Why focusing on the CAA was/is a huge mistake? Three countries - Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, have been listed. The migrants originating from these - who had arrived in India on or before 31 12 2014, if otherwise ineligible for grant of Indian citizenship, can now apply and obtain, provided they're non-Muslims.
A. There's no provision for taking away the citizenship of anyone, under its provisions. B. It only "promises" grant of citizenship. C. Who can take the benefit of this "promise"? D. Only those non-Muslims, who can claim that they migrated from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan. We don't know as yet - as rules have not yet been framed, what sort of "proofs" have to be produced. Whether the fact of "religious persecution" suffered in the country of origin has to be established. These have deliberately been kept uncertain. E. Even otherwise, very few outside of West Bengal and North-East would be able to claim so. Even in those areas, it won't be too easy. Only a limited number, if at all, are likely to qualify. F. Yet, hugely aided by the deliberate vagueness, it dangles an *illusory carrot* before the nose of the Hindus. Lures them with a *false* sense of security. G. That's why *focusing the attack on the CAA - beyond a general condemnation, is a huge mistake*. The Assam experience shows that there're more Hindus who stand excluded. Fighting out the NRC calls for resolute collective resistance. The focusing on the CAA reinforced the myth that Hindus are secure. It's only a "Muslim issue". That subverts the prospects of collective resistance - in a very big way. On Sat, 19 Dec 2020 at 15:21, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > I. The CAA is both arbitrary and discriminatory. > And, quite visibly so. > > While Afghanistan is there (among the three from which sections of > migrants would be entitled to obtain Indian citizenship), with which India > shares no functioning common border, bordering Myanmar, which had even been > a part of British India, and Sri Lanka are excluded. > Similarly, only religious persecution qualifies - not other forms. > And even there - Muslims, atheists, rationalists, Ahmadis etc are, again, > excluded. > > II. The Act is meant to send out two noxious messages. > > One, Muslims do not belong (to India). > Two, only non-Muslims are religiously persecuted and, that too, only in > Muslim-majority countries. > > III. It, thereby, goes against a foundational tenet of the Indian > Constitution: non-discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, gender > etc. > (Special supports for the weak and marginalised exempted.) > > IV. Still then, it's not likely to have any significant impact on the > ground, outside of the North-East and West Bengal. > Even there, it's somewhat doubtful. > > V. It, nevertheless, promises citizenship to (otherwise ineligible) some > while withholding such privilege to others - based on religion. > That's toxic. > > But, by itself, it doesn't take away anyone's citizenship. > > VI. The promise, by and large, appears to be a hoax. > That the "rules" are yet to be framed - even after a year, clearly shows > up the lack of seriousness in granting citizenship. > > VII. Far more importantly, it's a red herring. > > It's meant to mislead - to pit those who have been denied this "promise" > against those who have been offered ("promise" only). > Quite unfortunately, the opponents of the regime have taken the bait. > > VIII. The real monster is the NRC, of which the NPR is the first, and most > critical operational, part. > (Once the NPR is done, the NRC becomes almost the done thing.) > > IX. The NRC operation makes vast sections of Indians, not in possession of > documents related to ownership of ancestral land/house or such, extremely > vulnerable to the threat - that the exercise overlies, of being stripped of > citizenship. > That's too terrifying. > > X. Needs be collectively and resolutely countered. > The role of the concerned state governments would be highly critical. > It's a battle one just doesn't afford to lose. > > XI. Once the citizenship is lost - or even in the case of one's name not > figuring in the preliminary list, one'd just be in a hellhole. > As plain as that. > > XII. The whole exercise is meant to trigger a somewhat low-key civil > war-like situation across religious divides. > In order to derive a big push towards a "Hindu Rashtra" (Hindu nation > state) - at the very minimum, denuded of all vestiges of substantive > democracy and pluralism. > > The economy is sure to take a big hit. > But, that's an acceptable price. > From the viewpoint of the incumbent regime. > > -- > Peace Is Doable > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Peace Mumbai" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peace-mumbai/CACEsOZj5B6AfDFqWd_%2Bu9Sm9560LfY%3Djmwm%3DfXjKscoijA255A%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peace-mumbai/CACEsOZj5B6AfDFqWd_%2Bu9Sm9560LfY%3Djmwm%3DfXjKscoijA255A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- > Peace Is Doable > > > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/greenyouth/CACEsOZjpb%2B5WU9xH42HGskum5M2N%3D0jwW7tFDqwQ%2B5CAS%2BLJ3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
