and are most vulnerable to being deemed “doubtful” by increasingly discriminatory officials. Already 32,000 people have been identified as “illegal”, and the construction of vast detention centres for those the home minister, Amit Shah, calls “termites” is well under way.

So Indian citizenship is being linked to and made conditional on religious affiliation for the first time — in breach of the secular principles of the constitution. The combination of the register and the citizenship amendment is nakedly anti-Muslim in intent and practice and continues the stated ideological agenda of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party of making India a Hindu nation.

But India’s citizens are fighting back, taking to the streets, with women in the forefront, organising protests on a scale not witnessed for decades, striving to reclaim the republic. The government has cracked down in response. It has invoked the old colonial National Security Act in the capital, which allows for detention without explanation for up to a year.

Protesting students have been brutalised by mobs or by police themselves; 30 deaths and hundreds of beatings and detentions have been reported outside Delhi. Undaunted, tens of thousands, including lawyers, academics and retired civil servants, from all religions and led by the young, have persisted in their demonstrations, carrying the national flag and copies of the Indian constitution, reciting its preamble and singing the national anthem.

So, while this 70th anniversary could and should have been a celebration of India’s unlikely success as a democratic republic, it has been grievously undermined by its own government.

Watching these events from a dark and rainy London, I briefly wondered if I was overreacting. But then I saw that the chief guest at the parade is to be the populist president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro; that the floats from states, such as Kerala, that have resisted the government’s agenda have been excluded; and that the hymn Abide with Me, loved by Gandhi, military men and millions of Indians, which traditionally ended the celebrations during beating retreat, has been axed — no doubt as being too Christian, too foreign.

No, my late grandmother would not have wanted to go to the Republic Day parade this year.

Mukulika Banerjee is director of the LSE South Asia Centre and author of Why India Votes


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...es-a-mockery-of-indias-constitution-hhg209brf

A very strong opinion, but isn't she really just saying it how it is? How did India end up here?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Her propoganda is exposed the moment her lies are caught.

The National Security Act is not colonial, it was enacted in 1980 by Indira Gandhi govt.

Whether something is constitutional or not is decided by courts not by some author.

And who rules India will be decided by Indians through vote, western publications opinionis not even worth packaging bhajiyas.

They can give their opinion to their own people.

 

[MenInG]

Her propaganda is exposed the moment her lies are caught.

The National Security Act is not colonial, it was enacted in 1980 by Indira Gandhi govt.

Whether something is constitutional or not is decided by courts not by some author.

And who rules India will be decided by Indians through vote, western publications opinionis not even worth packaging bhajiyas.

They can give their opinion to their own people.

She seems a pretty distinguished personality - Director for LSE South Asia Centre - why do you think its propaganda?

 

[kk1992]

I see Sanghis are back with same repeated lines, India would get to decide who rules India through votes, no kidding, lol.

Article did not criticize India democracy, criticized rise in radical nationalism but since Sanghi can't criticize it because they know it is true and they support it so won't even talk about it rather discredit her or typed the memorized line that has nothing to do with article or the topic.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Her propoganda is exposed the moment her lies are caught.

The National Security Act is not colonial, it was enacted in 1980 by Indira Gandhi govt.

Whether something is constitutional or not is decided by courts not by some author.

And who rules India will be decided by Indians through vote, western publications opinionis not even worth packaging bhajiyas.

They can give their opinion to their own people.

You don't like her opinion...fine. But then how do you think we should judge your opinions?

 

[CricketCartoons]

You don't like her opinion...fine. But then how do you think we should judge your opinions?

Her understanding of the indian constitution is flawed. I am willing to debate with anyone with it, but there is no one in the forum who has an understanding of the COI, including Joshila bhai.

 

[Stewie]

Her understanding of the indian constitution is flawed. I am willing to debate with anyone with it, but there is no one in the forum who has an understanding of the COI, including Joshila bhai.

Can you shed some more light on it?
We don’t need to understand the entire thing but we would like to know how is discriminating against one minority justified by law?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Can you shed some more light on it?
We don’t need to understand the entire thing but we would like to know how is discriminating against one minority justified by law?

I will try to be as brief as possible:
Two kinds of discrimination: Negative discrimination maintains the privilege of the strong (eg, caste system). Positive discrimination intends to uplift the weak/marginalized (eg, affirmative action).

COI, although it states that no citizen can be discriminated based on religion/caste/ethnicity/gender, actually does discriminate in favour of the weak (who may not be numerically weak, but are socially weak eg, women, some backward castes).

The Citizen Amendment Act gives fast track citizenship to those refugees who are already living in india and belong to minority religions in the country they came from. It does not take away anyones citizenship. It does not deny citizenship to those refugees who are from majority religion in their country (eg, Afghan Muslims), but they will have to wait for the existing duration, no fast track for them.

One can ask the question that being a bangladeshi hindu refugee doesn't imply you are fleeing persecution are are in just for economic opportunities, but such is the assumption in many of the existing laws in the COI where it assumes that belonging to a certain religion or caste means you are socially backward and need extra benefits.

Ignoring those who are protesting because they have lost political power, there are two sets of people who are genuinely protesting:
1. People who think secularism is being undermined by this law. These people have their heart at the right place, but haven't read the COI beyond the preamble.
2. Muslims who think their citizenship will be taken away. They have genuine reasons to not trust the current govt based on many other things, and this protest is a culmination of all those things. Just that they have chosen the wrong thing to protest against. They have 99 reasons for genuine protest, but have somehow reached the tipping point against the 1 thing they should not have any issue with.

BJP politicians obviously have their own reasons. If they give citizenship to the refugees who live in Delhi, they would have, for now, added more voters who will vote for them. But should the poor be denied a blanket just because the one doing charity wanted the benevolent act for his own benefit?

 

[Stewie]

I will try to be as brief as possible:
Two kinds of discrimination: Negative discrimination maintains the privilege of the strong (eg, caste system). Positive discrimination intends to uplift the weak/marginalized (eg, affirmative action).

COI, although it states that no citizen can be discriminated based on religion/caste/ethnicity/gender, actually does discriminate in favour of the weak (who may not be numerically weak, but are socially weak eg, women, some backward castes).

The Citizen Amendment Act gives fast track citizenship to those refugees who are already living in india and belong to minority religions in the country they came from. It does not take away anyones citizenship. It does not deny citizenship to those refugees who are from majority religion in their country (eg, Afghan Muslims), but they will have to wait for the existing duration, no fast track for them.

One can ask the question that being a bangladeshi hindu refugee doesn't imply you are fleeing persecution are are in just for economic opportunities, but such is the assumption in many of the existing laws in the COI where it assumes that belonging to a certain religion or caste means you are socially backward and need extra benefits.

Ignoring those who are protesting because they have lost political power, there are two sets of people who are genuinely protesting:
1. People who think secularism is being undermined by this law. These people have their heart at the right place, but haven't read the COI beyond the preamble.
2. Muslims who think their citizenship will be taken away. They have genuine reasons to not trust the current govt based on many other things, and this protest is a culmination of all those things. Just that they have chosen the wrong thing to protest against. They have 99 reasons for genuine protest, but have somehow reached the tipping point against the 1 thing they should not have any issue with.

BJP politicians obviously have their own reasons. If they give citizenship to the refugees who live in Delhi, they would have, for now, added more voters who will vote for them. But should the poor be denied a blanket just because the one doing charity wanted the benevolent act for his own benefit?

