India Approves Bill Granting Citizenship Based on Religion

[Sukairain]

India has been a safehouse for refugees fleeing religious persecution in western Asia for almost a thousand years longer than the entire history of Islam. It's why today there are almost four times as many Zoroastrians, followers of the ancient Persian religion, in India than there are in Iran. The first wave of Zoroastrian refugees were taken in 2300 years ago after Alexander's conquest of the Achaemenid Persian empire, and the second wave taken in about 1300 years ago after the Islamic conquest of the Sassanian Persian empire. This policy is a modernization of a process that took place organically in medieval and ancient times, before clearly marked borders, passports, visas, and citizenships were a thing.

Obviously Muslims weren't welcome back then, not unless they came strapped and prepared to fight for the right to call India home, because they weren't refugees; they were the ones doing the displacement, not the people being displaced. If that situation hasn't changed in the Islamic lands to the west of India, it would be keeping consistency with thousands of years worth of foreign policy history to admit non-Muslim refugees to India while denying foreign Muslims the right to seek asylum in the country.

However what Rhakim has written about the citizen-stripping law is another matter altogether and I don't dispute or question his analysis on that topic. Refugee intake is something countries around the world closely control, and the common denominator whether it's in Europe or Asia or Australia is that Muslim refugees have a much harder time being admitted than do non-Muslims. Given this, and given the thousands of years of history I referenced earlier, I think it is unfair to single out India's anti-Muslim refugee policy as though it is particularly evil or unacceptable.

 

[mbewane]

well even the word swastika is a sanskrit one. and they've been using the symbol the longest.

Actually a quick glance online has various sources saying that the oldest object with a swastika was found in Ukraine, and afterwards in various areas in all of Eurasia looooong before it was co-opted by Nazis

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Sounds like things are getting really violent, with police allegedly shooting people at protests

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Sounds like things are getting really violent, with police allegedly shooting people at protests

Yup, all the folks I know say they're still unaffected but there are protesters and police wilding out really close to them. Not Hong Kong level fukkery yet, but that is in the picture now. And before I said that it was a lot of Hindus protesting, but now it sounds like majority Muslims protesting (unless government/news is just spinning shyt in that direction).

And the folk I know are in the major, mainland states. shyt might be WAY worst in Kashmir and the Northeast, out there almost anything could go down.

Story I heard from my peeps is that some Muslims at a seminary (with a lot of foreign students attending) planned to go on a nonviolent protest march, police barricaded them inside their seminary so that they couldn't march, students started throwing rocks at police, police throwing rocks back. Everyone says it's "under control" now but I don't know whether that means the students have freedom of movement or freedom to protest or not.

Crazy shyt that a country which earned its freedom in part via protest marches within LIVING memory is using police to forcibly stop protest marches now.

India has been a safehouse for refugees fleeing religious persecution in western Asia for almost a thousand years longer than the entire history of Islam. It's why today there are almost four times as many Zoroastrians, followers of the ancient Persian religion, in India than there are in Iran. The first wave of Zoroastrian refugees were taken in 2300 years ago after Alexander's conquest of the Achaemenid Persian empire, and the second wave taken in about 1300 years ago after the Islamic conquest of the Sassanian Persian empire. This policy is a modernization of a process that took place organically in medieval and ancient times, before clearly marked borders, passports, visas, and citizenships were a thing.

Obviously Muslims weren't welcome back then, not unless they came strapped and prepared to fight for the right to call India home, because they weren't refugees; they were the ones doing the displacement, not the people being displaced. If that situation hasn't changed in the Islamic lands to the west of India, it would be keeping consistency with thousands of years worth of foreign policy history to admit non-Muslim refugees to India while denying foreign Muslims the right to seek asylum in the country.

You're ignoring that some of the most desperate persecuted peoples in the region are indeed Muslims (the Rohingya, certain Afghan groups, potentially Uighur in the near future) not to mention war refugees from the middle east and central asia. That's true right now regardless of what's been true historically, and the ruling party is giving them a straight "fukk y'all" with no ambiguity.


And, of course, the fact that everyone knows this move was specifically designed to give non-Muslims an easy out when the citizenship-stripping law comes into play.

 

[Sukairain]

Yup, all the folks I know say they're still unaffected but there are protesters and police wilding out really close to them. Not Hong Kong level fukkery yet, but that is in the picture now. And before I said that it was a lot of Hindus protesting, but now it sounds like majority Muslims protesting (unless government/news is just spinning shyt in that direction).

And the folk I know are in the major, mainland states. shyt might be WAY worst in Kashmir and the Northeast, out there almost anything could go down.

