5
all 8 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
[removed by mod]
What exactly is "dumb" about the argument? How are KPs and Yazidis relevant here?
[removed by mod]
Logical fallacy at its finest.
The bill makers of the constitution are moral, rational and responsible agents. This comes out of the need to protect the interests of every citizen. Using loose definitions and making assumptions are not suitable for a constitution.
Meanwhile, a crowd of angry, ignorant and bigoted people are not. There is no incentive for the latter to identify groups. It does not matter if the collateral damages are their own people, as long as they get to misuse their power to strike fear. Like for example, this incident. Or this.
NRC is the stupidest law, apart from it's discriminatory nature. Not only did it take ten years and waste the tax-payers money, it also displaced 19 lakh people of the total 3.3 crore people in Assam, mostly Hindus and abandoned children-turned-adults - including orphans and transgenders who did not have documents. CAA-NRC works in tandem to allow "good" illegals, if that's what you want to call it.
What I am saying is that I support the CAA. It is a humanitarian law that that gives citizenship to minorities persecuted in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. These people have nowhere else to go.
The CAA, even without the NRC, violates Article 14 of the Indian constitution - religion is the bias here. Since you're so concerned about the persecution of religious minorities, why is it that Ahmaddiyas and Hazaras in Pakistan and Afghanistan are excluded? What about LGBTQ+ folks who are Muslims? What about irreligious folks, who are forced to identify as one, simply because they're not recognized? And please, don't bring that stupid "atheist Jews, KPs were killed" argument back. This the constitution of a country we are talking about, not some irrational, provocative witch-hunting of a particular group of people.
And why only these three countries - Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh? There's persecution of Christians in Nepal? Lhotshampa in Bhutan? Hindus, Muslims as well as Christians in Sri Lanka? Rohingya Hindus, Rohingya Muslims and Chin Christians in Myanmar? Let me guess, they're not considered as persecution?
Humanitarian law from a state that is running on ultra-nationalist poison, that is quite ironic, given that the aforementioned state is responsible for the persecution of other minority religious groups. And please, stop bringing what other countries have done. Again, let me drill this in your head - this is not an irrational, hate-driven lynch session, this is going to be a law in the constitution of a country, that we are talking about.
Religious persecution is not a secular problem; a law to save people from religious persecution cannot be secular either.
False. It is a secular problem - unless you are so hammered in your head that you've convinced yourself that India is Hindu rashtra.
During the Armenian Genocide, many Arab countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan took Christian refugees from Ottoman Anatolia. But they didn’t allow Muslim Turks to get in. Was it discrimination against Muslims? Islamophobia?
Source: Trust me bro. Now, I am really interested in this revisionist history that you speak of.
[removed by mod]
For the quote-spam, I have the following points:
a) Armenians were also sold in Arab states as slaves by Turks or Arabs. So, it wasn't necessarily a paradise for Armenians.
b) Fighting against Ottomans do not imply that Turks were refused/expelled for the genocide - this fighting was due to Arab nationalism. So, your claim is invalid, unless you have concrete evidence to back them.
c) Turks have lived along for about a millennia, continuing to living even to this day in modern Arab states, and ironically, they still live in the three states you've mentioned. Sure, most of them were Arabicized, but they're still a considerably large minority.
d) there were no Arab states back then - with the earliest state being the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) (1917-20) managed by the British, French and Arabs together. The Armenian genocide started at 1915 and ended around 1917. These are instances of people acting out of benevolence to protect an oppressed group. You cannot compare that with a bill of a modern country on the way to being a super-power in the 2060s.
I wouldn’t like to argue further with you on CAA. You are brainwashed enough that you want to send back persecuted minorities to the same hellhole they come from
If you want to resort to personal remarks, I could say the same about you being brainwashed enough that you want poor, under-privileged and homeless Indian citizens who happen to have lost their documents with no proof of their religion, be turned into stateless citizens. Or that you only care about a select few persecuted groups.
this post was submitted on 13 Mar 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)
India
591 readers
1 users here now
About
India-oriented community for lemmy.ml. This is a place to discuss about politics, culture, news, social issues, heritage and rants.
Rules
- Site-wide rule for lemmy.ml applies here by default
- Post must be related to India
- Share the archival link for articles behind a paywall
- Do not post content from sites that force user to create account
- Use of privacy-friendly front-ends is encouraged
- Spam and advertisement will be removed immediately
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS