Jump to content

What is Indian Govt policy on the Rohingya Issue


sandeep

Recommended Posts

I'm aware that India needs Burmese co-operation to police the borders against the fading insurgencies and criminals in the north-east, but the situation is looking increasingly like an officially sanctioned pogrom.   Its criminal.  Tough for GoI to publicly take a strong stand, since China already has too much influence in Myanmar.  But something needs to be done.  At a minimum, help Bangladesh Govt financially to provide refugee assistance.  

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/world/asia/rohingya-violence-myanmar.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=world/asia

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/world/asia/myanmar-video-police-brutality.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is our business though.  This is our neighborhood.  We make claims about wanting to be a global power.  If we can't even help our own neighborhood, forget about getting credibility on the world stage.  Besides, these are our people being referred to as "bengalis" as a slur - they are of hindustani ethnic origins even though they have been living in Burma for generations.  Would you feel the same way if they practiced hinduism instead of Islam?  

 

One shouldn't use cynicism about the media to duck difficult issues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, chewy said:

I heard some have been re-located in Jammu & Kashmir by India Gov, not sure how true

Rohingyas have noticeably East Asian eyes ( not fully east Asian eyes, but their eyes are narrower than the standard Indian almond eye). And they are a LOT darker than Ladakhi/Balti people. Not sure how it can go unnoticed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Rohingyas have noticeably East Asian eyes ( not fully east Asian eyes, but their eyes are narrower than the standard Indian almond eye). And they are a LOT darker than Ladakhi/Balti people. Not sure how it can go unnoticed.

 

i had just heard rumors, but i did quick google search and seems like a small contingent are residing in J&K, amazing how they managed to get all the way there considering strict residential restrictions in J&K, so one can imagine how many  thousands have probably settled across India.

 

http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/jan/11/over-13700-foreigners-staying-in-jk-government-1558614.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

unlikely.  Geography, weather etc don't make this an easy transition for the people involved and JK has hurdles when it comes to 'outsiders' settling in.

that's what I thought,

 

another source: 

http://www.kashmirmonitor.in/Details/115653/rohingya-muslim-refugees-could-exacerbate-the-kashmir-problem

 

so what's the point of Article 370?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/12/2017 at 3:13 PM, chewy said:

I heard some have been re-located in Jammu & Kashmir by India Gov, not sure how true

I'm pretty sure that is true. 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/persecuted-in-myanmar-rohingya-muslims-find-new-home-in-jammu/story-NOv2VcEw2PyNW4Y28E1w7M.html

Quote

Words fail 70-year-old Mohammed Younus and a much younger Shah Alam when they try to explain how lucky they are to be alive and, perhaps, safe.

They are among hundreds of Rohingya Muslim migrants from Myanmar, who have taken shelter in and around Jammu and Kashmir’s winter capital.

“Four years ago, I came to Jammu. The junta in Myanmar had unleashed the gravest atrocities on Rohingyas and the world was silent. They are raping our girls and women, setting our houses on fire, firing at us as if we are sitting ducks, and chopping people into pieces,” Younus said.

As a mark of proof, he lifted his shirt to show bullet scars on his torso.

_adcec332-b9c3-11e6-90a3-d2b8563aec4d.jpg
Mohammed Younus says the Myanmar junta unleashed the gravest atrocities on the Rohingyas (Nitin Kanotra / HT Photo )

The Rohingyas, a stateless ethnic group loathed by many of Myanmar’s Buddhist majority, were forced to leave their homes since a bloody crackdown by the army in their home state of Rakhine. Many came to India, with nothing but the clothes they were wearing and with horrifying stories of rape, torture and murder.

Several Rohingya families — the majority with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) cards and some without papers — have found Jammu a safe haven.

Read | Aung San Suu Kyi should speak against the persecution of Rohingyas in Myanmar

“I work at a scrap-dealer’s shop; my wife and eldest daughter work as domestic helps. We have to pay Rs 500 a month for the shanty and Rs 200 for electricity. Some NGOs help us. Life is not easy, but at least we are alive here,” said 45-year-old Shah Alam in a pidgin mix of Hindi and Urdu.

Fellow migrant Maulana Shafiq, 37, runs a madarsa or Islamic school for Rohingya children in Narwal Bala, where a sizeable number of these stateless people live.

He said about 3 million of the 4 million Rohingyas in Myanmar fled to Bangladesh, India, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia and Thailand to escape the persecution.

Those left behind put up with inhuman, concentration camp-style restrictions. They can’t marry without permission, married women can’t conceive, and can’t even run small shops for livelihood. Rohingyas can’t even go out at night in Myanmar. There’s a 6pm-to-8am curfew.

