Why would the protests be occurring most strongly in predominately Muslim areas? This is backed up by numerous international media reports, including comments from people who are protesting.
"NEW DELHI—Protests against a new citizenship law favoring non-Muslim immigrants erupted in violence in a Muslim-dominated part of the Indian capital where communal tensions have flared in the past, as the prime minister appealed for calm.
“People are opposing this law because it discriminates against the Muslims,” said Chaudhary Mateen Ahmad, a former Congress party legislator in the Delhi Assembly from Seelampur, the northeastern Delhi area where protest violence broke out on Tuesday afternoon. “They are saying the law should treat everyone equally; there should be no discrimination.”
The new law eases the path to citizenship for individuals from persecuted religious groups from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, but only if they aren’t Muslim. That distinction has set off alarm in India’s 200-million strong Muslim community, who say the law, along with a separate national registry, could be used to disenfranchise many Muslims. The law has also alarmed Indians who view its singling out one religious group as betraying the country’s secular tradition of protecting all religious groups.
The protests on Tuesday followed weekend demonstrations by students and local residents near the Jamia Millia Islamia University in New Delhi, in which police chased protesters into the campus, fired tear gas and beat them with batons, injuring several students. Students in several Indian cities have been holding protests in support of the Jamia students."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/india-protests-against-new-law-...
And while Police action on Jamia students is condemnable, it must be noted that protestors did get violent and the Police had to resort to strong measures as a response.
This is not true at all. There are minority sects within Islam, depending on the country. The followers of those do get persecuted on religious grounds (look up Shias, Ahmediyas, etc.) by the majority.
In Pakistan Hindu teenagers are regularly abducted, converted to Islam and married away.
India is giving refuge to these people.
Muslims are not similarly persecuted in Islamic nations.
As I responded to another similar comment, this is not true at all. There are minority sects within Islam, depending on the country. The followers of those do get persecuted on religious grounds (look up Shias, Ahmediyas, etc.) by the majority.
But that is happening to Hindu, Sikh and other minorities.
The situation is different. Hindu & Sikh have just one home country, Shia have other Shia majority countries.
That is not true. Protestors are protesting the problems existing minorities (specifically Muslims) thanks to the combined power NRC and CAB gives to the government.
In short, You can stay in the country if you are non-minority (everyone except muslims) you dont have to product proof like ancestry and stuff. But if you are a minority, you got to produce proof, show your ancestors, and even after you do, you might be "admitted to camp" and after "investigation" you will be "asked to leave"
And that's the funny part. Where is such a person supposed to leave to? They were born in India, lived all their life in India. They have never seen another state let alone another country.
CAB + NRC is just a play to render millions of poor Indians 'Stateless'.
Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
> Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
By this rationale, couldn't one claim citizenship to any country? When I arrive at a foreign border I don't say, "Allow me entry, I am a citizen, prove otherwise."
I understand that further from the border this encroachment is less justified, but still I don't think citizenship is granted until proven otherwise.
We didn't arrive at the border today, we were born here, and now we are being asked to stand in line to submit documentary proofs of not only ours but of our parents and grandparents.
But if you're talking of your specific case, were your parents and/or grandparents born here or did they come to India after 1947?
The single point of controversy is whether the Citizenship Amendment Act can omit a refugee on the basis of religion. The supreme court can issue a ruling on this and end the matter.
If you have a specific reason to suspect and investigate an individual, that's a different matter.
That's not a requirement in this case.
People simply living in their hometown don’t have a choice.
India follows jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of blood) as opposed to the jus soli (citizenship by right of birth within the territory). The state cannot just assume that a person has the Right of blood.
Regarding 2 - the government handpicked only those countries which have Islam as state religion, and ignored others like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan and China.
The largest refugee population in India are Sri Lankan Hindu Tamils living for more than 30 years who were not included. Since including Sri Lanka would force them to include Myanmar which means Rohingyas will have to be accepted too.
The CAA is just a new political tool since Ram temple is now settled.
Politics like fire needs its fuel.
Who cares about Economic growth,
infrastructure,
health care,
education,
Unemployment,
Poverty,
Women safety,
Technological advancement,
Space exploration,
IIT/IIM students getting jobs abroad,
Farmers committing suicide,
Climate change,
Petrol price rising, &
All other useless things...
when we can argue and fight about our religion all day long?
/s
I don't support pan-India NRC. But Assam NRC was rooted in Assam Agitation that happened in the last century. It was in the direction of SC's decision in 2013 that has prompted the Govt. to conduct NRC in Assam. It's not a BJP invention.
> Regarding 2 - the government handpicked only those countries which have Islam as state religion, and ignored others like Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nepal, Bhutan and China.
The Govt. has chosen to address only religious persecution with this bill. India is pretty much entirely open for Nepalese and Bhutanese, so I don't see any reason to include them. India has accepted a large number of refugees from Sri Lanka (Tamils) and China (see Tibetan refugees). Both of them aren't victims of religious persecution. As for Myanmar, I think Government is fairly concerned due to violent acts of Rohingyas. Also, note that excluding Myanmar excludes Hindus from Myanmar too.
Every few days there is a report in Pak media where yet another Hindu teenager girl is abducted and converted to Islam.
It is India's right and duty to provide refuge to these people.
Surely you can't argue that Muslims are being prosecuted in such a manner in Islamic countries.
This applies to refugees from neighboring countries. What is wrong with that?
If that makes me a bigot, not sure how, but I'll take it.
2. You won't learn this from the media's narrative about it, but: the reason why most protestors are protesting the Citizenship Amendment is not because muslim refugees (from Pak., Bangla. and Afghan.) are excluded, but because everyone else (non-muslim refugees [i.e. persecuted religious minorities from these officially "Islamic states"]) is now automatically granted Indian citizenship. Protestors are worried about loss of jobs and demographic replacement by these new citizens. So, most protestors are not protesting muslim exclusion, they're protesting anyone's inclusion.