PM Modi's government announces implementation of Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) [Post Updated #85]

[Red-Indian]

Yeap

The minute you stop minority appeasing, Oh oh you are a Bhakt, Oh you are a fascist, oh you are an evil Hindutva.

I've resisted wading into this debate because it's so internal to India and the arguments so worn out on both sides that nobody's really changing their minds but I'll put in my bit in.

The burden for maintaining a modern, religiously, communally harmonious (notice I'm avoiding trigger words like s***r) State inevitably falls on the majority community/religion. The US for example is clearly a white, Christian majority state but despite whatever inherent advantages that this majority community gets, legally they're still clear on separation of Church and State and have several what you would call minority appeasement laws & regulations. The benefit from this is an open multi-cultural society where the minorities aren't (too) sullen and constantly causing trouble as well as one that attracts the best and the brightest because they feel welcome and find it easy to assimilate. Note that I'm not claiming it completely eliminates disharmony. Muslims in France for example are still ghettoised and anger still bubbles under the surface. Blacks still riot every so often in the States.

I can understand elements in the majority - some Republicans in the States, the Hindu Rashtra advocates here are getting resentful of what they consider appeasement and want to assert the privileges of their majority but I would urge both to reconsider. A society in which we are in open conflict with minorities could be much worse than what we are in now. Unless we are willing to go full China and be ruthless in suppression of minorities, it's better to sacrifice a little especially in areas where the majority is not losing out but the minority is gaining to get a better working society. Else we have a real danger of ending up like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or even Sri Lanka (during the period when the Buddhists were being especially assertive) where no one from the outside wants to come.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I've resisted wading into this debate because it's so internal to India and the arguments so worn out on both sides that nobody's really changing their minds but I'll put in my bit in.

The burden for maintaining a modern, religiously, communally harmonious (notice I'm avoiding trigger words like s***r) State inevitably falls on the majority community/religion. The US for example is clearly a white, Christian majority state but despite whatever inherent advantages that this majority community gets, legally they're still clear on separation of Church and State and have several what you would call minority appeasement laws & regulations. The benefit from this is an open multi-cultural society where the minorities aren't (too) sullen and constantly causing trouble as well as one that attracts the best and the brightest because they feel welcome and find it easy to assimilate. Note that I'm not claiming it completely eliminates disharmony. Muslims in France for example are still ghettoised and anger still bubbles under the surface. Blacks still riot every so often in the States.

Yet again you are lazily applying european context to India. Why was separation of state and church needed? because church was too big. Was it ever the case in india where 1. There was a church equivalent for hindus? and 2. It was so big that even kings had to follow it?

 

[Red-Indian]

Yet again you are lazily applying european context to India. Why was separation of state and church needed? because church was too big. Was it ever the case in india where 1. There was a church equivalent for hindus? and 2. It was so big that even kings had to follow it?

I could go hunt for those examples and I assure you that though Hindu rulers in general didn't take religion too seriously, there are a few Hindu/Buddhist kings who took their responsibilities as protector of the Dharma seriously enough to persecute minorities. One of the big reasons why there was a major migration of Jains to the south & west for example was persecution in certain kingdoms in the North.

The principle is bigger though. I think there are genuine reasons why it is better for the Church/Temple/Mosque not to get involved in State affairs. The motivations are different, the morality is different. If you are convinced that Hinduism can be the one religion in the world where it can be the State religion and yet stay minimally involved in State matters, I'll admire your optimism but stay unsure. There's too many examples on the other side where religion has overreached.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I could go hunt for those examples and I assure you that though Hindu rulers in general didn't take religion too seriously, there are a few Hindu/Buddhist kings who took their responsibilities as protector of the Dharma seriously enough to persecute minorities. One of the big reasons why there was a major migration of Jains to the south & west for example was persecution in certain kingdoms in the North.

The principle is bigger though. I think there are genuine reasons why it is better for the Church/Temple/Mosque not to get involved in State affairs. The motivations are different, the morality is different. If you are convinced that Hinduism can be the one religion in the world where it can be the State religion and yet stay minimally involved in State matters, I'll admire your optimism but stay unsure. There's too many examples on the other side where religion has overreached.

Again shows your lazy equivalence. Putting Church Temple and Mosque together. In Christian societies there were Church and King, with Church more powerful than the king. In Islam, Mosque is not the equivalent of Church, it is merely a place where people assemble to worship. In Islam, Islam IS the church AND the king, Islam is a political system and a religion, so there is no separation. It is one and the same. There is no Temple equivalent of Church. No temple was ever big enough to challenge the king. Kings may have been religious, but not because some Temple dictated them to be, or they had to take orders from the Temple.

Lazy, really. You should read more.

 

[Red-Indian]

Again shows your lazy equivalence. Putting Church Temple and Mosque together. In Christian societies there were Church and King, with Church more powerful than the king. In Islam, Mosque is not the equivalent of Church, it is merely a place where people assemble to worship. In Islam, Islam IS the church AND the king, Islam is a political system and a religion, so there is no separation. It is one and the same. There is no Temple equivalent of Church. No temple was ever big enough to challenge the king. Kings may have been religious, but not because some Temple dictated them to be, or they had to take orders from the Temple.

Lazy, really. You should read more.

I read plenty thank you. My wife would divorce me if I read more.

If you would credit me with a little more than basic childlike literality, you would interpret my usage of the terms Church/Mosque/Temple as shorthand for the influence of religion and specifically the State religion. Not every religion has a central organising force like the Catholic church yet they're able to exert outsize influence on the State through various mechanism - the prime example being Islam as you just said.

Islam may be Political system and religion in theory but it is still capable of separating Church and State. Turkey did it for years. Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population but it does not have an official State religion. There are provinces that have become more explicitly religious but they are also able to accommodate extremely Hindu Bali in their tent.

Despite my best efforts though, you've pulled me into a tangential discussion and added personal abuse disguised as advice. You've still to contest my main point that it's better for religion to stay out of State. It doesn't need to be perfect but if you're able to maintain at least the fig leaf, it creates a better environment for the State to flourish.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I read plenty thank you. My wife would divorce me if I read more.

If you would credit me with a little more than basic childlike literality, you would interpret my usage of the terms Church/Mosque/Temple as shorthand for the influence of religion and specifically the State religion. Not every religion has a central organising force like the Catholic church yet they're able to exert outsize influence on the State through various mechanism - the prime example being Islam as you just said.

Islam may be Political system and religion in theory but it is still capable of separating Church and State. Turkey did it for years. Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population but it does not have an official State religion. There are provinces that have become more explicitly religious but they are also able to accommodate extremely Hindu Bali in their tent.