I think I read the previous government passed the policy, but this one didn't overturn it.  All these fiends need to be thrown out of India. These people need to be sent to Bangladesh or Pakistan.  :facepalm:

 

Our pseudo-liberals like Yogendra Yadav are against bringing in Hindu refugees from Bakistan/Bangladesh, but they sit on their hands as we import rioters from other countries. :wall:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

I'm pretty sure that is true. 

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/persecuted-in-myanmar-rohingya-muslims-find-new-home-in-jammu/story-NOv2VcEw2PyNW4Y28E1w7M.html

I think I read the previous government passed the policy, but this one didn't overturn it.  All these fiends need to be thrown out of India. These people need to be sent to Bangladesh or Pakistan.  :facepalm:

 

Our pseudo-liberals like Yogendra Yadav are against bringing in Hindu refugees from Bakistan/Bangladesh, but they sit on their hands as we import rioters from other countries. :wall:

if you ask your like-minded Bangladeshi muslims, they will say that hindus are the rioters there.


Repeat after me: India is a constitutionally secular nation, not a Hindu nation. Therefore, its criteria for giving asylum is non-religious/irrelevant of religion. If we give refuge to persecuted Hindus, then we also should give refuge to persecuted muslims, christians,jews, atheists etc. And if we don't grant asylum coz subject is a muslim foreigner, then we should extend the same courtesy to hindu foreigners as well. 

 

No matter how much you chaddis would like to turn India into a hindu-mafia state, it won't happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/17/2017 at 7:46 PM, Muloghonto said:

if you ask your like-minded Bangladeshi muslims, they will say that hindus are the rioters there.


Repeat after me: India is a constitutionally secular nation, not a Hindu nation. Therefore, its criteria for giving asylum is non-religious/irrelevant of religion. If we give refuge to persecuted Hindus, then we also should give refuge to persecuted muslims, christians,jews, atheists etc. And if we don't grant asylum coz subject is a muslim foreigner, then we should extend the same courtesy to hindu foreigners as well. 

 

No matter how much you chaddis would like to turn India into a hindu-mafia state, it won't happen. 

Looks like Gappu and the two clowns who upvoted him are going mad. Try using the one brain cell between the lot of you and make a coherent argument. :aetsch:'

 

Red: Show where constitutionally India has to accept all refugees. Oh wait, it doesn't say that anywhere. 

Furthermore, show how India is a secular state in practice, rather than nominally. 

 

When you're done making love to your goat Muloghatiya, try to employ some logic in your posts. Otherwise, seriously f**k off quoting me repeatedly. 

 

Blue: Also, you degenerate,  I'm not the one who pretends to be an atheist or a Buddhist depending on the thread to lend credence to my argument. I'm not the anglo-bangladeshi whose state is run by an Islamist. :phehe:

 

Can you name which founder was in charge of making India a constitutionally secular state?

 

 

Edited by Tibarn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Looks like Gappu and the two clowns who upvoted him are going mad. Try using the one brain cell between the lot of you and make a coherent argument. :aetsch:'

 

Red: Show where constitutionally India has to accept all refugees. Oh wait, it doesn't say that anywhere. 

 

I guess our chaddi kid got mad at logic. 

Nobody said India has to accept refugees on constitutional basis. But India cannot pick and choose refugee status based on religion. We pick and choose based on need.

Quote

Furthermore, show how India is a secular state in practice, rather than nominally. 

More sophistry.

Indian or any national policy is dictated by their nominal stance.

 

Quote

 Otherwise, seriously f**k off quoting me repeatedly. 

Sorry chaddi. You don't make the rules here. I can quote whomever i wish, whenever i wish. Comprende ?

 

Quote

I'm not the anglo-bangladeshi whose state is run by an Islamist. 

No, you are just a mohajir turned pretend-Gujju pretending to be from the part of India where medeival genocidal practices still run amok in the 21st century.

 

Like i said, dream-on Chaddi. We are NOT a Hindu nation. 

Probably one of the few things the constitutional architects got right.

 

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Tibarn said:

Inbred retard, TMC goon doesn't have the brains to read the constitution. There is nowhere in the constitution that says refugees can't be accepted based on religion. Nice try fa**ot. Jumping to conclusions fallacy. :hysterical:

Nowhere does it say that religion can be the basis. It doesnt say anywhere in the US constitution that religion cannot be used to appoint a government job. But doing so is a lawsuit.

I guess inbreeds like you do not understand that you cannot prove a negative and only positives count- i.e., what the constitution SAYS counts. Not what it doesn't say.

 

Quote

After you're done making love to your goat, show which architect made India a secular nation via the constitution, and show that India is a secular country in practice.