Story I heard from my peeps is that some Muslims at a seminary (with a lot of foreign students attending) planned to go on a nonviolent protest march, police barricaded them inside their seminary so that they couldn't march, students started throwing rocks at police, police throwing rocks back. Everyone says it's "under control" now but I don't know whether that means the students have freedom of movement or freedom to protest or not.

Crazy shyt that a country which earned its freedom in part via protest marches within LIVING memory is using police to forcibly stop protest marches now.





You're ignoring that some of the most desperate persecuted peoples in the region are indeed Muslims (the Rohingya, certain Afghan groups, potentially Uighur in the near future) not to mention war refugees from the middle east and central asia. That's true right now regardless of what's been true historically, and the ruling party is giving them a straight "fukk y'all" with no ambiguity.


And, of course, the fact that everyone knows this move was specifically designed to give non-Muslims an easy out when the citizenship-stripping law comes into play.

You're right, I just wanted to provide some context. I'm not a supporter of the BJP or their policy agenda whatsoever. I do however stand by what I said: it's unfair to single out India's discriminatory refugee policy when many western countries, such as my home Australia, are much worse at handling refugees

 

[Professor Emeritus]

You're right, I just wanted to provide some context. I'm not a supporter of the BJP or their policy agenda whatsoever. I do however stand by what I said: it's unfair to single out India's discriminatory refugee policy when many western countries, such as my home Australia, are much worse at handling refugees

While I think India's discriminatory refugee policies are wrong, I don't care about them nearly as much as I care about what that signals for the 200 million muslims already in the country. They are setting anti-muslim immigration and citizenship policies as part of the noose to fukk over Muslims overall. Lots of countries including the USA right now are fukk-ups when it comes to immigration and refugees, but at least the people who already have their status are afforded some basic rights. That may not be true for millions of Indian Muslims very soon.


And yeah, I got some Aussie friends and everything I've heard about the refugee situation is horrible. They've been really evil on multiple levels. One of my brehs just told me they've even banned sick refugees from getting life-flighted out of that island they store them in.

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

Its bewildering how the middle east is just chilling and letting this happen

LMAOOO at thinking Middle Eastern countries actually give one single molecular fuk about Muslims in their own countries, let alone a thousand miles away. They shyt on the Palestinians almost as much as the Israelis.

 

[Sukairain]

While I think India's discriminatory refugee policies are wrong, I don't care about them nearly as much as I care about what that signals for the 200 million muslims already in the country. They are setting anti-muslim immigration and citizenship policies as part of the noose to fukk over Muslims overall. Lots of countries including the USA right now are fukk-ups when it comes to immigration and refugees, but at least the people who already have their status are afforded some basic rights. That may not be true for millions of Indian Muslims very soon.


And yeah, I got some Aussie friends and everything I've heard about the refugee situation is horrible. They've been really evil on multiple levels. One of my brehs just told me they've even banned sick refugees from getting life-flighted out of that island they store them in.

I have to think about the logistics of it. Disenfranchising 200 million people seems like a massive problem. What are you going to do with them? Even if you managed to round them all up together, which in itself would be an amazing (in a terrible way) feat, you can't deport them all, there's no country that would accept them. And even as fukked up as BJP are, they would have to be by far the most monstrous people in history to genocide that vast number.

While the situation is looking pretty bad, I think the numbers we are talking about rule out a Burma/China style ethnic cleansing programme. In regards to citizenship stripping and deportation, one comparison that leaps to mind is the Windrush scandal in the UK. Now those deportees were at least born in the Caribbean, and a lot of Caribbean countries are easily coerced by the UK. So the process of deporting them from the UK to the islands was relatively seamless. Australia has a similar position of dominance in the south Pacific, so it can force places like Manus Island and Nauru to act as refugee concentration camps and stop them from entering Australia.

India doesn't have that sort of former global empire and influence over places where politically undesired people can be dumped. Also unlike China with the Uighurs in the western part of the country, I don't think that India can set up a quarantine zone where all the Muslims in the country can be corralled into. No Hindu would accept that situation, because from a Hindu nationalist perspective India has already lost Pakistan and Bangladesh for that exact purpose of being designated Muslim areas. Giving up yet more territory, even if it is done to segregate the Hindu and Muslim populations, would be a non-starter. Moreover Muslims are fairly well dispersed throughout the entire country, unlike China where Muslims have practically always lived on the western fringes. It's not as hard a sell if as a politician you can say "well the Muslims have always lived in that part of the country, I'm just trying to make sure they don't live anywhere else." You can't really do that in India.

So I'm saying that I agree that things are not good, but I'm not sure how they can get much worse in regards to deportation, genocide, or forced segregation.

