WHY EVERY INDIAN MUST SUPPORT CAA - read and share. Counter-arguments welcome!

[Manny_Pacquiao]

For a country to be independent, it should be able to define the criteria for it's country's citizenship. Simply put, a sovreign nation is one that solely decides who it's 'people' are. A country (and government) that lacks this ability, is NOT an independent country. A country's independence is NEVER to be a subject of debate - when it becomes a subject of debate, the country ceases to be independent. The simplest argument in favor of CAA: "shouldn't Indians decide who gets to be Indian?" The answer is an easy yes. And Indians, by and large, gave the current government its strongest ever mandate.

 

A government's functioning is largely based around 3 activities: identifying it's citizens, collecting tax, and enforcing the law. If any of these activities are impeded, the government is no longer legitimate. EACH AND EVERY independent country has a record of its citizens; therefore India having a NRC is NOT 'fascist' in any way; it is NORMAL and allows our government the same functioning as ANY other sovreign nation. Anyone who suggests otherwise doesn't understand the meaning of the word, nor do they understand governance.

 

On the subject of discrimination; NOTHING in this law even applies to current citizens. Muslims can STILL seek refuge in India, as they have done for hundreds of years. We have Afghans, Iraqis, Yemenis and Syrians currently living in India. The Afghan cricket team plays its home games in India. Muslims - and anyone from anywhere for that matter - can STILL pursue Indian citizenship. The best example of this, is the case of Adnan Sami. Born and raised in pakistan, as a muslim, he was granted his Indian citizenship on Republic Day. For him, it was no big deal - because he was ALWAYS Indian!

 

Which brings me to my next point: Muslims of the subcontinent are INDIANS. Never forget, that while Islam is not indigenous to the subcontinent, the people currently identifying as muslims most definitely are. These muslims are of the same flesh and blood, and more importantly - these muslims are CONVERTS of low-caste hindus. EVERY CONVERSATION ON MUSLIMS IN THE SUBCONTINENT SHOULD BEGIN WITH THIS POINT. Where and how did we lose all these people? And how can we bring them back? The politicization of caste has destroyed the subcontinent, and created the circumstances that exist today.

 

The effort to create a stronger, sustainable social cohesion has to be centred around CASTE; and a movement to bring people back to the dharmic principles they once left (either by choice, or by force). There must be a progressive de-politicization of caste. Muslims of the subcontinent should be aware (and periodically reminded) of their common heritage, ghar-wapasi MUST become a priority, and extreme interpretations of islam have to be erased from every institution. Where there's one Adnan Sami, there will be another hundred million.

 

This is a long, hard struggle, but it can be achieved. Who could have imagined that we'd be in this position today? Remember where the Ram Janambhoomi movement started, with hardly any powerful political parties backing it? Remember the killing of the kar sevaks? Remember the persistent fight against an all powerful, 400-seat winning Congress party...who held all the power and control in their hands? Supporting the CAA is nothing in comparison! In fact, it is easy. The Ram Janambhoomi movement has unified large sections of the hindu population, and gone some way in eliminating caste-based politics.  

 

Not surprisingly, the answer to those doubting India's 'secular credentials', can be found in the PEACEFUL resolution of the Ram Janambhoomi movement. Ayodhya is EVERYTHING to hindus; and its trust ALLOWED the construction of a mosque on a land that is MOST sacred to people of dharmic faiths. THAT is true secularism. Ayodhya is the example that India must follow, Ayodhya reflects the true, pluralistic nature of the dharmic faith. Can you imagine a temple being built in Mecca? Or in the Vatican? Not in a million years. A dharmic nation is a TRULY secular, tolerant, and pluralistic nation. That is what India always has been and always will be.