How does that address the following issues which an Indian Muslim described to me, and for the sake of this debate, focus on those muslims who are already in India (whether legally or illegally)

1. If you cannot prove your citizenship in India, your property gets taken from you or you cannot buy any property. So if you are even a legal Indian citizen, devoid of paperwork here are the concerns:

Concerns for Muslim as related to #1: there are Muslims who have to prove they are citizens if they don’t have paperwork. Hindus are there as well. But they don’t have to.
And there are a lot of areas where Muslims (being socially backwards or whatever reasons) do not have proof of their citizenships such as birth certificates, etc. I believe the case of a former army serviceman of India who was detained is a good example of that. Is there a pathway for such people to say “regain” their citizenship? Mind you, they are not illegals, just don’t have paperwork. I was told this law is designed to take away their property if they can’t prove they are citizens. Or even if they can prove it, it may take years and they will be strippped of their property in the meantime.

2. Voting rights:
I am told this is the biggest reason. Once again if legal citizen Muslims can not prove they are citizens, they can’t vote. of course I do t have to say why that’s good for BJP.

Thoughts?

 

[CricketCartoons]

How does that address the following issues which an Indian Muslim described to me, and for the sake of this debate, focus on those muslims who are already in India (whether legally or illegally)

1. If you cannot prove your citizenship in India, your property gets taken from you or you cannot buy any property. So if you are even a legal Indian citizen, devoid of paperwork here are the concerns:

Concerns for Muslim as related to #1: there are Muslims who have to prove they are citizens if they don’t have paperwork. Hindus are there as well. But they don’t have to.
And there are a lot of areas where Muslims (being socially backwards or whatever reasons) do not have proof of their citizenships such as birth certificates, etc. I believe the case of a former army serviceman of India who was detained is a good example of that. Is there a pathway for such people to say “regain” their citizenship? Mind you, they are not illegals, just don’t have paperwork. I was told this law is designed to take away their property if they can’t prove they are citizens. Or even if they can prove it, it may take years and they will be strippped of their property in the meantime.

2. Voting rights:
I am told this is the biggest reason. Once again if legal citizen Muslims can not prove they are citizens, they can’t vote. of course I do t have to say why that’s good for BJP.

Thoughts?

This has nothing to do with the Citizenship Amendment Act, but a proposed NRC. NRC has not been tabled yet, no draft exists. By protesting against the CAA thinking it is the NRC, they have only harmed themselves and BJP will exploit this message, that muslims are protesting because for once non muslim refugees got something extra, while they didn't protest when muslims got privileges. This is how it will be spun.

An NRC happened, but that was for the state of Assam, monitored by the supreme court, promised by the past congress govt, started by congress govt and executed by the bjp govt.

The BJP set the cat among pigeons by saying they will implement a nation wide NRC, like it happened in assam, but it hasn't been tabled yet. Ignorant people are protesting like headless chicken against the CAA, when it should have been for NRC.

 

[Stewie]

This has nothing to do with the Citizenship Amendment Act, but a proposed NRC. NRC has not been tabled yet, no draft exists. By protesting against the CAA thinking it is the NRC, they have only harmed themselves and BJP will exploit this message, that muslims are protesting because for once non muslim refugees got something extra, while they didn't protest when muslims got privileges. This is how it will be spun.

An NRC happened, but that was for the state of Assam, monitored by the supreme court, promised by the past congress govt, started by congress govt and executed by the bjp govt.

The BJP set the cat among pigeons by saying they will implement a nation wide NRC, like it happened in assam, but it hasn't been tabled yet. Ignorant people are protesting like headless chicken against the CAA, when it should have been for NRC.

A non Indian can get confused due to different acronyms, but do you deny there is a concerted effort to sideline Muslims in India right now?

 

[CanadianG00se]

A non Indian can get confused due to different acronyms, but do you deny there is a concerted effort to sideline Muslims in India right now?

No, just illegal ones. My dad have property in India and were recently asked by local authorities to submit paperwork and I’m sure he did. Nothing serious. Those who are making noise are the ones who have something to hide.

NRC isn’t just for Muslims, it’s for everyone to prove their legal status.

As you said it’s confusing for non Indians, yet you frame this law to be Discriminatory based on some bogus articles by some of the media( who is probably backed by Italian lady) and some hearsay. Try to study both side of the story and perhaps better understanding of Indian constitution would shed some light.

 

[Stewie]

No, just illegal ones. My dad have property in India and were recently asked by local authorities to submit paperwork and I’m sure he did. Nothing serious. Those who are making noise are the ones who have something to hide.

NRC isn’t just for Muslims, it’s for everyone to prove their legal status.

As you said it’s confusing for non Indians, yet you frame this law to be Discriminatory based on some bogus articles by some of the media( who is probably backed by Italian lady) and some hearsay. Try to study both side of the story and perhaps better understanding of Indian constitution would shed some light.

You didn’t understand my point. What if you don’t have the paperwork. In third world countries if you were born before the 70s or possibly the 80s, thst sort of record is not digitized and hard to come by. So it’s in such cases where you are In danger of being discriminated. Hindus and other minorities won’t face this open threat that Muslims without papers might.

There are a lot of other examples where Muslims are being singled out for special laws and treatment compared to hindus or other minorities In india.

People (muslims and sympathetic Hindus) are protesting in India for a reason.

 

[OffDrive]

No, just illegal ones. My dad have property in India and were recently asked by local authorities to submit paperwork and I’m sure he did. Nothing serious. Those who are making noise are the ones who have something to hide.

NRC isn’t just for Muslims, it’s for everyone to prove their legal status.

As you said it’s confusing for non Indians, yet you frame this law to be Discriminatory based on some bogus articles by some of the media( who is probably backed by Italian lady) and some hearsay. Try to study both side of the story and perhaps better understanding of Indian constitution would shed some light.

I am not Indian or Muslim but hypothecially - let me get this straight if I can show my birth certificate, and my parent's birth certificates they will still ask for my grandparent's certificates and if I can't find them because the authorities lost them or something like that then I will be kicked out? LOL India is a disgrace, disgusting country.

 

[PakLFC]

Let Modi ruin his country. As a Pakistani I am delighted he is the PM of India. No matter what this man will keep asking his Muslim's to provide one document after another. Nothing will satisfy the RSS to avoid throwing Muslim's in to detention camps, nothing at all.

 

[Stewie]

Muslims are silently being discriminated against in that country. Even the fees for staying in India beyond visa expiration are higher than other religious communities, another example how this is being implemented across the board. You can get lost in the semantics of it all CAb, NRC, this and that but why is it in every instance the bottom line is Muslims are the ones marginalized?

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/change-in-visa-penalty-irks-bangladesh/article30260941.ece

 

[CanadianG00se]

I am not Indian or Muslim but hypothecially - let me get this straight if I can show my birth certificate, and my parent's birth certificates they will still ask for my grandparent's certificates and if I can't find them because the authorities lost them or something like that then I will be kicked out? LOL India is a disgrace, disgusting country.

Again someone with little or no information.
They only ask to provide information from 1971 or before if im not wrong. Even a lease agreement or property paper will suffice.

 

[CanadianG00se]

Muslims are silently being discriminated against in that country. Even the fees for staying in India beyond visa expiration are higher than other religious communities, another example how this is being implemented across the board. You can get lost in the semantics of it all CAb, NRC, this and that but why is it in every instance the bottom line is Muslims are the ones marginalized?

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/change-in-visa-penalty-irks-bangladesh/article30260941.ece

There is also a different rules for H1B for Indians in US compared to Pakistani, does that mean US is discriminating?

Subtle discrimination exits but we often overlook the one that suits our agenda.

 

[Stewie]

There is also a different rules for H1B for Indians in US compared to Pakistani, does that mean US is discriminating?

Subtle discrimination exits but we often overlook the one that suits our agenda.

And somehow that’s the same thing?

There are more Indians on H1b that any other nationality so to keep it fair, they have different timelines. So for the number of Indians getting a visa, similar numbers of other nationalities will get it as well. Hows that the same as in this situation where a country is blatantly discriminating against a minority of their own country?

And you think providing information from before 71 will be easy? Seriously? And why do only Muslims have to do it? If you are Muslim, you are seriously blinded to the whole situation.

 

[CanadianG00se]

And somehow that’s the same thing?