Despite my best efforts though, you've pulled me into a tangential discussion and added personal abuse disguised as advice. You've still to contest my main point that it's better for religion to stay out of State. It doesn't need to be perfect but if you're able to maintain at least the fig leaf, it creates a better environment for the State to flourish.

I don't want a state religion in India either. We can be like Indonesia, if that is your role model of separation of religion. I would be happy.

Which were the last 5 books you read?

 

[Stewie]

I've resisted wading into this debate because it's so internal to India and the arguments so worn out on both sides that nobody's really changing their minds but I'll put in my bit in.

The burden for maintaining a modern, religiously, communally harmonious (notice I'm avoiding trigger words like s***r) State inevitably falls on the majority community/religion. The US for example is clearly a white, Christian majority state but despite whatever inherent advantages that this majority community gets, legally they're still clear on separation of Church and State and have several what you would call minority appeasement laws & regulations. The benefit from this is an open multi-cultural society where the minorities aren't (too) sullen and constantly causing trouble as well as one that attracts the best and the brightest because they feel welcome and find it easy to assimilate. Note that I'm not claiming it completely eliminates disharmony. Muslims in France for example are still ghettoised and anger still bubbles under the surface. Blacks still riot every so often in the States.

I can understand elements in the majority - some Republicans in the States, the Hindu Rashtra advocates here are getting resentful of what they consider appeasement and want to assert the privileges of their majority but I would urge both to reconsider. A society in which we are in open conflict with minorities could be much worse than what we are in now. Unless we are willing to go full China and be ruthless in suppression of minorities, it's better to sacrifice a little especially in areas where the majority is not losing out but the minority is gaining to get a better working society. Else we have a real danger of ending up like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or even Sri Lanka (during the period when the Buddhists were being especially assertive) where no one from the outside wants to come.

These ideas are lost on some people here. The same Indian Hindus I have seen vociferously back Modi and crying of minority appeasement in my social circles, denounce white nationalists and Trump a few minutes later.

 

[FearlessRoar]

The Union Home Ministry on Friday launched a mobile app that will allow eligible people to apply for Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, officials said.

According to a Home Ministry spokesperson, the application can be downloaded from the Google Play Store or the website -- indiancitizenshiponline.nic.in.

"The 'CAA-2019' Mobile App for making applications under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 becomes operational," the spokesperson said.

Earlier, the Home Ministry launched a portal for eligible people to apply for Indian citizenship under the CAA.

The rules for implementation of the CAA were notified on Monday, paving the way for granting citizenship to undocumented non-Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

After the CAA rules were issued, the Narendra Modi government will now start granting Indian nationality to persecuted non-Muslim migrants from the three countries who came to India till December 31, 2014. These include Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians.

Centre Launches Mobile App For Applicants Seeking Citizenship Under CAA

The Union Home Ministry on Friday launched a mobile app that will allow eligible people to apply for Indian citizenship under the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019, officials said.

www.ndtv.com

 

[Red-Indian]

I don't want a state religion in India either. We can be like Indonesia, if that is your role model of separation of religion. I would be happy.

Which were the last 5 books you read?

It's not my role model. That would be Scandinavia but sure I can live with the Indonesian model too if that's the lowest common denominator. Just don't take us down to the level of the likes of Pakistan religion and state-wide.

I'm a little shamed to admit my recent reading since I seem to have returned to some escapism in Science Fiction. I'll keep the really schlocky stuff secret out of embarassment but of the better stuff, I recently got around to Crytonomicon my Neal Stephenson and Rainbows End by Vernon Vinge. Of the non-fiction stuff, I suppose Twelve Caesars by Mary Beard was great and of course Lords of the Deccan on my favourite subject by one of the blazing new comets in Indian historical writing - Anirudh Kanisetty.

 

[Red-Indian]

These ideas are lost on some people here. The same Indian Hindus I have seen vociferously back Modi and crying of minority appeasement in my social circles, denounce white nationalists and Trump a few minutes later.

Not just here. Everywhere. The people who actually think about this stuff are turning increasingly extremist. Smart guys like Cricket Cartoons think they're warriors in some ancient religious war and mods on this forum gloat because they think most Afghan refugees are thieves and need to be driven out of Pakistan.

I'm increasingly coming to believe we need to depend on sheep to save sanity. Folks who don't care about this deeply enough to think about it beyond a few superficial go with the flow views.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Not just here. Everywhere. The people who actually think about this stuff are turning increasingly extremist. Smart guys like Cricket Cartoons think they're warriors in some ancient religious war and mods on this forum gloat because they think most Afghan refugees are thieves and need to be driven out of Pakistan.

I'm increasingly coming to believe we need to depend on sheep to save sanity. Folks who don't care about this deeply enough to think about it beyond a few superficial go with the flow views.

I don't denounce white nationalists, or islamists or zionists. Each one of them either wants to protect its turf or expand it. I simply want to protect the little turf I have. If that makes me an extremist, so be it. Labels don't bother me.

I supported taliban when they were sending american and british soldiers in body bags ( cannot be bothered to dig out those posts), and I support hamas (although my support means nothing tangible). I want to see islam flourish in pakistan. I don't express glee at the death of muslims, although I feel hard to find any emotion over death. I have seen so many deaths ands cremated bodies that I don't see death as tragic, except when it of kids. Death is inevitable reality, and we don't come with a guarantee of so many years to live. I could be dead tomorrow. The only thing I care about is that while I live, I should live with honour, whatever be the cost, even if I am at the losing end. That is why I hate sheep who think they are being neutral, but are actually living a life of no purpose and no honour.

 

[CricketCartoons]

These ideas are lost on some people here. The same Indian Hindus I have seen vociferously back Modi and crying of minority appeasement in my social circles, denounce white nationalists and Trump a few minutes later.

You should know it better than anyone else. Same people lamenting erosion of secularism among indians are proud to have islamic nations. Same people wanting conservative in their home countries supporting liberals where they are a minority.

This is not hypocrisy. This is doing whatever it takes to protect your civilization. You would know it better than anyone else.

 

[cricketjoshila]

I've resisted wading into this debate because it's so internal to India and the arguments so worn out on both sides that nobody's really changing their minds but I'll put in my bit in.

The burden for maintaining a modern, religiously, communally harmonious (notice I'm avoiding trigger words like s***r) State inevitably falls on the majority community/religion. The US for example is clearly a white, Christian majority state but despite whatever inherent advantages that this majority community gets, legally they're still clear on separation of Church and State and have several what you would call minority appeasement laws & regulations. The benefit from this is an open multi-cultural society where the minorities aren't (too) sullen and constantly causing trouble as well as one that attracts the best and the brightest because they feel welcome and find it easy to assimilate. Note that I'm not claiming it completely eliminates disharmony. Muslims in France for example are still ghettoised and anger still bubbles under the surface. Blacks still riot every so often in the States.

