Comment by quantummkv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by quantummkv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> This is blatant disinformation by omitting context. The CAA itself is discriminatory, since it does not apply to muslims

> The CAA makes it easier for non-Muslims to claim citizenship

You see, first of all it's not the Muslims that are literally fighting[1] for their[2] lives[3] and culture[4][5] from crazed zealots in countries around India. And unlike some other religions, the Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists don't have any other country that they can call their homeland or can culturally identify with.

Second, it does not stop Muslims from applying. Their applications will be processes as usual. It only accelerates the process for the people in need. As is the duty of any democratic country.

And regarding the NRC, it's rumor mongering in it's purest form. There has been no official notification regarding when(if) it will be applied or how it will be applied. So just please stop with that like a responsible person.

[1] - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/after-anot... [2] - https://twitter.com/ExmuslimsOrg/status/1280267912360665090 [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabul_gurdwara_attack [4] - https://www.timesnownews.com/international/article/your-head... [5] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamyan

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com