None of that is required, because you are engaging in sophistry. Again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Nowhere does it say that religion can be the basis. It doesnt say anywhere in the US constitution that religion cannot be used to appoint a government job. But doing so is a lawsuit.

I guess inbreeds like you do not understand that you cannot prove a negative and only positives count- i.e., what the constitution SAYS counts. Not what it doesn't say.

You are the one making a positive claim, of course shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy you are prone to use . The US is a secular country in both letter of law and practice. False equivalency fallacy comparing it to India. Inbred retard, use what little brain you have.

 

 I guess you should look up on WebMD the Indian constitution and laws passed by the Indian government. There is already judicial precedence in India to have religious based laws. For some Canadian goat-lover like you, reading is too hard. :hysterical:

 

Check your spelling/grammar chutiya, it's spelled doesn't. :hysterical:

 

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

None of that is required, because you are engaging in sophistry. Again.

This idiot can't understand that a fallacy must be present for sophistry to be going on. :hysterical: You're the inbred retard engaging in sophistry. It's okay, I don't expect anything else from you. :phehe:

Edited by Tibarn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tibarn said:

You are the one making a positive claim, of course shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy you are prone to use . The US is a secular country in both letter of law and practice. False equivalency fallacy comparing it to India. Inbred retard, use what little brain you have.

 

 I guess you should look up on WebMD the Indian constitution and laws passed by the Indian government. There is already judicial precedence in India to have religious based laws. For some Canadian goat-f**ker like you, reading is too hard. :hysterical:

 

Check your spelling/grammar chutiya, it's spelled doesn't. :hysterical:

 

This idiot can't understand that a fallacy must be present for sophistry to be going on. :hysterical: You're the inbred retard engaging in sophistry. It's okay, I don't expect anything else from you. :phehe:

There is fallacy involved for all of us to see. 

Only a fool thinks Indian constitution doesnt state we are a secular nation.

 

As for proving a negative- you are not a scientist till you get off the mindset of 'prove this doesn't exist', which is what you are repeatedly asking people to do in various threads.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

There is fallacy involved for all of us to see. 

Only a fool thinks Indian constitution doesnt state we are a secular nation.

Stating and doing are different things. Once again a false equivalency between the US and India as "secular" countries. The sophistry is on your part only. Different religions have different social codes legally, the government of India is involved in the affairs of certain religions, temple management, etc, while not others. The fact that Indira inserted the 42nd amendment and thus the word secular,(and socialist) into the preamble of the constitution during Emergency doesn't mean the constitution is secular. Of course, for a brainless hijda like yourself, stating and doing are the same thing. :hysterical:  

 

I also asked you which founder made it secular. Also, please tell me the difference between the Hindi/Sanskrit version of the constitution and the English version. What is the difference between panth nirapeksha  and secular. 

 

Also, you inbred retard, you misspelled doesn't again. :hysterical:

18 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

As for proving a negative- you are not a scientist till you get off the mindset of 'prove this doesn't exist', which is what you are repeatedly asking people to do in various threads.

Learn to read you inbred fool. It's no wonder you think that WebMD is a scientific source.:hysterical: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, lol at the phony secular hijdas in this thread. Why aren't you hypocrites asking for Buddhist refugees to be taken in? You clowns only want to take in Rohingya refugees and not the Buddhists who were the initial victims of the violence. If you clowns were so concerned about being secular, then why didn't you raise your voice for the Buddhists to be taken in? 

 

Phony "secular" people and their disgusting lack of brain cells. 

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18395788

Quote

What is the nature of Myanmar's communal violence?

Over the last two years accusations of sexual assault and local disputes have created a flashpoint for violence that has quickly escalated into widespread communal clashes.

  • The first and most deadly incident began in June 2012 when widespread rioting and clashes between Rakhine Buddhists and Muslims, largely thought to be Rohingya Muslims, left 200 dead and displaced thousands. It was the rape and murder of a young Buddhist woman which sparked off that deadly chain of events
  • In March 2013 an argument in a gold shop in Meiktila in central Myanmar led to violence between Buddhists and Muslims which left more than 40 people dead and entire neighbourhoods razed
  • In August 2013 rioters burnt Muslim-owned houses and shops in the central town of Kanbalu after police refused to hand over a Muslim man accused of raping a Buddhist woman
  • In January 2014, the UN said that more than 40 Rohingya men, women and children were killed in Rakhine state in violence that flared after accusations that Rohingyas killed a Rakhine policeman.
  • In June 2014, two people were killed and five hurt in Mandalay, Myanmar's second city, following a rumour that spread on social media that a Buddhist woman had been raped by one or more Muslim men

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...