I can understand elements in the majority - some Republicans in the States, the Hindu Rashtra advocates here are getting resentful of what they consider appeasement and want to assert the privileges of their majority but I would urge both to reconsider. A society in which we are in open conflict with minorities could be much worse than what we are in now. Unless we are willing to go full China and be ruthless in suppression of minorities, it's better to sacrifice a little especially in areas where the majority is not losing out but the minority is gaining to get a better working society. Else we have a real danger of ending up like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or even Sri Lanka (during the period when the Buddhists were being especially assertive) where no one from the outside wants to come.

So, Hindus get no choice? They have to put up with muslim appeasement. What kind of system this is that the majority gets punished?

The blacks were brought forcefully to USA and made slaves. Does it apply to Muslims in India?.That Hindus today have to pay for it?

In 1947 Muslims got their land. And Hindus still have to carry the burden of secularism? Did anyone ask them if they want to?

This is the reason why leftists pseudo liberals are failing. Because all these silly reasons you put in.

And btw in Hinduism there is no concept of political power like Church had in Europe.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So, Hindus get no choice? They have to put up with muslim appeasement. What kind of system this is that the majority gets punished?

The blacks were brought forcefully to USA and made slaves. Does it apply to Muslims in India?.That Hindus today have to pay for it?

In 1947 Muslims got their land. And Hindus still have to carry the burden of secularism? Did anyone ask them if they want to?

This is the reason why leftists pseudo liberals are failing. Because all these silly reasons you put in.

And btw in Hinduism there is no concept of political power like Church had in Europe.

How are majority getting punished in Bharat while Muslims are getting appeasement? Give me an example so I can see where you might be coming from.

 

[RexRex]

BJP has absolute majority in lok sabha. If they wanted, they would have implemented Hindu constitution already.
Fear mongering is what left and communists do.

As my post states, the BJP will wait until public sentiment has reached a sufficient threshold otherwise they would just look foolish i.e world opinion would go against them and southern states will likely rebel. When somebody tells you who they are, believe them.

 

[cricketjoshila]

As my post states, the BJP will wait until public sentiment has reached a sufficient threshold otherwise they would just look foolish i.e world opinion would go against them and southern states will likely rebel. When somebody tells you who they are, believe them.

World opinion?

Did the world opinion matter when countries became Islamic or Buddhist or Christian or Jewish?

Southern states will rebel? That's some disconnect from the reality.

 

[cricketjoshila]

How are majority getting punished in Bharat while Muslims are getting appeasement? Give me an example so I can see where you might be coming from.

Article 30

Wakf law

HRCE acts

Personal laws

Political parties not letting law function against Muslims.

 

[anikrc1]

World opinion?

Did the world opinion matter when countries became Islamic or Buddhist or Christian or Jewish?

Southern states will rebel? That's some disconnect from the reality.

Try to make India Hindu Rashtra and see what happens in Bengal. Warning, you will not like it.

 

[FearlessRoar]

India should demonstrate it is genuinely committed to protect asylum seekers, says HRW on contentious CAA​

Earlier this week, India implemented the contentious 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), sparking sporadic protests and a war of words between Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and opposition groups weeks before national elections are held.

Thousands of people across India protested the law, fearing it could be used to disenfranchise Indian Muslims and strip them of their citizenship rights.

In Chennai, Tamil Nadu’s capital, protesters took out a candlelight march and shouted slogans against the law.

In Assam, protesters burnt copies of the law and shouted slogans on Monday night, and local opposition parties have called for a state-wide strike on Tuesday.

Many oppose the CAA in Assam as it can increase migration from neighboring Muslim Bangladesh, a longstanding flashpoint that has polarized the state for decades.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist), which rules the southern state of Kerala, had called for state-wide protests on Tuesday.

However, there were no reports of damage or clashes with security forces.

The statement said the authorities deployed many security personnel in Delhi and Assam.

In 2019, the police used excessive force to crush protests against the law and clash communales, killing 53 people in New Delhi, most of them Muslim.

The act, originally approved by the Indian parliament in 2019, offers a fast track to citizenship for religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who arrived in India before December 31, 2014.

Specifically, it applies to Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Christians, but not Muslims. These individuals are now encouraged to seek citizenship through an online application process.

Pakistan condemned the act, labelling it a discriminatory move by a “Hindu fascist state” aimed at presenting India as a sanctuary for persecuted non-Muslim minorities from neighbouring countries.

According to HRW, the Indian Supreme Court has yet to hear petitions challenging the amendments for religious bias and violating fundamental rights.

It said that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern over the law, calling it a “breach of India’s international human rights obligations” and labelling the act as “fundamentally discriminatory”.

It pointed out that India has protected many people fleeing persecution but members of the majority can also face persecution, such as Afghans at risk fleeing the Taliban.

“It should ratify the refugee convention, establish non-discriminatory refugee law and asylum procedures, and establish a path to citizenship for all recognised refugees without regard to their religion,” the statement said.

India should demonstrate it is genuinely committed to protect asylum seekers, says HRW on contentious CAA

Says India should establish a path to citizenship for all recognised refugees without regard to their religion.

www.dawn.com

 

[Romali_rotti]

Try to make India Hindu Rashtra and see what happens in Bengal. Warning, you will not like it.

This I agree with, this will not go down well with my fraud Mamata ammayi, as she needs illegal immigrants coming from Bangladesh to keep her vote bank.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Article 30

Wakf law

HRCE acts

Personal laws

Political parties not letting law function against Muslims.

Can you explain how those laws are punishing majority?

 

[Red-Indian]

So, Hindus get no choice? They have to put up with muslim appeasement. What kind of system this is that the majority gets punished?

The blacks were brought forcefully to USA and made slaves. Does it apply to Muslims in India?.That Hindus today have to pay for it?

In 1947 Muslims got their land. And Hindus still have to carry the burden of secularism? Did anyone ask them if they want to?

This is the reason why leftists pseudo liberals are failing. Because all these silly reasons you put in.

And btw in Hinduism there is no concept of political power like Church had in Europe.

Of course Hindus have a choice. I saw the list of your grievances above. Most of them can be resolved without bothering the minorities.

For example, the Civil code. If you feel that you prefer some of the provisions in Muslim personal law (which I personally feel is archaic and needs modernization), feel free to campaign for the changes in the Hindu code.