There are more Indians on H1b that any other nationality so to keep it fair, they have different timelines. So for the number of Indians getting a visa, similar numbers of other nationalities will get it as well. Hows that the same as in this situation where a country is blatantly discriminating against a minority of their own country?

And you think providing information from before 71 will be easy? Seriously? And why do only Muslims have to do it? If you are Muslim, you are seriously blinded to the whole situation.

So, if there are so many Indians, its fair to make thing difficult for them, is your way of justifying the argument. Similarly, Indian Govt is justifying that minorities will get speedy citizenship as they are persecuted in their homeland, while Muslims will have to follow/wait the regular number of years to file for their citizenship. I see starc similarities, yet you defend one and ridicule the other.

Again, its not just Muslims, but everyone have to prove the papers.Yes, im muslim and i see no problem proving our family heritage. Heck those who are making drama are the ones backed by Italian Mafia. Most educated muslims i know arent even bothered.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...s-documents-required/articleshow/72922238.cms

Lol more than Indian muslims its the neighbouring ones that are making the noise.

Please i suggest you to read up before coming up with untrue information. NRC isnt asking only muslims to register but EVERY CITIZEN in India regardless of their faith.

 

[Stewie]

So, if there are so many Indians, its fair to make thing difficult for them, is your way of justifying the argument. Similarly, Indian Govt is justifying that minorities will get speedy citizenship as they are persecuted in their homeland, while Muslims will have to follow/wait the regular number of years to file for their citizenship. I see starc similarities, yet you defend one and ridicule the other.

Again, its not just Muslims, but everyone have to prove the papers.Yes, im muslim and i see no problem proving our family heritage. Heck those who are making drama are the ones backed by Italian Mafia. Most educated muslims i know arent even bothered.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...s-documents-required/articleshow/72922238.cms

Lol more than Indian muslims its the neighbouring ones that are making the noise.

Please i suggest you to read up before coming up with untrue information. NRC isnt asking only muslims to register but EVERY CITIZEN in India regardless of their faith.

Entirely false take on the thing.. I am not even talking about outside immigrants. I am talking about those Muslims who live in India and can’t furnish their citizenship papers.. while others may not run into any issues, muslims will have to provide documentation which will be nigh impossible.

And if someone told you that muslims will take longer to get citizenship, they told you wrong. The act is silent on muslims, which means there is no clause In the act that gives them any rights whether they are coming from outside or are existing Indian citizens unable to prove their citizenship.

This discrimination has also existed with visa fees and whatnot. You are not fooling anyone? By the way you have not answered my question. Are you Muslim? You started participating in this discussion sort of hinting that you were when you mentioned that your dad didn’t have any problems with his property in India.

If you are and you still refuse to believe the marginalization of muslims in India, well good for you. You probably live in Canada and will never have to live through the experience.

If you are not, and acting as one, well shame on you!

 

[PakLFC]

A few bomb blasts in Assam today as well. A good thing Pak does these days is tell the world to expect a false flag attack in India prior to an event. This puts all kinds of massive pressure on India seeing Pak is ready to tell the world "we told you so" should such a scenario occur.

 

[cricketjoshila]

She seems a pretty distinguished personality - Director for LSE South Asia Centre - why do you think its propaganda?

Because she is lying. You dont need to lie, if its proper reporting.

 

[cricketjoshila]

You didn’t understand my point. What if you don’t have the paperwork. In third world countries if you were born before the 70s or possibly the 80s, thst sort of record is not digitized and hard to come by. So it’s in such cases where you are In danger of being discriminated. Hindus and other minorities won’t face this open threat that Muslims without papers might.

There are a lot of other examples where Muslims are being singled out for special laws and treatment compared to hindus or other minorities In india.

People (muslims and sympathetic Hindus) are protesting in India for a reason.

By law, anyone in India till march 1971 is Indian.

From 1971 to 1986, if you are born in India, you are a citizen of India.

From 1 jan 1987, if only one of your parents are Indian, you are Indian.

Sir let me tell you something, if you are in India, you will have some sort of document.

How come you live in India but neither you or your parents or grandparents have their name in the voters list?

How come you dont have land records in your name?

How come if you are poor and hence didnt have land you didnot avail free or subsidised ration and dont have ration card?

Even if you didnt own land, and cultivated it, why isnt your name in share cropper list?

There are so many other documents.

In India you can trace the documents for 100 years or more.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I am not Indian or Muslim but hypothecially - let me get this straight if I can show my birth certificate, and my parent's birth certificates they will still ask for my grandparent's certificates and if I can't find them because the authorities lost them or something like that then I will be kicked out? LOL India is a disgrace, disgusting country.

Who told you this story?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

By law, anyone in India till march 1971 is Indian.

From 1971 to 1986, if you are born in India, you are a citizen of India.

From 1 jan 1987, if only one of your parents are Indian, you are Indian.

Sir let me tell you something, if you are in India, you will have some sort of document.

How come you live in India but neither you or your parents or grandparents have their name in the voters list?

How come you dont have land records in your name?

How come if you are poor and hence didnt have land you didnot avail free or subsidised ration and dont have ration card?

Even if you didnt own land, and cultivated it, why isnt your name in share cropper list?

There are so many other documents.

In India you can trace the documents for 100 years or more.

So ration card is accepted as proof of citizenship?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

That Muslim MP took up Amit Shah's challenge (to Congress I suppose) for an open debate.

Did Amit Shah get back?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

So, if there are so many Indians, its fair to make thing difficult for them, is your way of justifying the argument. Similarly, Indian Govt is justifying that minorities will get speedy citizenship as they are persecuted in their homeland, while Muslims will have to follow/wait the regular number of years to file for their citizenship. I see starc similarities, yet you defend one and ridicule the other.

Again, its not just Muslims, but everyone have to prove the papers.Yes, im muslim and i see no problem proving our family heritage. Heck those who are making drama are the ones backed by Italian Mafia. Most educated muslims i know arent even bothered.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...s-documents-required/articleshow/72922238.cms

Lol more than Indian muslims its the neighbouring ones that are making the noise.

Please i suggest you to read up before coming up with untrue information. NRC isnt asking only muslims to register but EVERY CITIZEN in India regardless of their faith.

Lol.

The keyword is "educated" Muslims.

They can furnish documents.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

https://thewire.in/politics/caa-opposition-leaders-amit-shah-challenge-debate/amp/

Amit Shah should be a man of his word and do the deed.

I wanna see this debate.

 

[CricketCartoons]

https://thewire.in/politics/caa-opposition-leaders-amit-shah-challenge-debate/amp/

Amit Shah should be a man of his word and do the deed.

I wanna see this debate.

Did you watch the debates in the parliament when the bill was proposed?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Did you watch the debates in the parliament when the bill was proposed?

Nope. I want to see this one outside without MPs cackling.

 

[Iqbal'sh]

An NRC happened, but that was for the state of Assam, monitored by the supreme court, promised by the past congress govt, started by congress govt and executed by the bjp govt.

NRC isn’t just for Muslims, it’s for everyone to prove their legal status.

Please correct me if I’m wrong the results of the NRC in Assam showed that approximately 40% of the population who could not provide evidence of their nationality belong to the Hindu faith.
So isn’t the NAA a retrospective measure to say to those Assamese Hindus we are bringing this new law in to ensure you will not be classed as an illegal? Same applies to the other minorities (except the Muslims).
How is that not discrimination? If the NAA had come first, then the Muslim minority may not have got spooked but this is a clear example of changing/amending/introducing discriminatory policies.
Free to correct me if my understanding is not correct.

 

[kaayal]

By law, anyone in India till march 1971 is Indian.

From 1971 to 1986, if you are born in India, you are a citizen of India.

From 1 jan 1987, if only one of your parents are Indian, you are Indian.

Sir let me tell you something, if you are in India, you will have some sort of document.

