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".
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 (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.
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-...
Why shouldn't we undo partition (if possible)?
"Centre Tells Supreme Court NRC Necessary, Contradicts Shah's 'No NRC' Declaration"
link: https://thewire.in/government/caa-counter-affidavit-centre
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
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?
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.
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.
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.
Unless you subscribe to the view that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism.
Why would you invite them along with the ones fleeing? It is like inviting the fox into the coop.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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?
Or is their sect a sports one?
Else if Pakistani muslims want to migrate en masse to India, why not return Pakistani land back to India.