Deepika shows up at JNU to support students protesting against govt - Page 44

Originally posted by: Zeal17

They are sub groups of Islams. And if in Islamic state they are facing issues what should we comprehend from this?

Muslim nations supported what China is doing to Uighurs.. so why should we include then as as persecuted minorities, when their own brothers n sister nation's don't believe so..

Moreover, CAA is just a FasTrack method to provide citizenship to actual minorities persecuted by the majority... Other minorities(who have isssues within themselves) will get citizenship as per the previous laws...

So what's the outrage about again?

So what if Muslim nations support what China is doing to Uighurs? Pakistan is shameless because it doesn't want to risk its friendship with China and lose the economic prospects, and is willing to sacrifice Uighurs for the same. So if these countries become shameless, are we no different?

Also, what if they are sub-groups of Islam? The point was about persecution, right? And there is no debate about their persecution. Yes, logically speaking one might think - why would Muslims want to leave Muslim countries and come to India where they would become a minority. Logically, it makes sense. But if a Muslim, despite staying in an Islamic country, feels safer in India, that shows the alarming rate of persecution against these sects. Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan are not even considered Muslims in that country.

The outrage was that this fast track thing should be applicable to all, and shouldn't be discriminatory.

Originally posted by: Notafan

Please stop spreading lies.

Neither of them is a threat to any legal citizen of India, including Indian Muslims. But still if you have issue then opposition to NRC can even be understood but not to CAA. This rabid opposition to CAA just underlines what a section of peace guys think about non-peace guys. The hatred is just too palpable and they are just trying to mask it by using tri-colour instead of the their usual colours.

Any person born in India on or after 26 January 1950, but prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987, is a citizen of India by birth.

A person born in India on or after 1 July 1987 but before 3 December 2004 is a citizen of India if one of parents was a citizen of India at the time of the birth.

Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or if one parent is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth.

And if non-Indian Muslims are persecuted in their heavenly Islamic countries then what is the point of having an Islamic country ? Did they not opt for an Islamic country to live in peace and prosper ? So why do these non-Indian Muslims even want to come to a secular country like India ? They should live and prosper in their own Islamic countries or their countries should adopt a secular constitution like India.

AND this response conveniently avoided mentioning the fact there need to be documents for every citizen to prove citizenship, dating back to 1971. Which most poor people in India are not likely to have.

Then, with CAA all Indian Muslims without documents from 1971 will be slotted for purge.

If it were only the CAA, I would've gladly supported it. But combined with NCR... nuh, huh. This is a purge. Someone in twentieth century tried something similar. It wasn't pretty for them or for the rest of the world.

Originally posted by: NimbuMirchi

Ponymo and others will conveniently ignore this. Typical Ponymo when answered with facts, goes missing and asks others to fact check and accept mistake. Like look in the mirror Ponymo. 😆

No, I had missed that post. It happens, especially when you are getting notifications off the hook and 3-4 conversations are happening in parallel. But sure, you can glee at the temporary happiness from this lol.

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

First he does not quotes1941 census (conveniently).

His story only starts by 1951 census of Pakistan. He says (by then) Pakistani side had only 3.44% of minorities. Why?

According to Wikipedia, 5.9 million non Muslims were staying in current provinces of Pakistan in 1941. 3.9 million "migrated" in 1947. (Out of will?). Even that 3.44% is now reduced to 1.5% (or 1). Why?

What is the take? Pakistan did not take 70 years to cleanse its minorities. It did it in first three years itself.

It does talk about 1941, but doesn't present the numbers. Check this report. You'll get all your answers!

https://www.newslaundry.com/2015/01/09/the-vanishing-hindus-of-pakistan-a-demographic-study-2

Originally posted by: Zeal17

They are sub groups of Islams. And if in Islamic state they are facing issues what should we comprehend from this?

Jinnah a Shia, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan an Ahmadiyya, both fought for a separate Islamic country stating, Muslims cannot live with Hindus.

India was partitioned. Jinnah became the head of Pakistan. Khan drafted its constitution. Today Indians are told to accept Shias and Ahmadiyyas from Pakistan. India should forgive and forget like Prithviraj.

(I read Ahmadis have not been able to vote in Pakistan for past 30 years, because they have to declare themselves as non Muslims).

Originally posted by: ponymo

So what if Muslim nations support what China is doing to Uighurs? Pakistan is shameless because it doesn't want to risk its friendship with China and lose the economic prospects, and is willing to sacrifice Uighurs for the same. So if these countries become shameless, are we no different?

