Rohingyas are genuine refugees that have been oppressed. That bill codifies that Muslims cannot be oppressed, which is a patently false observation that a supposedly secular country should not have to resolve to.

That would sure seem to be the case unless you see from where refugees are allowed. They are not allowed from all over the world, only areas dealing with partition or Indian history.

Rohingya is in immediate neighbourhood, you don't have to circumnavigate the globe from Myanmar. India and Myanmar share a border.

I am saying again and again partition and Indian history. Nepal is also a border state. China is also a border state, uighurs aren’t included.

Maybe familiarise yourself with Indian geography; you see between Xinjiang and India, there is this mountain range called Himalayas. Pretty big mountains those ones. Nepal has no internal disturbances, and India-Nepal border is absolutely open allowing free flow of people.

You know people can travel to different countries which are separated by mountains, oceans, deserts right? But those people won’t get citizenship unless the partition and Indian history part holds.

My family is Ahmedi. We left India in 1947. Pakistan stripped us of our right to vote in 1974-84. I guess we can't be oppressed there, chief. Congratulations on your airtight logic.

> I guess we can't be oppressed there, chief. Congratulations on your airtight logic.

Please don't snark on HN. It's against the site guidelines and degrades your serious point.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I am sorry, I forgot about that. It's not feasible though, at least in the present scenario. I wish it was different.