Similarly if you prefer the corrupt way the Wakf boards are governed rather than Hindu religious institutions under HRCE, sure fight for that. I warn you that you'll face a lot of opposition from the Hindu community though. I don't go to temples myself but my entire family is all praise for government administration of temples like Tirumala compared to the anarchic way they were run earlier.

The one I have some sympathy for is Article 30 since it does impact others. I think though that this one can be changed without too much fuss. Some educational institutions might protest especially convents schools etc. but if the government has the will, consensus can be built.

Overall though, my point is that the 'burden' I'm suggesting the majority carry isn't as big as your resentments are making it out to be.

 

[RexRex]

Can you explain how those laws are punishing majority?

I asked joshilla the same thing but never got a response.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Overall though, my point is that the 'burden' I'm suggesting the majority carry isn't as big as your resentments are making it out to be.

Brahmins are a minority. Why does not the majority in Tamil Nadu carry the burden to be inclusive instead of having their politics centered on tambrahm hatred?

 

[rpant_gabba]

For example, the Civil code. If you feel that you prefer some of the provisions in Muslim personal law (which I personally feel is archaic and needs modernization), feel free to campaign for the changes in the Hindu code.

So what happens if a couple is interfaith?

I'm a bit surprised with this line of arguments from you. LAst nation to have th system which you suggest was yougoslavia, where they had separate systems for Kosova, Albania, Serbia and croatia etc etc. It was hunky dory while strongman Tito was there. you know what happened after

Any governance system which caters to the fairy tales (read religious belief) of each group is a recipe for disaster

Similarly if you prefer the corrupt way the Wakf boards are governed rather than Hindu religious institutions under HRCE, sure fight for that. I warn you that you'll face a lot of opposition from the Hindu community though. I don't go to temples myself but my entire family is all praise for government administration of temples like Tirumala compared to the anarchic way they were run earlier.

Think what is refereing to the waqf board is there ability claim ownership of land/propert just becos a musim prayer was held in it at somepoint

The one I have some sympathy for is Article 30 since it does impact others. I think though that this one can be changed without too much fuss. Some educational institutions might protest especially convents schools etc. but if the government has the will, consensus can be built.

is that a big issue?

Overall though, my point is that the 'burden' I'm suggesting the majority carry isn't as big as your resentments are making it out to be.

not sure. it all adds up to be too much if you add religion based quota system

 

[cricketjoshila]

I asked joshilla the same thing but never got a response.

This is the problem. Foreigners have no knowledge of Indian laws and want to be spoonfed.

Read the laws, much is self explanatory.

 

[cricketjoshila]

India should demonstrate it is genuinely committed to protect asylum seekers, says HRW on contentious CAA​

Earlier this week, India implemented the contentious 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), sparking sporadic protests and a war of words between Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government and opposition groups weeks before national elections are held.

Thousands of people across India protested the law, fearing it could be used to disenfranchise Indian Muslims and strip them of their citizenship rights.

In Chennai, Tamil Nadu’s capital, protesters took out a candlelight march and shouted slogans against the law.

In Assam, protesters burnt copies of the law and shouted slogans on Monday night, and local opposition parties have called for a state-wide strike on Tuesday.

Many oppose the CAA in Assam as it can increase migration from neighboring Muslim Bangladesh, a longstanding flashpoint that has polarized the state for decades.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist), which rules the southern state of Kerala, had called for state-wide protests on Tuesday.

However, there were no reports of damage or clashes with security forces.

The statement said the authorities deployed many security personnel in Delhi and Assam.

In 2019, the police used excessive force to crush protests against the law and clash communales, killing 53 people in New Delhi, most of them Muslim.

The act, originally approved by the Indian parliament in 2019, offers a fast track to citizenship for religious minorities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who arrived in India before December 31, 2014.

Specifically, it applies to Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Christians, but not Muslims. These individuals are now encouraged to seek citizenship through an online application process.

Pakistan condemned the act, labelling it a discriminatory move by a “Hindu fascist state” aimed at presenting India as a sanctuary for persecuted non-Muslim minorities from neighbouring countries.

According to HRW, the Indian Supreme Court has yet to hear petitions challenging the amendments for religious bias and violating fundamental rights.

It said that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed concern over the law, calling it a “breach of India’s international human rights obligations” and labelling the act as “fundamentally discriminatory”.

It pointed out that India has protected many people fleeing persecution but members of the majority can also face persecution, such as Afghans at risk fleeing the Taliban.

“It should ratify the refugee convention, establish non-discriminatory refugee law and asylum procedures, and establish a path to citizenship for all recognised refugees without regard to their religion,” the statement said.

India should demonstrate it is genuinely committed to protect asylum seekers, says HRW on contentious CAA

Says India should establish a path to citizenship for all recognised refugees without regard to their religion.

www.dawn.com

India isn't a signatory to refugees convention and will never be. It will always be our choice, who we let in who we don't.


Neither are we responsible for what Taliban does in Afghanistan to its majority population. Even without Taliban, minorities in Afghanistan weren't well off.

Persecuted minorities of Pakistan and BD were part of British India in 1947, suddenly one day they became secobd class citizens and suffer persecution. Many have come to India as refugees.

So all those who came to India till 2014 will now get citizenship.

Neither hrw or whatever NGO they are nor UN will decide who is given the citizenship of India.

 

[rpant_gabba]

India isn't a signatory to refugees convention and will never be. It will always be our choice, who we let in who we don't.


Neither are we responsible for what Taliban does in Afghanistan to its majority population. Even without Taliban, minorities in Afghanistan weren't well off.

Persecuted minorities of Pakistan and BD were part of British India in 1947, suddenly one day they became secobd class citizens and suffer persecution. Many have come to India as refugees.

So all those who came to India till 2014 will now get citizenship.

Neither hrw or whatever NGO they are nor UN will decide who is given the citizenship of India.

didn't us have some thing similar to CAA in the 80's. Trying to recall that information.

 

[Red-Indian]

Brahmins are a minority. Why does not the majority in Tamil Nadu carry the burden to be inclusive instead of having their politics centered on tambrahm hatred?

Wow, we're getting really exotic for our Pakistani audience here.

But I agree the reaction against Brahmins has gone way too far. It started as resentment against a smaller community that seemed to be doing really well because of historical advantages but the way politicians have used it stir up hatred can have dangerous consequences.

I hate to use the Jewish example because of all the baggage associated with it, especially here, but it's a decent corollary. A smaller inlooking community that did very well and suffered for it.

Overall, you're right. It might seem self-serving coming from someone like me who's of Brahmins heritage but the majority needs to learn to be less inclusive or they could loose a precious resource. Half (joking!) the tambrahms are in the States now.

