This is blatant disinformation by omitting context. The CAA itself is discriminatory, since it does not apply to muslims, but in the context of the National Register of Citizens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Citizens) it becomes even more sinister. The NRC requires people to prove their citizenship through documentation, which is very difficult for large parts of India's population, who might be straight up illiterate or lack any kind of documentation whatsoever. The CAA makes it easier for non-Muslims to claim citizenship while Muslims slip through the cracks; that is the point of contention.

> The CAA makes it easier for non-Muslims to claim citizenship while Muslims slip through the cracks; that is the point of contention.

No it doesn't. Here's the relevant part of CAA(http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf) that mentions non-Muslims

> Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014

If you are a non-Muslim who wants to get Indian citizenship under CAA, you must prove (1) you are a citizen of one of these neighboring countries and (2) you entered India before 2014. It is just not enough to not have papers to "slip through the cracks".

Dude, you literally are spreading false information and you're literally quoting one thing on one line and contradicting it on the second line.

CAA makes it easier for non Muslims. you say 'no it doesn't' and then you literaly cite this:

> Provided that any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan, who entered into India on or before the 31st day of December, 2014

Yeah, it specifically mentions Hindu, SIkh Buddhist Jain Parsi Christian. It leaves out MUSLIMS.

Let's go over. the law specifically excludes Muslims.

What does it mean? it fast tracks citizenship of ALL except MUSLIMS. meaning? it excludes Muslims

now comes the NRC, in this exercise, in Assam, they asked everyone to prove their citizenship by showing their grandfather's documents or ancesteral land documents. grandmother or parents document is not valid because what if your grandparents are illegal immigrants.

your documents like voter ID was NOT A VALID DOCUMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP because you have to prove that your GRANDFATHER WAS NOT AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT.

Assam NRC took thousands of crores of money to undertake. Just imagine what'll happen when everyone in India is asked to prove their grandfather's citizenship.

Nationwide NRC is different from NRC for Assam.

Nationwide NRC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Citizens) is mandated by 2003 Amendment of Citizenship act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2...). Look at the definition of illegal migrants there. It doesn't mention anything about your grandfather's papers.

Assam NRC is an entirely different beast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Register_of_Citizens_...). This was conducted as part of 2013 Supreme Court order. The entire process and the rules was prescribed and monitored by the Supreme court of India. The definition of illegal migrant is a far more stringent here since it hinges on 1971 Bangladeshi refugee crisis and subsequent bloody protests by the Assamese people.

The protest in Assam was/is not to include muslims. But, to exclude all illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. It seems, from Assam, CAA was brought to give citizenship to the hindu Bangladeshis that were left out of the NRC conducted in Assam.

> It leaves out MUSLIMS.

All those three countries in the context have Islam as their state religion. I would always welcome Muslim refugees in India but what was the point of partition if Muslims are suffering religious oppression in countries that were created as safe heavens for Muslims? Should we undo it?

And even recent searches show that minorities (the religions covered under the CAA) are not exactly doing better in those countries.

https://www.wionews.com/afghanistan/sikh-abducted-in-afghani...

https://theprint.in/opinion/letter-from-pakistan/pakistanis-...

This is post-facto legitimization of the logic of partition.

Why shouldn't we undo partition (if possible)?

Partition doesn't need legitimization. It has been legitimate since the day both nations recognized each other.

The guidelines for a nation wide NRC have not been formulated. What you're pedaling is nothing more than a conspiracy theory

I never said guidelines have been formulated but the Modi govt has said so in SC that a country wide NRC is necessary

"Centre Tells Supreme Court NRC Necessary, Contradicts Shah's 'No NRC' Declaration"

link: https://thewire.in/government/caa-counter-affidavit-centre

How does citing the official source of the truth become blatant disinformation? Did you read the Act? Your comment reads more like a rhetoric than a real argument based on logic and facts.

Please become more educated on this issue. Muslims are not a monolithic group, and being a Muslim does not protect you from persecution in Muslim majority countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Shi'ism

If the bill was meant to be secular, it could provide asylum for everyone suffering religious persecution, regardless of their religion. It clearly is designed to exclude muslims.

When India was divided, prime minsters of India and Pakistan [Liaquat–Nehru Pact] agreed on treating their respective minorities well. Without this agreement the minorities[Hindus, Sikhs etc in Pakistan] living in each country could have choose to move to the other[India in this case].

Hence passing CAA is just accepting the fact that Indias neighbors are not treating minorities well as they promised and delivering the promise that was made during independence.

> If the bill was meant to be secular, it could provide asylum for everyone suffering religious persecution, regardless of their religion. It clearly is designed to exclude muslims.

Here is the document in it's entirety - http://egazette.nic.in/WriteReadData/2019/214646.pdf.

Please point out the relevant sections of the document where it is stated that Muslims will not be allowed to apply for asylum or that Muslims will not be granted asylum.

It just accelerates the process for certain groups of people that are in more grave danger in the area. There's nothing wrong in that. Just because some groups are not mentioned for the accelerated process does not mean that they are excluded from the entire process.

Adding to your point

Rohingyas from Myanmar are not similar to Buddhists from Pakistan due to one single reason. Myanmar was not divided from India. Nor has Indian govt made any promise on protection anytime.

Hence India does not have any obligation to people from Myanmar apart from Humanitarian concern. That particular concern is common to all the world. If Europe or US have that concern, I do believe that they can accept Rohigyas similar to how they accepted a large number of Syrians

If the accelerated asylum process does not apply to Muslims (including Rohingyas and Ahmadiyas), why is that not discriminatory? Why is the plight of a Buddhist in Pakistan more urgent than that of a Rohingya in Myanmar?