How come you live in India but neither you or your parents or grandparents have their name in the voters list?

How come you dont have land records in your name?

How come if you are poor and hence didnt have land you didnot avail free or subsidised ration and dont have ration card?

Even if you didnt own land, and cultivated it, why isnt your name in share cropper list?

There are so many other documents.

In India you can trace the documents for 100 years or more.

When did voter id or ration card become a proof of citizenship?

And not everyone owns a land to have their name in the property document.

And croppers list of 1981 ???? Hello, this is rural India not Europe or America. Not everyone were educated enough to enroll in such lists.

And what about the expats who don’t own farm or land here? Local traders? All those basic documents that they had is not a proof for citizenship.

 

[kaayal]

I will try to be as brief as possible:
Two kinds of discrimination: Negative discrimination maintains the privilege of the strong (eg, caste system). Positive discrimination intends to uplift the weak/marginalized (eg, affirmative action).

COI, although it states that no citizen can be discriminated based on religion/caste/ethnicity/gender, actually does discriminate in favour of the weak (who may not be numerically weak, but are socially weak eg, women, some backward castes).

The Citizen Amendment Act gives fast track citizenship to those refugees who are already living in india and belong to minority religions in the country they came from. It does not take away anyones citizenship. It does not deny citizenship to those refugees who are from majority religion in their country (eg, Afghan Muslims), but they will have to wait for the existing duration, no fast track for them.

One can ask the question that being a bangladeshi hindu refugee doesn't imply you are fleeing persecution are are in just for economic opportunities, but such is the assumption in many of the existing laws in the COI where it assumes that belonging to a certain religion or caste means you are socially backward and need extra benefits.

Ignoring those who are protesting because they have lost political power, there are two sets of people who are genuinely protesting:
1. People who think secularism is being undermined by this law. These people have their heart at the right place, but haven't read the COI beyond the preamble.
2. Muslims who think their citizenship will be taken away. They have genuine reasons to not trust the current govt based on many other things, and this protest is a culmination of all those things. Just that they have chosen the wrong thing to protest against. They have 99 reasons for genuine protest, but have somehow reached the tipping point against the 1 thing they should not have any issue with.

BJP politicians obviously have their own reasons. If they give citizenship to the refugees who live in Delhi, they would have, for now, added more voters who will vote for them. But should the poor be denied a blanket just because the one doing charity wanted the benevolent act for his own benefit?

Tbh giving citizenship to Hindu refugees is not a problem. They do deserve it but BJP utilising them as permanent votebank for future elections including the next Delhi and bengal is not going yo get unnoticed.

And never ever before we have any such law we have completely excluded a community from anything. Even when you are talking about positive discrimination everyone has this basic right of citizenship while giving reservations. Refugees are refugees, they all need help. It’s a humanitarian cause not a religious one.

And the audacity with which Amit Shah is announcing everything, i am sure sooner or later NRC will get implemented. He never backs down from anything and actually does what he says. Modi is the puppet, Amit Shah is the real player. Anybody who dared him have always suffered. That’s why Muslims are on the street against CAA. We are worried about our future existence.

 

[Kroll]

Meanwhile, as Modi parades his deranged hatred of Muslims; Muslim countries in the Middle East are parading their warmth and friendship to India.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Tbh giving citizenship to Hindu refugees is not a problem. They do deserve it but BJP utilising them as permanent votebank for future elections including the next Delhi and bengal is not going yo get unnoticed.

And never ever before we have any such law we have completely excluded a community from anything. Even when you are talking about positive discrimination everyone has this basic right of citizenship while giving reservations. Refugees are refugees, they all need help. It’s a humanitarian cause not a religious one.

And the audacity with which Amit Shah is announcing everything, i am sure sooner or later NRC will get implemented. He never backs down from anything and actually does what he says. Modi is the puppet, Amit Shah is the real player. Anybody who dared him have always suffered. That’s why Muslims are on the street against CAA. We are worried about our future existence.

You are wrong. Citizenship is not a right for any refugee. Don't know how you got this idea.

BJP or any party doing something so that it will help them with votes is a very poor argument. You are seeing it from the wrong vantage point. You need to see it from the POV of the refugees. Are you saying it is fine if some other party did except BJP, or if the refugees gave an undertaking that they will not vote for the BJP after getting citizenship? How stupid that is.

The fear about NRC is understandable, especially when Amit Shah says it, but the chicken run should have happened when the NRC is tabled in the parliament, not when the CAA is passed. By protesting against CAA these idiots have sent the message that they are against hindu refugees (which is not the message they want to give). The barking up the wrong tree is going to hurt them.

If they are really against religion based laws, they should first give up religion based reservations, and religion based personal laws? Very hypocritical when you support religion based laws when it favours you and them cry about secularism when it doesn't favour you (you as in general, not you).

 

[Itachi]

I am not Indian or Muslim but hypothecially - let me get this straight if I can show my birth certificate, and my parent's birth certificates they will still ask for my grandparent's certificates and if I can't find them because the authorities lost them or something like that then I will be kicked out? LOL India is a disgrace, disgusting country.

You are wrong in every aspect of it. NRC has nothing to with birth certificate.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You are wrong. Citizenship is not a right for any refugee. Don't know how you got this idea.

BJP or any party doing something so that it will help them with votes is a very poor argument. You are seeing it from the wrong vantage point. You need to see it from the POV of the refugees. Are you saying it is fine if some other party did except BJP, or if the refugees gave an undertaking that they will not vote for the BJP after getting citizenship? How stupid that is.

The fear about NRC is understandable, especially when Amit Shah says it, but the chicken run should have happened when the NRC is tabled in the parliament, not when the CAA is passed. By protesting against CAA these idiots have sent the message that they are against hindu refugees (which is not the message they want to give). The barking up the wrong tree is going to hurt them.

If they are really against religion based laws, they should first give up religion based reservations, and religion based personal laws? Very hypocritical when you support religion based laws when it favours you and them cry about secularism when it doesn't favour you (you as in general, not you).

Yeah...Amit Shah will say "Aap chronology samajiye"

And people should be like "No no we shouldn't protest now. Let us wait for NRC to be tabled and then we will protest".

Protest right now is mainly for the CAA-NRC combo. Yes, BJP will spin it the way it wants (or people might perceive it the way you say) but for the first time I am seeing so many Hindus rallying which wasn't the case even when Article 370 was abrogated.

As for religion based laws, it would be AMAZING if those are scrubbed. I would be with BJP if they do it for all religions. Though personally I don't understand how one (not you) could support beef ban (which is based on religious sentiment) but want to have uniform religious laws. Like who gets to draw the line what's ok and what's not?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

https://www.news18.com/news/india/h...galuru-turns-out-all-are-indians-2465113.html

Hundreds of Huts of 'Illegal Bangladeshi Immigrants' Razed in Bengaluru, Turns Out All Are Indians

----

Fills me up with hope about this govt's competency.

Thoughts?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yeah...Amit Shah will say "Aap chronology samajiye"

And people should be like "No no we shouldn't protest now. Let us wait for NRC to be tabled and then we will protest".

Protest right now is mainly for the CAA-NRC combo. Yes, BJP will spin it the way it wants (or people might perceive it the way you say) but for the first time I am seeing so many Hindus rallying which wasn't the case even when Article 370 was abrogated.

As for religion based laws, it would be AMAZING if those are scrubbed. I would be with BJP if they do it for all religions. Though personally I don't understand how one (not you) could support beef ban (which is based on religious sentiment) but want to have uniform religious laws. Like who gets to draw the line what's ok and what's not?

But the protestors are not calling for them to be scrubbed, are they? They are ok with existing laws and protesting against this one. This is the hypocrisy and the morally hollow stand of theirs.

Let us be honest, they are not protesting for secularism, but to protect their interests. This is fine by the way, just that no one should be fooled that the protest if for saving secularism.

Gandhi wanted beef ban. ( I don't like him and he left a bad legacy for india) but those who say this is gandhi's india, should not have problem with beef ban.

My view is that beef eating should not be a crime, and there should be a common civil code for everyone. No religion based reservations. If there has to be 50% reservation in stephens for christians, then it must go to only the economically and socially backward christians, not the creamy layer.

Constitution is already flawed, and these headless chicken are singing paeans for this constitution, and terming the CAA anti constitutional, when it fits in nicely with the theme of the constitution.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Yeah...Amit Shah will say "Aap chronology samajiye"

And people should be like "No no we shouldn't protest now. Let us wait for NRC to be tabled and then we will protest".

Protest right now is mainly for the CAA-NRC combo. Yes, BJP will spin it the way it wants (or people might perceive it the way you say) but for the first time I am seeing so many Hindus rallying which wasn't the case even when Article 370 was abrogated.

As for religion based laws, it would be AMAZING if those are scrubbed. I would be with BJP if they do it for all religions. Though personally I don't understand how one (not you) could support beef ban (which is based on religious sentiment) but want to have uniform religious laws. Like who gets to draw the line what's ok and what's not?

But the protestors are not calling for them to be scrubbed, are they? They are ok with existing laws and protesting against this one. This is the hypocrisy and the morally hollow stand of theirs.

Let us be honest, they are not protesting for secularism, but to protect their interests. This is fine by the way, just that no one should be fooled that the protest if for saving secularism.

Gandhi wanted beef ban. ( I don't like him and he left a bad legacy for india) but those who say this is gandhi's india, should not have problem with beef ban.

My view is that beef eating should not be a crime, and there should be a common civil code for everyone. No religion based reservations. If there has to be 50% reservation in stephens for christians, then it must go to only the economically and socially backward christians, not the creamy layer.

Constitution is already flawed, and these headless chicken are singing paeans for this constitution, and terming the CAA anti constitutional, when it fits in nicely with the theme of the constitution.

 

[srh]

A very strong opinion, but isn't she really just saying it how it is? How did India end up here?

Modi may end up accepting Islam. I have seen examples of people who really hate Islam and then end up becoming muslims

 

[Technics 1210]

Nice to know The Times are in on the act of exposing Modi, and fake India.

 

[cric_man]

There is also a different rules for H1B for Indians in US compared to Pakistani, does that mean US is discriminating?

Subtle discrimination exits but we often overlook the one that suits our agenda.

Your H1B comparison is flawed. There are no countries quotas for H1B visas. Per USCIS Indians consume 62% of all H1B visas issued. See below stats from 2016/17.


For green card (Immigration), US wants to keep a good and balanced representation on countries of origin that represent the applicants. Based on number of immigration applications received, USCIS has 5 queues for India, China, Mexico, Phillipines, and Rest of the world. There is no Pakistan specific queue.
Since 70% of applications are from India, the application face a backlog but are not denied. If you are an Indian who applied in 2019, you may get your green card in 2050 (for EB3 category) versus maybe 2026 for somebody who applied at the same time but was from the RoW country. But you are not excluded or denied.
This is done to keep a balanced mix of immigrant approved yearly and not to skew to one nationality.

 

[kaayal]

You are wrong. Citizenship is not a right for any refugee. Don't know how you got this idea.

BJP or any party doing something so that it will help them with votes is a very poor argument. You are seeing it from the wrong vantage point. You need to see it from the POV of the refugees. Are you saying it is fine if some other party did except BJP, or if the refugees gave an undertaking that they will not vote for the BJP after getting citizenship? How stupid that is.

The fear about NRC is understandable, especially when Amit Shah says it, but the chicken run should have happened when the NRC is tabled in the parliament, not when the CAA is passed. By protesting against CAA these idiots have sent the message that they are against hindu refugees (which is not the message they want to give). The barking up the wrong tree is going to hurt them.

If they are really against religion based laws, they should first give up religion based reservations, and religion based personal laws? Very hypocritical when you support religion based laws when it favours you and them cry about secularism when it doesn't favour you (you as in general, not you).

Ban all the religious law and reservations for the creamy layer. I have always supported UCC but BJP can’t do it because of their beef ban.

 

[cricketjoshila]

So ration card is accepted as proof of citizenship?

Depends on the date.

 

[cricketjoshila]

https://www.news18.com/news/india/h...galuru-turns-out-all-are-indians-2465113.html

Hundreds of Huts of 'Illegal Bangladeshi Immigrants' Razed in Bengaluru, Turns Out All Are Indians

----

Fills me up with hope about this govt's competency.

Thoughts?

It was a illegally occupied piece of land.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Ban all the religious law and reservations for the creamy layer. I have always supported UCC but BJP can’t do it because of their beef ban.

What about not giving voting rights to refugees? Then no one can use them as vote banks.

Why is no one talking about it?

Refugees come for shelter protection etc. Not having a say on how the country is run.

 

[andy0204]

It was a illegally occupied piece of land.

But to declare Bangladeshi what kind of logic is this?

 

[cricketjoshila]

But to declare Bangladeshi what kind of logic is this?

Stupid logic.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Spike in illegal migrants returning to Bangladesh: BSF


The number of illegal Bangladeshi migrants apprehended while trying to return to their country has increased since December last year, Inspector General of BSF (South Bengal Frontier) Y B Khurania said on Friday. The development comes days after the ...

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/nation...rants-returning-to-bangladesh-bsf-797897.html


Hopefully it will be a one way street where these illegal Bangladeshi's will only go back to Bangladesh and wont come back to India..

 

[cricketjoshila]

Spike in illegal migrants returning to Bangladesh: BSF


The number of illegal Bangladeshi migrants apprehended while trying to return to their country has increased since December last year, Inspector General of BSF (South Bengal Frontier) Y B Khurania said on Friday. The development comes days after the ...

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/nation...rants-returning-to-bangladesh-bsf-797897.html


Hopefully it will be a one way street where these illegal Bangladeshi's will only go back to Bangladesh and wont come back to India..

As the situation for illegal migrants become more and more unfavorable, they will return to their country of origin.

 

[Romali_rotti]

As the situation for illegal migrants become more and more unfavorable, they will return to their country of origin.

Everyone keeps giving credit Modi, however the man behind the scenes pulling all the chains is Amit Shah, he is just brilliant. 4 terms of BJP & Amit Shah and India would have changed for the better imo, there will be some turbulence along with way, lets be fair nobody is perfect..... Amit Shah the true successor to India's Iron man Sardar Patel...

 

[Romali_rotti]

As the situation for illegal migrants become more and more unfavorable, they will return to their country of origin.

Next up BJP needs to win Bengal and lock up Mamta Banerjee for treason..

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

It was a illegally occupied piece of land.

Yep that's a national problem. Every city faces it.

But here's the bigger issue:

1. Police alleged these people were illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. And razed down the place.

2. People say no prior notice was given before demolition and say they have the papers to prove their legitimacy (which in the end turned out to be true).

3. And when you do raze down places, you need to make arrangements for an alternative place. I don't know if that has even been done.

Residents of the settlement, however, told The Quint that none of their documents were checked by officials, and they that had not received any notice of eviction either. Calling the demolition ‘unauthorised’, BBMP chief Anil Kumar said that the erring official had been ‘suspended’ and ‘charges were being framed against him.’

https://www.thequint.com/news/india/labelled-bangladeshi-homes-razed-hundreds-displaced-in-bluru

All in all, completely messed up.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Everyone keeps giving credit Modi, however the man behind the scenes pulling all the chains is Amit Shah, he is just brilliant. 4 terms of BJP & Amit Shah and India would have changed for the better imo, there will be some turbulence along with way, lets be fair nobody is perfect..... Amit Shah the true successor to India's Iron man Sardar Patel...

Nah Amit Shah is the one getting credit for it.

In fact too much credit where he was called Chanakya by many after Maha Ajit Pawar govt formation.

