India braces for protests over citizenship bill excluding Muslims

[Eugene]

Source: Agence France-Presse

India braces for protests over citizenship bill excluding Muslims

Agence France-Presse
Tue 10 Dec 2019 00.38 GMT

India’s lower house has passed controversial legislationthat will grant citizenship to religious minorities from neighbouring countries, but not Muslims, amid raucous scenes in parliament and protests in the country’s north-east.

The citizenship amendment bill provides that Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians fleeing persecution in Muslim-majority Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan can be granted citizenship.

It comfortably passed the lower house with 311 votes in favour and 80 against just after midnight on Tuesday. The legislation seeks to amend the Citizenship Act of 1955, which prohibits illegal migrants from applying for Indian citizenship.

“This bill is in line with India’s centuries-old ethos of assimilation and belief in humanitarian values,” the prime minister, Narendra Modi, tweeted, adding that he was “delighted” about its passage.

But to Muslim organisations, rights groups and others the bill is part of Modi’s push to marginalise India’s Islamic minority of 200 million people.

-snip-

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/10/india-braces-for-protests-over-citizenship-bill-excluding-muslims

[guillaumeb]

1. Modi is simply an Indian fascist.

His Islamophobia echoes that found in China, and in much of Europe, and in some sectors of the US.

[trotsky]

2. From the article:

The law would make it much easier for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsees and Christians fleeing Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan to be given Indian citizenship.

Why are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsees, and Christians fleeing those countries?

[guillaumeb]

3. We both know.

And I am certain that we both know Modi is an Indian fascist.

[trotsky]

4. The answer to one affects how we assess the other.

So what is the reason those religious groups are fleeing the listed countries?

[guillaumeb]

5. Intolerance.

Crucial is how intolerance is reflected in every human society.

[trotsky]

6. Also crucial is to note how intolerance is often codified, taught, and perpetuated.

I think those are important elements in combating intolerance. Do you?

[guillaumeb]

7. They are important.

But crucial to actual understanding is not the particulars of each case of intolerance, but that intolerance seems to be an inescapable aspect of tribalism.

[trotsky]

8. But here in the Religion group, it's quite appropriate to talk about the religious aspects.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that, in the one place where it's decidedly on topic? Why do you instead always whatabout pivot to try and blame humanity in general?

[guillaumeb]

9. Of course it is.

But when blaming religion, or lack of, or nationality, or language, or any other factor particular to any individual instance of intolerance, we must acknowledge that intolerance seems to be an inescapable part of humanity.

Do you agree?

Or will you insist that religion is uniquely culpable?

[trotsky]

10. Yes, it's been noted.

And there are infinite groups on DU in which to discuss different aspects of intolerance.

Here is where we talk about the religious ones. Not your straw men.

[guillaumeb]

11. Explain how your reference to straw men fits here.

Or not, as you wish.

If you ever find posts explaining that theists are not intolerant, or that they do not use religion as an excuse for intolerance, please point them out.

[trotsky]

12. Your line: "will you insist that religion is uniquely culpable"

I have never, ever taken that position.

That's your straw man.

The nice thing to do would be apologize to me, and retract the smear.

But you won't do that.

[guillaumeb]

13. I asked a question.

And you answered it.

[trotsky]

14. I knew you wouldn't apologize.

It is a poor reflection on your religion to see that this is how you think a follower of Jesus should behave.

Hope you're proud.

[Voltaire2]

15. He is deeply religious.

His political party is a theocratic nationalist party.

[guillaumeb]

16. Agreed, but politically, he is a fascist. eom

[Voltaire2]

17. No he is a theocratic authoritarian nationalist.