Unlike Pakistan, India recognizes Ahmadiyas as Muslims[1][2]. From India's perspective, they are followers of Islam. CAA doesn't address sectarian conflicts. It only addresses religious persecution. It can be argued that it should address sectarian issues, but by that reasoning, it should also address persecution based on sexual-orientation, color, gender, etc.

As for Rohingyas, this comment explains it in a better way:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23800181

I would also like to add that Rohingyas are known for some serious violence[3]. I don't think the same can be said for a Buddhist from Pakistan.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis#Ordinan...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Ahmadis#India

3. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/myanmar-new-e...

> It only addresses religious persecution

SO you agree that Ahmadiyas are persecuted. They are a religiously persecuted because their sect is being persecuted.

so CAA clearly should have involved them because any secterian persecution is by default done via religion.

They're not being persecuted for owning a PlayStation in a country of poor right?

> They are a religiously persecuted because their sect is being persecuted.

CAA is not the only way in which refugees can come to India. They are free to seek asylum if they want.

If you want them to be included in the CAA then first ask the Indian government to recognize them as a separate religious sect that's being oppressed.

you claimed that CAA is for religious prosecution.

Ahmadiyas and Rohingyas are religious sects who are facing prosecution.

ergo, they are qualified under CAA.

but you claim otherwise using mental gymnastics.

> They are free to seek asylum if they want.

If this is the case, abolish CAA and let Afghan Hindus and Pakistani Hindus seek asylum as well. since CAA isn't the only way right?

> Indian government to recognize them as a separate religious sect that's being oppressed.

the hell? They are facing religious prosecution because of their religion (sect isn't different from religion as sect is a part of the religion)

when the self declared 'upper castes' discriminate against upper class defined 'lower class' then it is still religious discrimination because the 'lower class' are discriminated because they have a particular religious identity.

you don't have a leg to stand on.

Let Pakistan handover equivalent land to India, let us not forget Ahmadiyas created the Islamic nation of Pakistan.

Rohingas trace their roots to Bangladesh and there are 50+ muslim majority countries for them to migrate to, which is not the case for Hindus and Sikhs.

Moreover mayanmer has unearthed mass graves of Hindus in Rohingya areas, while it isn't surprising, that isn't comforting either.

Hindus also have a lot of south Asian Hindu countries. Nepal and Cambodia comes to mind.

What else comes to mind? Cambodia?

Unless you subscribe to the view that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism.

Fine, they can go to Nepal.

Ahmadiyas were the founders of Pakistan, and the butcher of non-muslims in Pakistan.

Why would you invite them along with the ones fleeing? It is like inviting the fox into the coop.

Citation, please. Since when did they butcher non-Muslims?

How will be the bill secular when it is in response to the persecution of minority religions in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan? And I don't understand this fixation with Muslims. What about the followers of Bahá'í Faith who are not covered under this bill?

Ahmadiyas are minorities in Pakistan as are the Rohingya in Myamnar.

also if you think that Rohingya hsould not be allowed because Myamnar was never a part of India, then Afghanistan was also never a part of India, so why are Afghanis being given fast tracked citizenship of India?

Let Pakistan handover equivalent land to India, let us not forget Ahmadiyas created the Islamic nation of Pakistan.

Rohingas trace their roots to Bangladesh and there are 50+ muslim majority countries for them to migrate to, which is not the case for Hindus and Sikhs.

Moreover mayanmer has unearthed mass graves of Hindus in Rohingya areas, while it isn't surprising, that isn't comforting either.

> Ahmadiyas are minorities in Pakistan as are the Rohingya in Myamnar.

Unlike Pakistan, Indian government considers Ahmadiyas as followers of Islam. First Indian government (or the UN) would have to recognize the sectarian conflict in Pakistan and then we can initiate discussions wrt them. As for Rohingyas, they are known for some serious violence.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/myanmar-new-e...

Dude, you said that CAA applies to religious prosecution.

Ahmadiyas are a sect of Islam and they're being prosecuted. Islam is a religion so by default this is religions prosecution.

if what you said is said in good faith (and not as a propagandist), India should include Ahmadiyas and Rohingya under CAA. otherwise either you are wrong or Indian govt's intentions are not what you claim them to be.

> Dude, you said that CAA applies to religious prosecution.

Yes, I said that. I also said that Ahmadiyas are victims of sectarian conflict and not a religious one. Once you include one sect, there will be demands to include all other persecuted sects (Shias, Sufis etc.) How do you plan to deal with that situation? And if so many Muslims are suffering in those counties then what was the point of partition? Why shouldn't we undo that first?

is their sect a religious one or not?

Or is their sect a sports one?

What on earth does Indian government want, this isn’t some certificate you get from thanedar that social boycott is happening.

How convenient, why not call for the dissolution of Pakistan so each kind of muslim can have their own country.

Else if Pakistani muslims want to migrate en masse to India, why not return Pakistani land back to India.

I had the same mindset initially. The CAA in itself is benign. Simply reading the Act will not give you the perspective on how it is going to be implemented. The statements given by the Home Minister of India - who is also a senior member of the ruling party - will give you a better idea of the situation. The backlash due to the passing of the CAB led the Prime Minister to make multiple statements that directly contradict ones made by the Home Minister just a few months before[1]. This, along with the general attitude of senior party ministers[2] is leading the people to be (IMO rightly) concerned about the motives of the government.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEfaRmQIDU4 [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCyBL8dBOEo