Turns out it was Pawar who was the true Chanakya running rings around Amit Shah.

Actually Modi knows when to move forward and when to pull back.

Amit Shah is a pure thug who makes even Modi look like a cute puppy.

He's smarter, intelligent and wayyy more dangerous imho.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

But the protestors are not calling for them to be scrubbed, are they? They are ok with existing laws and protesting against this one. This is the hypocrisy and the morally hollow stand of theirs.

Let us be honest, they are not protesting for secularism, but to protect their interests. This is fine by the way, just that no one should be fooled that the protest if for saving secularism.

Gandhi wanted beef ban. ( I don't like him and he left a bad legacy for india) but those who say this is gandhi's india, should not have problem with beef ban.

My view is that beef eating should not be a crime, and there should be a common civil code for everyone. No religion based reservations. If there has to be 50% reservation in stephens for christians, then it must go to only the economically and socially backward christians, not the creamy layer.

Constitution is already flawed, and these headless chicken are singing paeans for this constitution, and terming the CAA anti constitutional, when it fits in nicely with the theme of the constitution.

I can see where you are coming from and I actually do agree with you.

1. CAA is positive discrimination and it isn't against Constitution when you look at the big picture. But are people really debating CAA alone.....or CAA-NRC? Cos CAA-NRC for sure is against Constitution.

2. Also when rallying around a particular stance, an extremely nuanced take doesn't work. Ideally that should be the way to go but it doesn't really work. You talk about a point from a broader perspective.

3. I get your point about Gandhi. But the ones who talk about Gandhi's India talk about the bigger picture (religious harmony). Broader picture.

4. Anyways, as for people protesting, sure there are hypocrites in there but I don't think we can call all of them hypocrites. The level of protests for this issue wasn't witnessed for any prior issue in the last few years for the sole reason this can really impact soooo many people of one community (and the poorest ones among them to boot). If BJP brings in laws that make all religions equal under the law and people protest, they simply won't have the support.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

What about not giving voting rights to refugees? Then no one can use them as vote banks.

Why is no one talking about it?

Refugees come for shelter protection etc. Not having a say on how the country is run.

No sane person in India wants refugees to be given voting rights.

Let's be clear on that.

The exercise for NRC all over India (if carried out) will be super cumbersome, prone to extreme corruption, cause harassment of poor people and worst of all, could ACTUALLY declare legitimate citizens as refugees if they don't have the papers.

This is just going to cause needless misery to people while giving minimal returns if at all.

What India needs is to tighten up its process so that refugees can't come to India illegally or if they do, they can't avail benefits.

Right now, nation's economy is down the dumps (finally BJP has started acknowledging it lol).

There are a gazzilion problems. A debate/protest on nation wide NRC is not one of them.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

During an election rally in Rithala on Monday, BJP leader and Union minister Thakur egged on the crowd to raise an incendiary slogan — "goli maaro saalon ko (traitors should be shot at)" — after lashing out at those protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

Seen clapping his hands over his head, Thakur chanted, "Desh ke gaddaron ko (traitors of the country)...", with the crowd hitting back with "goli maaro s****n ko (shoot them all)".

https://www.news18.com/news/india/g...akurs-rally-days-ahead-of-budget-2475419.html

Our esteemed former BCCI head.

Classy.

 

[MP2011]

Nah Amit Shah is the one getting credit for it.

In fact too much credit where he was called Chanakya by many after Maha Ajit Pawar govt formation.

Turns out it was Pawar who was the true Chanakya running rings around Amit Shah.

Actually Modi knows when to move forward and when to pull back.

Amit Shah is a pure thug who makes even Modi look like a cute puppy.

He's smarter, intelligent and wayyy more dangerous imho.

This! Well said....Tadipar is most dangerous for the idea for India...

 

[MP2011]

Yep that's a national problem. Every city faces it.

But here's the bigger issue:

1. Police alleged these people were illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. And razed down the place.

2. People say no prior notice was given before demolition and say they have the papers to prove their legitimacy (which in the end turned out to be true).

3. And when you do raze down places, you need to make arrangements for an alternative place. I don't know if that has even been done.



https://www.thequint.com/news/india/labelled-bangladeshi-homes-razed-hundreds-displaced-in-bluru

All in all, completely messed up.

Don't let facts get in the way of a blind bha@kt's rant....

 

[cricketjoshila]

I can see where you are coming from and I actually do agree with you.

1. CAA is positive discrimination and it isn't against Constitution when you look at the big picture. But are people really debating CAA alone.....or CAA-NRC? Cos CAA-NRC for sure is against Constitution.

2. Also when rallying around a particular stance, an extremely nuanced take doesn't work. Ideally that should be the way to go but it doesn't really work. You talk about a point from a broader perspective.

3. I get your point about Gandhi. But the ones who talk about Gandhi's India talk about the bigger picture (religious harmony). Broader picture.

4. Anyways, as for people protesting, sure there are hypocrites in there but I don't think we can call all of them hypocrites. The level of protests for this issue wasn't witnessed for any prior issue in the last few years for the sole reason this can really impact soooo many people of one community (and the poorest ones among them to boot). If BJP brings in laws that make all religions equal under the law and people protest, they simply won't have the support.

1. How is CAA against constitution? NRC in Assam was sanctioned and carried out by the SC. How is it unconstitutional?

2. Harmony? Care to read about Gandhis comments in Noakhali in 1946 after direct action day riots?

3. Protest is not for CAA or NRC. Protest is managed by those who for long enjoyed political patronage and veto. A section withing a section of minorities have had the mentality since Shah Bano that if they oppose something no govt will do it because of vote bank. Failing that they think that they can scare the people with violence and threats.
None of them will work now.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Seen clapping his hands over his head, Thakur chanted, "Desh ke gaddaron ko (traitors of the country)...", with the crowd hitting back with "goli maaro s****n ko (shoot them all)".

https://www.news18.com/news/india/g...akurs-rally-days-ahead-of-budget-2475419.html

Our esteemed former BCCI head.

Classy.

I quote sec 121 of IPC

Section-121. Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India.- Whoever, wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I can see where you are coming from and I actually do agree with you.

1. CAA is positive discrimination and it isn't against Constitution when you look at the big picture. But are people really debating CAA alone.....or CAA-NRC? Cos CAA-NRC for sure is against Constitution.

2. Also when rallying around a particular stance, an extremely nuanced take doesn't work. Ideally that should be the way to go but it doesn't really work. You talk about a point from a broader perspective.

3. I get your point about Gandhi. But the ones who talk about Gandhi's India talk about the bigger picture (religious harmony). Broader picture.

4. Anyways, as for people protesting, sure there are hypocrites in there but I don't think we can call all of them hypocrites. The level of protests for this issue wasn't witnessed for any prior issue in the last few years for the sole reason this can really impact soooo many people of one community (and the poorest ones among them to boot). If BJP brings in laws that make all religions equal under the law and people protest, they simply won't have the support.

Which clause of the constitution does the NRC violate? The only NRC that happened was in Assam, and that was supervised by the Supreme Court, the custodian of the constitution.

Every country should have a registry of its citizens. It is a shame it hasn't happened till now. NRC in principle is needed. The only issue, and it is a big issue, is in its execution. Can it be guaranteed that no citizen will be declared illegal? Illegals may become legals, but no legal should become illegal.

The protest is not because of CAA or NRC, it is because of the fear and the distrust. That if they don't stand up now, it will be too late. Obviously, it should not be dismissed and ignored if a sizeable population is living in fear, but barking up the wrong tree has not helped. But it should not be called as a protest to save secularism or the constitution, it is anything but that.