On that note, never forget that there is nothing permanent about the subcontinent in it's current conception. India, and the subcontinent as it exists today, was largely conceived of by the BRITISH. The nation state of India, along with those of Pakistan and Bangladesh were lines drawn on a map by the BRITISH, NOT by Indians. The secular, democratic India is a BRITISH legacy, not an Indian one. The Congress party WERE NOT freedom fighters, they were INHERITORS. India is a civilization, one dating back thousands of years, not a British-invented nation state. And the INDEPENDENCE of this civilization, this territory, is NOT contingent on the approval of non-dharmic faiths, and certainly not contingent on the validation of past and present political 'superpowers' like Britain and America. Therefore, the support for CAA is also a support for actual Indian independence.

 

Indian nationalism is not, and never has been a hatred for muslims or christians. It is not a hatred for Pakistan. It is the desire for a unified subcontinent belonging to the dharmic faiths. Pakistani people aren't to be hated, it is their western backed Army dictatorship - with American fighter planes, tanks and missiles - that creates this obstacle. The pakistani people, are closeted Indians, and have no real hatred for India. If India is fighting a war, it is not a war against

pakistan, it is a war against the western forces that divided the subcontinent for their own interests. Remember this, the next time you hear of western media talking about 'peace' between india and pakistan. THIS is why India refers to Kashmir, and ALL indo-pak conversations as a BILATERAL issue. I would describe it more as a family matter. EACH AND EVERY DISCUSSION on pakistan must begin with the mention of pakistan's army-led government.

The congress party, the pakistani army, and successive western governments will try to convert all of India into Kashmir. A weaker, more manageable India is what keeps them alive. The BJP, in turn, will try to convert all of India into Ayodhya. When you support the CAA, you're supporting Ayodhya over Kashmir. Choose wisely.

 

For decades after independence, Kashmir was a microcosm of India. All Indian states resembled Kashmir, but to varying degrees: with state-sanctioned segregation on caste and religious lines, mercenaries routinely killing ordinary citizens, devolutions, and so on. India of the future is represented by Ayodhya, not Kashmir. Ayodhya is the microcosm of what India truly is, and should be after the creation of an NRC. Think of India, as Ayodhya, and it suddenly becomes a cause worth fighting for.

 

Counter-arguments are welcome. Please reply to what I wrote, do not reply to your own misunderstandings. I have looked at all counter-arguments, and to me, they all boil down to the same point: "Indians shouldn't decide who gets to be Indian." Most Indians belong to dharmic faiths. In other words, India's independence was, and is, granted on the condition of it retaining an overtly 'secular' character that is to the liking of the west. If India cannot be secular, then it shouldn't exist as a nation. Is there anything else?

[Laaloo]

Mannnyyyyy!!!

 

welcome back bro hope all is well

[someone]

There are yet to be any proper arguments against CAA. Yet, with all the violence, it has come to a blackmail. The government is being bullied to accepting their demands else they will continue with their riots and destroying things...

[FischerTal]

You can tell how shaken up libbies around the world are when “endian coolies” suddenly discovered a spine  and started moving away from the apologist, subservient, and anti-national Nehruvian narrative to an India First narrative where Indian interests gain supremacy and the needs of Indian citizens are adhered to before going on the mahatma guilt trip.

[Manny_Pacquiao]

Why let the truth ruin a good story:

Quote

The controversy over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act appears to simmer – and of late has led to communal riots.  I have failed hopelessly to comprehend what the controversy is all about.

Illegal migrants are deported under the Foreigners Act 1946 and the Citizenship Act 1955. The procedure to identify illegal migrants in the Northeast was criticised and for good reason. But the law that requires Muslim migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh to be deported is the law of 1946 and 1955.  If the CAA goes away, Muslims from Bangladesh (and elsewhere) who are illegal migrants would be liable to be deported as would illegal migrants who are Sikh, Buddhist or Christian.

The citizenship of a country is presently based on similar principles followed in almost all countries governed by the rule of law.  Citizenship is acquired by birth, descent, naturalisation or by acquisition of territories.  Those who seek to enter a country without its permission are illegal migrants and are liable to be deported.