Also, what if they are sub-groups of Islam? The point was about persecution, right? And there is no debate about their persecution. Yes, logically speaking one might think - why would Muslims want to leave Muslim countries and come to India where they would become a minority. Logically, it makes sense. But if a Muslim, despite staying in an Islamic country, feels safer in India, that shows the alarming rate of persecution against these sects. Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan are not even considered Muslims in that country.

The outrage was that this fast track thing should be applicable to all, and shouldn't be discriminatory.

Sub-groups are not minorities....if they have issues within themselves they should sort out within themselves, It doesn't matter whether they are considered minority or not. However, other religion minorities are the actual minorities.... If you chart out pecking order.. muslims or any other religion will ideally would club their smaller sub groups over other religious minorities...

Fast track is justified because tomorrow there might be a chance that those smaller sub groups might align/reconcile with their major group but these other religious minorities never would.

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

That 3.5 Million non Muslims were cleansed from Pakistan by 1951 itself?

Why? Was that because of "Migration"?

On NRC, why the left did not oppose NRC in 2003 when Cong introduced the bill?

Was SC stupid to ask the centre to create a registry for citizens? Who is lying again and again?

Asking these questions becomes falling for propaganda?

Instead of Swara who holidays abroad using her passport, if the opposition has produced genuine people who are affected in front of the media, it would have made more impact.

Earlier student revolutions involved the issues which concerned them. Like migrant issue in 80's Assam. Natives became a minority. 90's reservation policies. 50% got benefit. 50% felt robbed. There was both pro and anti rallies, because all students felt it will impact them. Now the protests are limited to couple of universities. Why? Nobody has seen the impacted community except the speeches by left. Such revolutions are fated to fizzle out. In 80's, student union Assam Gana Parishad toppled the government and the student leader became the CM. In today's time, Kanhaiya Kumar himself looses his seat. Why? Nobody is feeling threatened by the left's imaginary fear.

You clearly post two fake news/misinformation, that was being propogated by RW propaganda. That is falling for propaganda, whether you like it or not.

Protests are not limited to a couple of Universities - again another fake news. Protests happened across 10s of universities in India.

What has Swara holidaying abroad got to do with anything? Ridiculous argument. The opposition isn't using Swara. Why can't she protest in her individual capacity as a citizen? Why do you always have to attirbute it to the opposition?

I don't know "why the left did not oppose NRC in 2003 when Cong introduced the bill?" - Who was in power in 2003? BJP or Congress? I was just a kid back then and I am not aware whether the left opposed it back then or not. It may be a fake claim also for all you know, but I can't rebutt it because I lack knowledge about this.

This article also states the same. It did not take decades for Pakistan to get rid of non Muslims. It only took years. Whatever remained, even that has been halved.

Bye for now.

Originally posted by: Zeal17

Sub-groups are not minorities....if they have issues within themselves they should sort out within themselves, It doesn't matter whether they are considered minority or not. However, other religion minorities are the actual minorities.... If you chart out pecking order.. muslims or any other religion will ideally would club their smaller sub groups over other religious minorities...

Fast track is justified because tomorrow there might be a chance that those smaller sub groups might align/reconcile with their major group but these other religious minorities never would.

If issues can be sorted out among themselves then it would have been done a long time ago. The fact that it's not done means people's suffering will continue - also, like i said Ahmadiyyas are not even considered Muslims in Pakistan, so I don't know how you call them a sub-group.

Hindus in Pakistan have already said they have no interest in coming back to India. But if there are those people who are being persecuted and seek a shelter, they should be given an option.

India is not a non-Muslim country. It is a secular country and everyone should feel welcome, not just a chosen few.

https://twitter.com/Voice_For_India/status/1214169129671892993?s=19

Originally posted by: ponymo

If issues can be sorted out among themselves then it would have been done a long time ago. The fact that it's not done means people's suffering will continue - also, like i said Ahmadiyyas are not even considered Muslims in Pakistan, so I don't know how you call them a sub-group.

Hindus in Pakistan have already said they have no interest in coming back to India. But if there are those people who are being persecuted and seek a shelter, they should be given an option.

India is not a non-Muslim country. It is a secular country and everyone should feel welcome, not just a chosen few.

So they cant assimilate within themselves yet we should welcome them... I am confused here. This issue primarily has roots mainly to the fact that Islamism doesn't believe in assimilation.....