 

[Red-Indian]

So what happens if a couple is interfaith?

I'm a bit surprised with this line of arguments from you. LAst nation to have th system which you suggest was yougoslavia, where they had separate systems for Kosova, Albania, Serbia and croatia etc etc. It was hunky dory while strongman Tito was there. you know what happened after

Any governance system which caters to the fairy tales (read religious belief) of each group is a recipe for disaster

Think what is refereing to the waqf board is there ability claim ownership of land/propert just becos a musim prayer was held in it at somepoint

is that a big issue?

not sure. it all adds up to be too much if you add religion based quota system

This is going to need a huge post to address so I'll split it up.

Let's take the Civil code issue first. Of course I hate the Muslim Personal Law. It's ridiculous and based on a 7th century book with minimum modern relevance. Its needs reforming but the desire and push has to come from within the community. I'm sure it will. Shah Bano was a Muslim as was the lady who won the case against triple talaq in the Supreme court.

One of my best managers, a Muslim Chartered Accountant that I give the plummest assignments to because she's so agressive with them got married (arranged by her family to someone in the community) under the Special Marriage Act to avoid the ridiculous inheritance laws under Muslim law where a future girl child could only inherit lesser than a fictional future male child.

When enough of these folks get together, they'll force change in the Laws. Imposition from the outside, especially from a right wing government who they're convinced doesn't have their best interests at heart, will only get their backs up and increase the resistance. Especially ham handed efforts like the ridiculous law in Uttarakhand.

I'll tackle Wakf and Educational institutions in a later post.

 

[rpant_gabba]

This is going to need a huge post to address so I'll split it up.

Let's take the Civil code issue first. Of course I hate the Muslim Personal Law. It's ridiculous and based on a 7th century book with minimum modern relevance. Its needs reforming but the desire and push has to come from within the community. I'm sure it will. Shah Bano was a Muslim as was the lady who won the case against triple talaq in the Supreme court.

One of my best managers, a Muslim Chartered Accountant that I give the plummest assignments to because she's so agressive with them got married (arranged by her family to someone in the community) under the Special Marriage Act to avoid the ridiculous inheritance laws under Muslim law where a future girl child could only inherit lesser than a fictional future male child.

When enough of these folks get together, they'll force change in the Laws. Imposition from the outside, especially from a right wing government who they're convinced doesn't have their best interests at heart, will only get their backs up and increase the resistance. Especially ham handed efforts like the ridiculous law in Uttarakhand.

I'll tackle Wakf and Educational institutions in a later post.

yes. so they want to tweak just what bothers them. screw that.

 

[Red-Indian]

yes. so they want to tweak just what bothers them. screw that.

Why? Doesn't hurt you. Let them work through it.

Also, you mentioned interfaith marriages. That's not been an issue for a long while. They're governed under the Special Marriage Act...not Hindu or Muslim personal laws.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Why? Doesn't hurt you. Let them work through it.

Also, you mentioned interfaith marriages. That's not been an issue for a long while. They're governed under the Special Marriage Act...not Hindu or Muslim personal laws.

this is a what is mine is mine and is yours is negotiable type situation. should not be encouraged.

 

[Red-Indian]

So what happens if a couple is interfaith?

I'm a bit surprised with this line of arguments from you. LAst nation to have th system which you suggest was yougoslavia, where they had separate systems for Kosova, Albania, Serbia and croatia etc etc. It was hunky dory while strongman Tito was there. you know what happened after

Any governance system which caters to the fairy tales (read religious belief) of each group is a recipe for disaster

Think what is refereing to the waqf board is there ability claim ownership of land/propert just becos a musim prayer was held in it at somepoint

is that a big issue?

not sure. it all adds up to be too much if you add religion based quota system

Let's talk about Wakf next. Again fully agreed. Most Wakf boards are incompetent and corrupt. The properties are encroached, yield little and are very poorly administered. Ideally, the whole thing needs to be professionalised. There was a judicial report 10 or so years ago that showed the return on investment for Wakf properties is less than 1%.

But again this touches on religious feelings and is very tough to fix from the outside. The property is from charitable donations and endowments from Muslim philanthropists not government grants. It's a crime how sincere donations are being wasted but it's not everyone's problem.

You've mentioned a common right wing bugbear. The occasional claims made by Wakf boards on what they consider historical Muslim property. It's a stupid law made under Narasimha Rao and has meant nothing in practice. In fact, the Supreme Court has made it more or less pointless by increasing the burden of proof. Point me to one successful resolution in favour of Wakf claims on land based on historical usage. In fact, the boards have lost huge lands to encroachments by local builders because of poor record-keeping and governance.

You can judge how irrelevant this is except on right-wing WhatsApp forwards by the fact that the Modi government hasn't bothered with eany changes to the law in 10 years of being in power

 

[Red-Indian]

this is a what is mine is mine and is yours is negotiable type situation. should not be encouraged.

I'm guessing you're jealous of Muslims being allowed Polygamy. Get out on the streets protesting for Hindu law to allow it as well. I'll join you as long as you can promise no photographs will get back to my wife.

 

[RexRex]

I'm guessing you're jealous of Muslims being allowed Polygamy. Get out on the streets protesting for Hindu law to allow it as well. I'll join you as long as you can promise no photographs will get back to my wife.

This is exactly what it is .. jealousy. Hindus are not being harmed in any way as being claimed by joshilla and cartoons. It's just petty jealousy.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I'm guessing you're jealous of Muslims being allowed Polygamy. Get out on the streets protesting for Hindu law to allow it as well. I'll join you as long as you can promise no photographs will get back to my wife.

You going for that is an indication that you don't have any good arguments.

I accept that as your meek surrender.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Why are the indian muslims not pushing for the islamic penal code for themselves in india.

I mean it is as valid as the other aspects of islam they want to be governed by

 

[Red-Indian]

You going for that is an indication that you don't have any good arguments.

I accept that as your meek surrender.

Sure I'm quite used to meek surrender. I'd just like to know to what. Your statement that separate personal laws should not be encouraged when I have given in detail why I think they should steadily disappear. I'm glad we're in agreement.

 

[RexRex]

This is the problem. Foreigners have no knowledge of Indian laws and want to be spoonfed.

Read the laws, much is self explanatory.

Another evasive reply.

I've come to realise u r ignorant on these topics and apart from spouting standard rightwing talking points, you likely don't know much about the issue in depth. Example - You said BJP coulldn't make national laws on religious institutions. This was blatantly false, I showed u an article link where a hight court judge said otherwise.