The only question against CAA should have been: Fine that you care about the refugees, but why haven't you shown the same love to us minorities who are the original citizens. The protest should have been based on this principle. But idiots will be idiots and are only going to undermine their cause. You may think that the protests are a festival of democracy, I think that it has brought mutual hatred and fears out in the open. Time will tell, let's hope I am wrong.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

1. How is CAA against constitution? NRC in Assam was sanctioned and carried out by the SC. How is it unconstitutional?

2. Harmony? Care to read about Gandhis comments in Noakhali in 1946 after direct action day riots?

3. Protest is not for CAA or NRC. Protest is managed by those who for long enjoyed political patronage and veto. A section withing a section of minorities have had the mentality since Shah Bano that if they oppose something no govt will do it because of vote bank. Failing that they think that they can scare the people with violence and threats.
None of them will work now.

1. CAA is not against constitution. CAA-NRC nationwide is. Assam is a separate case.

2. I am not a huge Gandhi fan myself. Open to taking back my statement there if he did make communal statements. Is the Noakhali statement the instance where he said Hindus should just let it go...or something like that. Doesn't he say that for everything that happens? Ahimsa at all costs. I will read up sure.

3. Disagree. Protest is for CAA-NRC. Shah Bano mentality will not work in modern times (just cos some people might support it doesn't mean it will get nationwide acceptance).

 

[cricketjoshila]

No sane person in India wants refugees to be given voting rights.

Let's be clear on that.

The exercise for NRC all over India (if carried out) will be super cumbersome, prone to extreme corruption, cause harassment of poor people and worst of all, could ACTUALLY declare legitimate citizens as refugees if they don't have the papers.

This is just going to cause needless misery to people while giving minimal returns if at all.

What India needs is to tighten up its process so that refugees can't come to India illegally or if they do, they can't avail benefits.

Right now, nation's economy is down the dumps (finally BJP has started acknowledging it lol).

There are a gazzilion problems. A debate/protest on nation wide NRC is not one of them.

With millions of refugees eating into resources we will always be losing.

NRC is necessary so that no more illegal immigrants get citizenship. Once all citizens are listed, no new immigrant will get citizenship by crooked methods as he will have to prove thst his parents are on the NRC list.

Illegal immigrants are not a problem in Tamil nadu. But its a huge one in Bengal. They are changing demographics. They are involved in crime and terrorism. Look up how JMB is making its base in Bengal.

Sorry but i do not want another direct action day kind of riot in my state.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Which clause of the constitution does the NRC violate? The only NRC that happened was in Assam, and that was supervised by the Supreme Court, the custodian of the constitution.

Every country should have a registry of its citizens. It is a shame it hasn't happened till now. NRC in principle is needed. The only issue, and it is a big issue, is in its execution. Can it be guaranteed that no citizen will be declared illegal? Illegals may become legals, but no legal should become illegal.

The protest is not because of CAA or NRC, it is because of the fear and the distrust. That if they don't stand up now, it will be too late. Obviously, it should not be dismissed and ignored if a sizeable population is living in fear, but barking up the wrong tree has not helped. But it should not be called as a protest to save secularism or the constitution, it is anything but that.

The only question against CAA should have been: Fine that you care about the refugees, but why haven't you shown the same love to us minorities who are the original citizens. The protest should have been based on this principle. But idiots will be idiots and are only going to undermine their cause. You may think that the protests are a festival of democracy, I think that it has brought mutual hatred and fears out in the open. Time will tell, let's hope I am wrong.

CAA-NRC nationwide (if it comes into being) discriminates against Muslims (and poor ones at that).

The protest is not because of CAA or NRC, it is because of the fear and the distrust. That if they don't stand up now, it will be too late. Obviously, it should not be dismissed and ignored if a sizeable population is living in fear, but barking up the wrong tree has not helped. But it should not be called as a protest to save secularism or the constitution, it is anything but that.

It is ALSO because of that.

The only question against CAA should have been: Fine that you care about the refugees, but why haven't you shown the same love to us minorities who are the original citizens. The protest should have been based on this principle. But idiots will be idiots and are only going to undermine their cause. You may think that the protests are a festival of democracy, I think that it has brought mutual hatred and fears out in the open. Time will tell, let's hope I am wrong.

That won't work cos that leads us into a rabbit hole where everything can be twisted and turned by the other side.

CAA-NRC was the right angle to take.

Whether it would impact elections is a different matter. I still believe Modi is invincible.

But it has struck a cord among people.

Also, yes, there are some TRUE SCUMBAGS amongst these protestors who are using this as a convienient opportunity but that shouldn't take away from the merit of this protest.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

With millions of refugees eating into resources we will always be losing.

NRC is necessary so that no more illegal immigrants get citizenship. Once all citizens are listed, no new immigrant will get citizenship by crooked methods as he will have to prove thst his parents are on the NRC list.

Illegal immigrants are not a problem in Tamil nadu. But its a huge one in Bengal. They are changing demographics. They are involved in crime and terrorism. Look up how JMB is making its base in Bengal.

Sorry but i do not want another direct action day kind of riot in my state.

I do understand your concerns but there must be better ways to deal with this than all India NRC.

How is NRC All india with CAA fair by any stretch of imagination?

Even without CAA...I would oppose NRC all India.

It looks like a fiasco right from start to finish (Bengaluru was a small small sample).

Considering BJP's track record, they are going to take a horrible plan to catastrophic levels if NRC all India is implemented.

 

[cricketjoshila]

1. CAA is not against constitution. CAA-NRC nationwide is. Assam is a separate case.

2. I am not a huge Gandhi fan myself. Open to taking back my statement there if he did make communal statements. Is the Noakhali statement the instance where he said Hindus should just let it go...or something like that. Doesn't he say that for everything that happens? Ahimsa at all costs. I will read up sure.

3. Disagree. Protest is for CAA-NRC. Shah Bano mentality will not work in modern times (just cos some people might support it doesn't mean it will get nationwide acceptance).

1. Nation wide NRC has not been done. No bill passed. Bill not even drafted.

2. Yes hindus should leave Noakhali or die. Guess he didn't have much to say about muslims. He said a lot many things. Read about direct action day riots and the hindu bengali homeland movement.

3. Shaheen bagh is exactly Shah Bano. Sharjeel Imam, Ladeeda, Ayesha Renna and so many others are now coming out and their mask is slipping.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I do understand your concerns but there must be better ways to deal with this than all India NRC.

How is NRC All india with CAA fair by any stretch of imagination?

Even without CAA...I would oppose NRC all India.

It looks like a fiasco right from start to finish (Bengaluru was a small small sample).

Considering BJP's track record, they are going to take a horrible plan to catastrophic levels if NRC all India is implemented.

Let supreme court do the NRC.

Why CAA with NRC unfair? Any reason why Muslims from BD and Pak be allowed to get Indian citizenship as refugees?

Do you know why Assamese wanted NRC?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Let supreme court do the NRC.

Why CAA with NRC unfair? Any reason why Muslims from BD and Pak be allowed to get Indian citizenship as refugees?

Do you know why Assamese wanted NRC?

Cos it discrimininates against Muslims (nationwide roll out).

The most downtrodden ones at that.

Poor people won't have documents. Other religions will get a pass. Muslims won't.

You tell me how is that fair?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

1. Nation wide NRC has not been done. No bill passed. Bill not even drafted.

Doesn't matter. Amit Shah openly stated that it will be implemented.

Of course, people are going to take it at face value.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Cos it discrimininates against Muslims (nationwide roll out).

The most downtrodden ones at that.

Poor people won't have documents. Other religions will get a pass. Muslims won't.

You tell me how is that fair?

Have you read the notification of CAA. It applies to refugess living till 2014 only. And even they will have to show documents that they came from Pak or BD. Without documents even they wont get citizenship.

So someone has no documents. His siblings have none.Even his parents and their siblings have none, his grandparents none. So on what basis he claims to be citizen? Anyone will claim he or she is citizen and say i dont have documents and will be given citizenship. Which country does this?

Have you read the Launtenberg amendment of US constitution?