The demographic consequences of the Bangladesh war in the Northeast, leading up to the Assam Accord, resulted in enactment of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act – which made it practically impossible to identify and remove illegal migrants. This law was successfully challenged by those who claimed that it was a betrayal of the Assam Accord – the Supreme Court in Sonowal’s case, taking the government to task for its failure to identify and deport illegal migrants – it is in this case that the idea of a detention centre was mooted.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 19 July 2016 and was referred to a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, which presented its report on 4 January 2019, recommending the bill.

The Rules framed in 2003 provided for the creation of a national register of Indian citizens, to be written up after carrying out throughout the country a house-to-house enumeration and in which doubtful cases were to be noted separately for further enquiry. These Rules have been in place for the last 16 years but are yet to be operationalised.

I fail to understand how a law which is designed to confer the benefit on an identified class of persons, and which identification is based on a rational criterion, can be condemned as being discriminatory on the ground that the legislation could have created a wider class, arrived at by applying a broader criterion for identifying the class of those who would benefit by the legislation.

The principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application. The principle of equality does not take away from the state the power of making classifications. If a law deals  equally with members of a defined class, it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application to other persons.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held the court cannot interfere simply because other methods are also possible, even if the court thinks that they are better for India and the government must be left to determine which of many possible schemes is the best.

CAA’s avowed objective is to enable conferment of Indian citizenship upon members of minority communities who hail from  Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Do we really need proof that minorities are persecuted in these Islamic republics? How can Parliament be faulted for coming to a conclusion that such minorities in the three named neighbours need to be protected?

Classification on the basis of religion is not per se unconstitutional – it is worth reminding ourselves that our Constitution confers special rights upon members of minority religious communities in India. If the law was broader and allowed members of all religious communities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan to migrate into India, we could as well do away with our borders.

An even more tenuous argument is finding discrimination as the law does not extend to every citizen of every country (or some countries) who has suffered religious persecution. The boldest lawyers have not gathered courage to advance any such argument – their disadvantage of course was that they were not TV anchors or enlightened members of civil society protesting on the streets.

The loudest criticism relates to the supposed intention of the government to throw all Muslims out of India. There is no law, rule or notification published – or even a draft circulated – that would suggest that the government has any such intent.  The Prime Minister has denied it.  If any procedure put in place requires Muslims alone all over India to prove their citizenship in a manner more onerous than that applicable to any other community, such a procedure would be unconstitutional.

Taking special measures to address demographic distortions caused by the Bangladesh conflict in defined geographic areas would be a class apart and to suggest that these measures could be made the template for the rest of India shows ignorance of the basics of the rule of law.

Polarisation between castes and religions is as old at least as the notion of modern India. I also find a growing polarisation between those who have enjoyed the perquisites of power over decades and between those who have replaced them. Add to this mix the fact that certain ideologies which are but dust on the bookshelves of political history in the countries of their origin continue to be romanced by intellectuals, some of whom dominate civil society and civil discourse. All this creates a fertile ground for protests and aggressive debates – and when it comes to romanticising such movements, perhaps the feeling is why let the truth spoil a good story!

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/caa-is-necessary-why-the-many-arguments-about-its-being-unconstitutional-dont-hold-water/

 

I still haven't found a single valid counter-argument against CAA.

 

All the BJP has done is resolve long-standing issues. And for this, and this alone, they deserve support.

[speedheat]

. Wrong thread

Edited March 6, 2020 by speedheat

[jf1gp_1]

CAA is fine what i really want is implementation of NRC. God know how many leeches are sucking onto benefits for which us on this forum are playing tax.  

[Manny_Pacquiao]

On 3/7/2020 at 12:01 AM, jf1gp_1 said:

CAA is fine what i really want is implementation of NRC. God know how many leeches are sucking onto benefits for which us on this forum are playing tax.  

governments in india can't enforce the law, so most indians dont pay tax. this situation could change after we have the NRC.