 

[Red-Indian]

Why are the indian muslims not pushing for the islamic penal code for themselves in india.

I mean it is as valid as the other aspects of islam they want to be governed by

I would've thought the answer would be obvious. Because they're brutal and archaic. Most Islamic states don't want them either.

As I've said most educated Muslims don't want the ridiculous Muslim personal laws as well. Despite all the noise against triple talaq, it was not the government but a Muslim lady who won the case against it in the Supreme court. Here's an article by a Muslim female journalist explaining why they need changing - Muslim Personal Law is an embarrassment. She's certainly not going to join with Right wing efforts in trying to change them though.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Another evasive reply.

Sure

I've come to realise u r ignorant on these topics and apart from spouting standard rightwing talking points, you likely don't know much about the issue in depth. Example - You said BJP coulldn't make national laws on religious institutions. This was blatantly false, I showed u an article link where a hight court judge said otherwise.

think you are confusing me some else chief.

Not sure why it is hard for you understand some of prefer uniform laws for everyone.

 

[rpant_gabba]

I would've thought the answer would be obvious. Because they're brutal and archaic. Most Islamic states don't want them either.

ah the good old cherry picking, similar to most religious folks.

As I've said most educated Muslims don't want the ridiculous Muslim personal laws as well. Despite all the noise against triple talaq, it was not the government but a Muslim lady who won the case against it in the Supreme court. Here's an article by a Muslim female journalist explaining why they need changing - Muslim Personal Law is an embarrassment. She's certainly not going to join with Right wing efforts in trying to change them though.

My point is, she sholdn't had to fight for it in the first place

 

[RexRex]

Sure

think you are confusing me some else chief.

huh ?

That was a reply to joshilla, did not quote you.

 

[rpant_gabba]

huh ?

That was a reply to joshilla, did not quote you.

oops. my bad about quoting you.

why on earth did i get a notification that you quoted my post

 

[rpant_gabba]

Sure I'm quite used to meek surrender. I'd just like to know to what. Your statement that separate personal laws should not be encouraged when I have given in detail why I think they should steadily disappear. I'm glad we're in agreement.

we disagree on the "steadiy" part and I question why they were there in the first place

Guess my beef is against what I would describe as the Gandhi-Nehru virus that has plagued indian society

those two clowns handicapped india as a nation with their ideology.

 

[Red-Indian]

ah the good old cherry picking, similar to most religious folks.

My point is, she sholdn't had to fight for it in the first place

Sure. I shouldn't have to fight for laws against the tens of thousands of litres poured on Idols and down drains for displays of religious piety in a country where millions still go hungry.

But I recognise I have to pick my battles. It's a sensitive issue and an atheist coming in and lecturing devotees won't help. It'll steadily get fixed.

 

[rpant_gabba]

Sure. I shouldn't have to fight for laws against the tens of thousands of litres poured on Idols and down drains for displays of religious piety in a country where millions still go hungry.

One of many things which led me to athiesm

If they chose to "worship" on that manner, that is their right. As long as they are not using tax payer money to do it, no govt should have the right to stop them.

bit like catholic priest taking a oath of poverty and living luxurious lives

My issue is that the church in Us exempt from taxation. If catholics are stupid enough to donate, it is their porblem

But I recognise I have to pick my battles. It's a sensitive issue and an atheist coming in and lecturing devotees won't help. It'll steadily get fixed.

you are making false equivalence.

you took equal laws from everyone to govt dictating the manner of worship.

not sure how that adds up

 

[Red-Indian]

One of many things which led me to athiesm

If they chose to "worship" on that manner, that is their right. As long as they are not using tax payer money to do it, no govt should have the right to stop them.

bit like catholic priest taking a oath of poverty and living luxurious lives

My issue is that the church in Us exempt from taxation. If catholics are stupid enough to donate, it is their porblem

you are making false equivalence.

you took equal laws from everyone to govt dictating the manner of worship.

not sure how that adds up

Fair enough bad example. Still you can't deny there are other laws specific to communities. Reservations for backward castes for instance.

Changes to religion driven laws have to have substantial drive from within the religion. The Brits were only able to bring laws against Sati and Child Marriage because Hindu social reformers were already campaigning hard for it. They wouldn't have been able to do it by themselves.

You want uniform laws for everyone. I'm right with you there. All I'm saying is wait. Don't turn it into a right-wing issue. Let the community want to fix it...then the government can help. Didn't triple-talaq (ridiculous law which wasn't even applied in an Islamic country like Pakistan by the way) get fixed?

 

[rpant_gabba]

Fair enough bad example. Still you can't deny there are other laws specific to communities. Reservations for backward castes for instance.

have issues with that too. Lived in the same street. our fathers worked together in the same factory. bought food at teh same stores nd went to the same school. some how govt decides that I had some advantage.

Changes to religion driven laws have to have substantial drive from within the religion. The Brits were only able to bring laws against Sati and Child Marriage because Hindu social reformers were already campaigning hard for it. They wouldn't have been able to do it by themselves.

You want uniform laws for everyone. I'm right with you there. All I'm saying is wait. Don't turn it into a right-wing issue. Let the community want to fix it...then the government can help. Didn't triple-talaq (ridiculous law which wasn't even applied in an Islamic country like Pakistan by the way) get fixed?

Right and left depends on which country you are in.

In US I'd be called left wing librul for my contempt for religion.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Fair enough bad example. Still you can't deny there are other laws specific to communities. Reservations for backward castes for instance.

Changes to religion driven laws have to have substantial drive from within the religion. The Brits were only able to bring laws against Sati and Child Marriage because Hindu social reformers were already campaigning hard for it. They wouldn't have been able to do it by themselves.

You want uniform laws for everyone. I'm right with you there. All I'm saying is wait. Don't turn it into a right-wing issue. Let the community want to fix it...then the government can help. Didn't triple-talaq (ridiculous law which wasn't even applied in an Islamic country like Pakistan by the way) get fixed?

So if a community doesn't want to fix something, the state should keep on waiting? Has the indian constitution followed bottom up approach in everything?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Don't turn it into a right-wing issue.

What do you understand from right wing? Right wing is protection of traditional values, conservatism.

Tell me what is your "definition"?

 

[CricketCartoons]

I'm guessing you're jealous of Muslims being allowed Polygamy. Get out on the streets protesting for Hindu law to allow it as well. I'll join you as long as you can promise no photographs will get back to my wife.

You agree this is against equality? Forget about who is jealous or not. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS AGAINST EQUALITY?

 

[Red-Indian]

You agree this is against equality? Forget about who is jealous or not. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS AGAINST EQUALITY?