 

[cricketjoshila]

Doesn't matter. Amit Shah openly stated that it will be implemented.

Of course, people are going to take it at face value.

It has to pass the parliament. They dont have numbers in RS.

And protest and challenge when its passed.

Why now?

And really, they think they will get it repealed? Lol. Not happening.The Shah Bano days are gone.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Have you read the notification of CAA. It applies to refugess living till 2014 only. And even they will have to show documents that they came from Pak or BD. Without documents even they wont get citizenship.

So someone has no documents. His siblings have none.Even his parents and their siblings have none, his grandparents none. So on what basis he claims to be citizen? Anyone will claim he or she is citizen and say i dont have documents and will be given citizenship. Which country does this?

Have you read the Launtenberg amendment of US constitution?

1. First of all, people do have Aadhar, voter id, ration card and all that. That isn't considered for citizenship now. Atleast not their documents (they need to furnish some old documents which they may or may not have).

2. Yes I am aware it applies for those living in India till 2014 only. So what happens to hindus who don't have documents that they migrated from Pak or BD? We are talking about potentially crores of people here. What if CRORES of poor Hindus don't have documents and can't prove them migrated from Pak/BD. What will happen to them? Let me know.

3. Also what's the GUARANTEE CAA will not be amended to fill them in?

----

While CAA is a good move on it's own, it doesn't feel altruistic at all here. But again, that's another debate and let's ignore that for now as that will take the discussion on a tangent.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

It has to pass the parliament. They dont have numbers in RS.

And protest and challenge when its passed.

Why now?

And really, they think they will get it repealed? Lol. Not happening.The Shah Bano days are gone.

People are protesting the intent joshila bhai.

If you don't protest now, when will you protest?

Once BJP has the numbers say in 2024 or 2026 or whatever.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

1. First of all, people do have Aadhar, voter id, ration card and all that. That isn't considered for citizenship now. Atleast not their documents (they need to furnish some old documents which they may or may not have).

2. Yes I am aware it applies for those living in India till 2014 only. So what happens to hindus who don't have documents that they migrated from Pak or BD? We are talking about potentially crores of people here. What if CRORES of poor Hindus don't have documents and can't prove them migrated from Pak/BD. What will happen to them? Let me know.

3. Also what's the GUARANTEE CAA will not be amended to fill them in?

----

While CAA is a good move on it's own, it doesn't feel altruistic at all here. But again, that's another debate and let's ignore that for now as that will take the discussion on a tangent.

Or some other ACT.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Found the answer to my question.

Claim 2: CAA does not benefit Hindus left out of NRC

It is being argued that in order to benefit under CAA, a Hindu will have to prove that s/he is a national of Pakistan, Afghanistan or Bangladesh and that s/he entered India on/before December 31, 2014. On this basis, it is being said that someone who applied in the NRC and was rejected will not then be able to avail the benefit of applying for citizenship under CAA.

This is a misleading argument because an illegal migrant can never ‘prove’ that s/he entered India illegally. Imagine the universe of documents that can prove a person’s entry into a country – visas, immigration stamps on passport and air/train/bus tickets. None of these are available in the case of an illegal migrant. In fact, the very definition of exempted persons under the MHA notification of September 7, 2015 is persons who entered into India “without valid documents including passport or other travel documents” prior to December 31, 2014.

The application under the provisions introduced by CAA will have to be based on a self-declaration. Otherwise, let the government put it's money where it's mouth is and make production of a Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Afghan passport or national ID a condition precedent for applying for citizenship under the amended law. But this is not the intention at all. Hence, all that an applicant will be required to produce is evidence of having been in India prior to the cut-off date. This can be by way of phone bills, bank statements, school certificates, lease deeds, etc issued prior to this date.

Further, under Section 6B(3) introduced by the CAA, any proceeding pending against a person in respect of illegal migration or citizenship shall stand abated and shall not bar such person from applying for citizenship under the new law. Therefore, the proceedings relating to citizenship against members of the Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Parsi or Christian communities who have been left out of the NRC shall stand abated and they will be entitled to apply for citizenship under the provisions of the CAA on the basis of a self-declaration. The corollary is that only Muslims left out of the NRC will be prosecuted for being illegal migrants and liable for punishment and deportation.

https://www.news18.com/news/opinion...rty-which-are-far-from-the-truth-2438377.html

The two types of illegal immigrants were clearly defined:

“(i) without valid documents including passport or other travel documents; or

(ii) with valid documents including passport or other travel document and the validity of any of such documents has expired.”

Using these rules, the Ministry of Home Affairs put out procedures to grant such persons long-term visas. For this, a “Standard Operating Procedure” laid out in 2011 was used. This SOP says that to apply for a long-term visa, such persons as claiming to be refugees will have to furnish these documents:

Documents issued by the government of your home country (Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan) to prove that you are a Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Afghan national;
Documents issued by the government of your home country that prove you belong to one of those six listed minority religions;
Documents to prove the date since you entered India or since you have been residing in India: even a Gram Panchayat Secretary Certificate would do.
A sworn affidavit, attested by a government authority, stating that you were “compelled to enter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution.”

Lawyer Nizam Pasha has pointed out an interesting contradiction here. While you could be an illegal immigrant by entering India without any documents, the exemption under these rules requires you to show documents to prove that you are a national of Pakistan, Bangladesh or Afghanistan, and also a document to prove your religion in that country.

What if you don’t have such documents? That’s where you may get lucky with one harmless-sounding line: “The documents listed above are only illustrative.”

The rules also clearly state that the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO) shall examine your claim of fleeing religious persecution or fear of religious persecution. In other words, it shall be a discretionary exercise. How is the FRRO going to determine whether the person’s claim is truth or fiction? We don’t know.

All the bureaucratic procedures listed above are indirectly referred to by the CAA, and hence needed for you to get citizenship through it. You need to pass these tests to be eligible for citizenship under CAA. However, we don’t know how the government could modify these through the CAA rules it is yet to notify.

https://theprint.in/opinion/caa-rul...ip-only-to-real-not-imagined-refugees/342476/

----

Interesting info.

I knew there was a loophole somewhere or else it will lead to catastrophic results.

Have to dig deeper into this whole NPR-NRC-CAA saga. Still foggy on the whole process.

 

[cricketjoshila]

1. First of all, people do have Aadhar, voter id, ration card and all that. That isn't considered for citizenship now. Atleast not their documents (they need to furnish some old documents which they may or may not have).

2. Yes I am aware it applies for those living in India till 2014 only. So what happens to hindus who don't have documents that they migrated from Pak or BD? We are talking about potentially crores of people here. What if CRORES of poor Hindus don't have documents and can't prove them migrated from Pak/BD. What will happen to them? Let me know.

3. Also what's the GUARANTEE CAA will not be amended to fill them in?

----

While CAA is a good move on it's own, it doesn't feel altruistic at all here. But again, that's another debate and let's ignore that for now as that will take the discussion on a tangent.

1. Read UIDAI act. Aadhar is not proof of citizenship.

2. What documents will be used as oroof of citizenship for nationwide NRC have not been notified.

3. Home ministry put out a FAQ on NRC. Read it.

https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/www....-releases-faq-on-nrc-and-caa-4750891.html/amp

4. We are not thekedaars of what will happen to XYZ person of neighbouring country. We are doing them a favour by giving them an option of getting indian citizenship. You are talking as if we are bound to provide for people from BD and Pak.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Found the answer to my question.



https://www.news18.com/news/opinion...rty-which-are-far-from-the-truth-2438377.html



https://theprint.in/opinion/caa-rul...ip-only-to-real-not-imagined-refugees/342476/

----

Interesting info.

I knew there was a loophole somewhere or else it will lead to catastrophic results.

Have to dig deeper into this whole NPR-NRC-CAA saga. Still foggy on the whole process.

Read this.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...ek-proof-of-religion/article30664820.ece/amp/