Against or in Favour and why ?
There is one more point i want to make...
My professor of Internation Relations taught us that Even religion can be changed but Caste can not...
So what if as a poor muslim in Pakistan i convert myself into Hindu and then travel to India and demand citizenship under CAA...i wont even need documents...just jai shri raam will do it....and i would be doing this only because i may think it is easier and better for me to reach India...
rather than seeing it as an anti muslim law, try to see it as pro minorities law (in this case minorities are not muslim)
it does not even talk about indian muslims.
Is that sarcasm or something like that ...the main fight is not just against CAA...its about what it does after blending NRC
NRC is not even offiisl. how can you be so sure about something which has not even happened yet?
pls tell me what it does after blending NRC?
NRC hasnt happened yet? How come 19 lakh people in Assam listed out of it then?
It is simple logic. One who fails prove his nationality that is by submitting required records/docs; he is simple understood as an outsider/infiltrator/illegal resident...right? Now what happens? Heres the solution, lets grant them citizenship...lets give them a chance...so how do we do that? We look towards Citizenship Amendment Act...what does it say? Give the citizenship to non muslims....so simple i guess...
BJP is till now playing this on technicality...."no tension for Indian muslims"...well done...how do you find indian muslim? Well show the documents....ohkayy...but he doesnt have any...or maybe the required one...ummm so you arenot under the list...
I favour the law and not the execution, not one bit.
This law positively discriminates for those 31000 odd minorities who faced religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
The law is about minorities, so why to include muslims, who are in majority in countries which have Islam as a State religion.
It is true that some of the muslims in these countries have faced persecution, but you look at the history and you will find out that no muslim has seeked shelter in india due to religious persecution. A muslim has favoured Iran and some of the european countries over India so why to include them in the law at the first place?
well shah- modi are both RSS bhakts and their philosophy is clear . plus what Jayesh mentioned is absolutely correct that this is not the time for this. But I have one more aspect to this. The Tamil Hindu or the ones in Srilanka have been persecuted badly over a long time and they were mentioned no where. to add to it when Kerala required money for rebuilding post the disasters , our govt didn't provide the help needed and it happened once middle east country provided a good amount and our Indian govt shunned it and helped them with a reduced amount. When Hindus from the above mentioned 3 countries are being targetted to help then why not from SRilanka ?
This law is for those people who were persecuted just because they were not muslim. do you know about hindu marriage in pakistan? they are treated illegal. you can not practice your religion, and if you do you will either be killed or worse.
why is this not the right time? the 31000 odd people are already earning their livelihood in India. dont you think it's better to give them citizenship.
sri lankan tamil is linguistic minority, not religious minority. SL has a buddhism as state relgion and does not prosecute others just because they are not buddhist.
the Tamil Hindu are not buddhist and they are neither muslims. Haven't we seen this name change game of the current govt of changing the names of muslim places that all are familiar with. The religious agenda is being given in every sphere by the BJP and that is creating a difference in opinion, bringing the people back to India is the context and does these people have a job India whom they will bring to India , NO. Big goof up is NRC provisions are already in place from 2003 and the details they need is from NPR , which they will add up to. But why the division of Muslims . The RSS agenda is quite clear if someone will actually study whom these modi shah follow.First muslims ,or the minorities case and then our castes.
One thing is for sure that BJP's narrow mindedness is easily manifested in this act...technically it is flawed...why is not atheism included...what about ahamadia muslims who are not even considered muslims by other muslims...and on how do you define this religious persecution....i mean technically I can be a sunni muslim who is not ready to follow any particular rule or law that is inspired from religion...so I still call myself sunni but the others are making my life miserable on these grounds....so am i not religiously persecuted....its similar here in India...i call dalits and lower castes religiously persecuted....the moto is simple....no more muslim entries in the country....
They are saying every now and then that people have been 'gumrah' and it has nothing to do with indian citizens...but they are not ready to clarify how would it not effect indian citizens....mark my words when people will be ousted from the final list....these guys will say that yes...this so and so person doesnot have papers so he is infiltrator as simple as that...and that he is indian...he must be in anyway....and if he is not then maybe he should convert into one...or we will see what to do with them .....
what are you talking about? you tell me how CAA has anything to do with indian citizens?
you call dalits religiously prosecuted and there is reservation in place for them.
about ahmadis - view CAA in context of Nehuru-Liaquat Pact, the ahmadis were not minority till 1974. plus an ahmadi will choose to go to middle eastern countries and not india.
and i think you mean shia* (and not sunni) - about shia- shias are not a minority in pakistan. they have been persecuted, then it's pakistan's govt job to represent them, not indian's.
the intelligible differentia is - minority being prosucted on the basis of religion.
You will have to view CAA in context of the history. his tory has anwers to each and every question you have.
totally against it. don't know about unconstitutional but surely intentional and unnecessary.
In big favour if we were a developed nation and the act wasnt based on religion.
Now even if they change it and allow every refugee from every religion...i would still oppose it as a citizen because we are already short of resources...we dont want more competition in our fight...as simple as that...come on man work upon economy...raise facilities...rise up as a nation and then you may do this social service
And now an answer with sarcasm... Yes in big favour...dont want more muslims...there are already more than enough...want just hindus...#hindurashtra ka
guess some words got missed in the end..
haha,...it was....hindurashtra ka sapna
Na na , they will divide further and bring up the castes further.
Yeah yeah...aap chronology samajhiye na...first religion...then castes...then language...they will be the divide further