No need to throw your capitals at me. I'll readily accept it's against equality. So are lots of other things. It's also against equality that I'm not allowed to eat a lovely, delicious, juicy, mmm...(sorry I got carried away there for a second) Beef steak in Pune while Mallus are munching away at it in Kerala.

I'll live with it though. I understand there's a bunch of weirdos who think the cow is their mom and I wouldn't want to offend them by eating their mother.

I also wish we could reform Muslim inheritance laws and ban polygamy but I'm willing to wait since I'm not sure Muslim women want it banned.

In fact I have more motivation to sign a petition on the first than the second since the second doesn't impact me personally at all.

 

[Red-Indian]

What do you understand from right wing? Right wing is protection of traditional values, conservatism.

Tell me what is your "definition"?

I don't care too much labels so use them a bit carelessly and interchangeably but yes I meant right wing Hindus.

 

[Red-Indian]

Since we're debating Indian issues semi-passionately here, I just wanted to share something that made me genuinely proud of Indian democracy today.

We had a voter id registration drive in our society today. It's a high-end apartment complex - not a home below half a million USD so you'd have expected apathy and the political party reps who were organising standing around bored.

But no. The place was chock-full of people carrying documents and trying to get their voter id issued/transferred in anticipation of voting next month.

Filled my heart with joy.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I asked joshilla the same thing but never got a response.

I'm not surprised. When you use language such as majority are being punished by laws made specifically to accomodate minority faiths, then you should be able to explain it. It's quite a definitive statement so shouldn't be too difficult. Now he is fudging by saying he can't be bothered to explain Indian laws to foreigners. Fine, then maybe don't come on a foreign site and make statements you can't back up.

 

[CricketCartoons]

No need to throw your capitals at me. I'll readily accept it's against equality. So are lots of other things. It's also against equality that I'm not allowed to eat a lovely, delicious, juicy, mmm...(sorry I got carried away there for a second) Beef steak in Pune while Mallus are munching away at it in Kerala.

I'll live with it though. I understand there's a bunch of weirdos who think the cow is their mom and I wouldn't want to offend them by eating their mother.

I also wish we could reform Muslim inheritance laws and ban polygamy but I'm willing to wait since I'm not sure Muslim women want it banned.

In fact I have more motivation to sign a petition on the first than the second since the second doesn't impact me personally at all.

Dietary rights are superseded by religious rights (religion single most important identity). Also rights are not absolute, and in certain situations one right supersedes another. For example, I like to make cartoons/caricatures (reason behind my username), but my right to make and publish cartoons of religious figures is superseded by others religious rights. So at least the conflict here can be explained.

What conflict can you explain for having polygamy for one and denying it another? Whose rights are in conflict if someone practices polygamy? The only explanation for this is muslim exceptionalism.

 

[Red-Indian]

Dietary rights are superseded by religious rights (religion single most important identity). Also rights are not absolute, and in certain situations one right supersedes another. For example, I like to make cartoons/caricatures (reason behind my username), but my right to make and publish cartoons of religious figures is superseded by others religious rights. So at least the conflict here can be explained.

What conflict can you explain for having polygamy for one and denying it another? Whose rights are in conflict if someone practices polygamy? The only explanation for this is muslim exceptionalism.

If you genuinely believe religious rights supercede other rights, you have your answer. Muslims are allowed Polygamy per their religious book so they have a religious right to it. Don't contest that. If you believe Hindu religion dictates they should have the same right, go to court or the court of public opinion and fight for it.

On the other hand, I don't place much stock in religious rights. If you don't want to eat beef, don't. Don't force others not to. However both in this case, the case of religious caricatures and in the case of Muslim personal law, I'm okay with exceptions since they are sensitive matters which touch deeply on people's identity and feelings. I still hope society moves towards rationality, treats religion as the joke it is and gets rid of these rules and laws but I'm willing to be patient as long as they don't impinge deeply on personal freedoms. The day they propose a law that does, I'll be out on the streets with hopefully millions of others.

 

[CricketCartoons]

If you genuinely believe religious rights supercede other rights, you have your answer. Muslims are allowed Polygamy per their religious book so they have a religious right to it. Don't contest that. If you believe Hindu religion dictates they should have the same right, go to court or the court of public opinion and fight for it.

On the other hand, I don't place much stock in religious rights. If you don't want to eat beef, don't. Don't force others not to. However both in this case, the case of religious caricatures and in the case of Muslim personal law, I'm okay with exceptions since they are sensitive matters which touch deeply on people's identity and feelings. I still hope society moves towards rationality, treats religion as the joke it is and gets rid of these rules and laws but I'm willing to be patient as long as they don't impinge deeply on personal freedoms. The day they propose a law that does, I'll be out on the streets with hopefully millions of others.

I am not contesting muslims rights. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy and unequality that is the rotten indian constitution. Glad that you also agree.

Whether I go to court or fight for it is irrelevant to the discussion. What you would do and what I would do is completely irrelevant. What is relevant that the indian constitution favours one community over the other.

Regarding your hope for society, let me break it to you. Religion is not going anywhere. Indian Muslims and Christians are not becoming atheists in India (Western christians may become less religious). Indian hindus were becoming irreligious, but the tide has turned, and the numbers will only grow. Those hindus who spit on what their ancestors stood for and died for will be a fringe. That spineless group deserves nothing else but the ignominy of irrelevance.

 

[cricketjoshila]

This is exactly what it is .. jealousy. Hindus are not being harmed in any way as being claimed by joshilla and cartoons. It's just petty jealousy.

Its the question of one community being allowed to have personal laws outside the constitution and other's having to follow the constitution.

In a secular country there cannot be such differentiation.

FYI the original constitution of 1950 allowed personal laws of every religion.

But Nehru later codified the Hindus under Hindu marriage act and let Muslims retain their personal laws outside the constitution.

Jealousy? For what? For asking for uniform laws?

 

[Red-Indian]

I am not contesting muslims rights. I am only pointing out the hypocrisy and unequality that is the rotten indian constitution. Glad that you also agree.

Whether I go to court or fight for it is irrelevant to the discussion. What you would do and what I would do is completely irrelevant. What is relevant that the indian constitution favours one community over the other.

Then I guess we've gone full circle and ended up agreeing with each other again. The Indian constitution is not perfect and minorities are getting certain privileges that hardly affect the majority.

Regarding your hope for society, let me break it to you. Religion is not going anywhere. Indian Muslims and Christians are not becoming atheists in India (Western christians may become less religious). Indian hindus were becoming irreligious, but the tide has turned, and the numbers will only grow. Those hindus who spit on what their ancestors stood for and died for will be a fringe. That spineless group deserves nothing else but the ignominy of irrelevance.

This part I'll ignore as the usual diatribe from a young guy who's still full of the fire of his convictions. I actually admire it. If the young didn't have passions, where would we be?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Then I guess we've gone full circle and ended up agreeing with each other again. The Indian constitution is not perfect and minorities are getting certain privileges that hardly affect the majority.


This part I'll ignore as the usual diatribe from a young guy who's still full of the fire of his convictions. I actually admire it. If the young didn't have passions, where would we be?

I am not saying constitution is imperfect, all constitutions are. So don't try to dilute the problem by making it a generic one.

I am saying that the constitution discriminates against hindus, by denying them their rights. And instead of saying that the consitution discriminates AGAINST hindus, you either make a soft statement that "constitution is not perfect", or the more sly one "hindus are jealous".

 

[CricketCartoons]

This is exactly what it is .. jealousy. Hindus are not being harmed in any way as being claimed by joshilla and cartoons. It's just petty jealousy.

Indian muslims are no way being harmed by CAA. So it is just petty jealousy?

 

[Stewie]

I'm not surprised. When you use language such as majority are being punished by laws made specifically to accomodate minority faiths, then you should be able to explain it. It's quite a definitive statement so shouldn't be too difficult. Now he is fudging by saying he can't be bothered to explain Indian laws to foreigners. Fine, then maybe don't come on a foreign site and make statements you can't back up.

You won’t get an honest response on that front.

 

[RexRex]

Its the question of one community being allowed to have personal laws outside the constitution and other's having to follow the constitution.

In a secular country there cannot be such differentiation.

FYI the original constitution of 1950 allowed personal laws of every religion.

But Nehru later codified the Hindus under Hindu marriage act and let Muslims retain their personal laws outside the constitution.

Jealousy? For what? For asking for uniform laws?

Ah you're back. Happy to respond but first -

Please answer the original question that was put to you earlier by Rishwat which was - 'Can you explain how these laws are punishing the majority?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

You won’t get an honest response on that front.

When it comes to fronting jingo bingo propaganda on behalf of your inadequate nation then shame has no place.

 

[RexRex]

Indian muslims are no way being harmed by CAA. So it is just petty jealousy?

CAA is not something I have a strong opinion on. The jealousy bit was referring to the muslim personal laws.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Ah you're back. Happy to respond but first -

Please answer the original question that was put to you earlier by Rishwat which was - 'Can you explain how these laws are punishing the majority?

Really? Joshila Dada already gave examples of the laws favouring muslims and denying hindus their freedom. To which Capt. asked if he could explain how these were punishing the majority. That was a humble question of someone admitting ignorance and wanting more information. But you seem to be thinking it was a clever question which has exposed that hindus are not being denied their freedom. Is that what you think?

Joshila Dada, I know you are busy. But since I am jobless and only spend my time enjoying finer joys of life, do you mind if I reply to all and sundry on your behalf?

 

[CricketCartoons]

CAA is not something I have a strong opinion on. The jealousy bit was referring to the muslim personal laws.

You are not a muslim, so why would you have a strong opinion on it. Since CAA is not taking away anything from indian muslims, their opposition to it must mean petty jealousy, no?

 

[CricketCartoons]

When it comes to fronting jingo bingo propaganda on behalf of your inadequate nation then shame has no place.

So coming back to you. How is CAA punishing the indian muslims.

Some days back you made statements on CAA which were wrong (to your credit, you accepted that). So I am asking now, how does the CAA law punish indian muslims.

@RexRex you are also free to answer.

 

[RexRex]

That was a humble question of someone admitting ignorance and wanting more information. But you seem to be thinking it was a clever question which has exposed that hindus are not being denied their freedom. Is that what you think?

Mine was a humble question too of ignorance and wanting more information.

 

[RexRex]

Since CAA is not taking away anything from indian muslims, their opposition to it must mean petty jealousy, no?

Does it ? Where did I say that ?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Does it ? Where did I say that ?

jealousy was your theory. You said hindus are jealous because muslims have some law in their favour. So why doesnt the same theory apply on CAA? Or does your theory have double standards?

 

[CricketCartoons]

Mine was a humble question too of ignorance and wanting more information.

There was no humility, but that is your right. You can treat me as Joshila dada's minion and tag me to any question you ask him. You will get a faster response, as he has a life outside, and all of my hobbies keep me indoors.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So coming back to you. How is CAA punishing the indian muslims.

Some days back you made statements on CAA which were wrong (to your credit, you accepted that). So I am asking now, how does the CAA law punish indian muslims.

@RexRex you are also free to answer.

I don't recall making any statements that CAA laws are punishing Muslims. Looking back to the OP there is something about some BJP minister saying Pakistan should also make counter laws to give refuge to Indian Muslims so from that the long term intent would seem to be swap remaining minorities in the subcontinent so the hindus reside in Bharat and the Muslims are all in Pakistan.

The only reference to punishment to anyone in India was by @cricketjoshila when he claimed that existing laws punished the majority. I never made any such reference as far as I know.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I don't recall making any statements that CAA laws are punishing Muslims. Looking back to the OP there is something about some BJP minister saying Pakistan should also make counter laws to give refuge to Indian Muslims so from that the long term intent would seem to be swap remaining minorities in the subcontinent so the hindus reside in Bharat and the Muslims are all in Pakistan.

The only reference to punishment to anyone in India was by @cricketjoshila when he claimed that existing laws punished the majority. I never made any such reference as far as I know.

I apologize for any confusion. There is something about you that I lose some of my aggro when responding to you. Planning a London/Paris trip in few months.

 

[RexRex]

You said hindus are jealous because muslims have some law in their favour. So why doesnt the same theory apply on CAA?

Isn't the CAA realistically a pro-Hindu law ? In which case, most hindus would be enthusiastic about it and muslims won't. So how does jealousy factor in ?

 

[RexRex]

You can treat me as Joshila dada's minion and tag me to any question you ask him. You will get a faster response, as he has a life outside, and all of my hobbies keep me indoors.

You are free to reply to any of my posts, tagged or not, nobody is stopping you. I am always up for a discussion.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Isn't the CAA realistically a pro-Hindu law ? In which case, most hindus would be enthusiastic about it and muslims won't. So how does jealousy factor in ?

CAA is a pro religious minority law. Why are indian muslims opposing it when it does not take away anything from them? If not jealousy, what is your new theory to explain this.

It is not just not being enthusiastic. They are actively opposing it. Shaheen bagh was not to show less enthusiasm.

So let us hear what your double standards theory explain it, if not jealousy?