 

[88m3]

I have to think about the logistics of it. Disenfranchising 200 million people seems like a massive problem. What are you going to do with them? Even if you managed to round them all up together, which in itself would be an amazing (in a terrible way) feat, you can't deport them all, there's no country that would accept them. And even as fukked up as BJP are, they would have to be by far the most monstrous people in history to genocide that vast number.

While the situation is looking pretty bad, I think the numbers we are talking about rule out a Burma/China style ethnic cleansing programme. In regards to citizenship stripping and deportation, one comparison that leaps to mind is the Windrush scandal in the UK. Now those deportees were at least born in the Caribbean, and a lot of Caribbean countries are easily coerced by the UK. So the process of deporting them from the UK to the islands was relatively seamless. Australia has a similar position of dominance in the south Pacific, so it can force places like Manus Island and Nauru to act as refugee concentration camps and stop them from entering Australia.

India doesn't have that sort of former global empire and influence over places where politically undesired people can be dumped. Also unlike China with the Uighurs in the western part of the country, I don't think that India can set up a quarantine zone where all the Muslims in the country can be corralled into. No Hindu would accept that situation, because from a Hindu nationalist perspective India has already lost Pakistan and Bangladesh for that exact purpose of being designated Muslim areas. Giving up yet more territory, even if it is done to segregate the Hindu and Muslim populations, would be a non-starter. Moreover Muslims are fairly well dispersed throughout the entire country, unlike China where Muslims have practically always lived on the western fringes. It's not as hard a sell if as a politician you can say "well the Muslims have always lived in that part of the country, I'm just trying to make sure they don't live anywhere else." You can't really do that in India.

So I'm saying that I agree that things are not good, but I'm not sure how they can get much worse in regards to deportation, genocide, or forced segregation.

You sound like a card carrying RSS member

 

[GnauzBookOfRhymes]

I have to think about the logistics of it. Disenfranchising 200 million people seems like a massive problem. What are you going to do with them? Even if you managed to round them all up together, which in itself would be an amazing (in a terrible way) feat, you can't deport them all, there's no country that would accept them. And even as fukked up as BJP are, they would have to be by far the most monstrous people in history to genocide that vast number.

While the situation is looking pretty bad, I think the numbers we are talking about rule out a Burma/China style ethnic cleansing programme. In regards to citizenship stripping and deportation, one comparison that leaps to mind is the Windrush scandal in the UK. Now those deportees were at least born in the Caribbean, and a lot of Caribbean countries are easily coerced by the UK. So the process of deporting them from the UK to the islands was relatively seamless. Australia has a similar position of dominance in the south Pacific, so it can force places like Manus Island and Nauru to act as refugee concentration camps and stop them from entering Australia.

India doesn't have that sort of former global empire and influence over places where politically undesired people can be dumped. Also unlike China with the Uighurs in the western part of the country, I don't think that India can set up a quarantine zone where all the Muslims in the country can be corralled into. No Hindu would accept that situation, because from a Hindu nationalist perspective India has already lost Pakistan and Bangladesh for that exact purpose of being designated Muslim areas. Giving up yet more territory, even if it is done to segregate the Hindu and Muslim populations, would be a non-starter. Moreover Muslims are fairly well dispersed throughout the entire country, unlike China where Muslims have practically always lived on the western fringes. It's not as hard a sell if as a politician you can say "well the Muslims have always lived in that part of the country, I'm just trying to make sure they don't live anywhere else." You can't really do that in India.

So I'm saying that I agree that things are not good, but I'm not sure how they can get much worse in regards to deportation, genocide, or forced segregation.

you're like 2 steps from genocide lmao

 

[Sukairain]

you're like 2 steps from genocide lmao

Genocide of 200 million? You'll have to excuse me for being sceptical. Killing people on that scale is not easy to pull off even if you have unanimous political will behind it. Just look at the Nazis, they only attempted a fraction of that number and it was still a logistical nightmare. You're vastly overrating the planning and organisation of Indian society if you think that's a genuine possibility. We dont even have electricity, running water and sanitation set up across the whole country, and those things are a lot easier to engineer than a genocide.

 

[Sukairain]

You sound like a card carrying RSS member

I won't deny that I have an unusual and macabre way of assessing a situation, but just because I'm considering the engineering and logistical problems of genocide doesn't mean I condone it or support it. Most people might just say "genocide is horrible," and leave it at that. That doesn't interest me at all, that's obvious and something everyone already knows and agrees with. Whats there to discuss about that? I'm interested in whether or not it is even theoretically possible, let alone a practical future possibility. I suspect that it isn't and gave you my reasons for it.

I'm going to have to see someone post a plausible series of organisational creations that lead to the mass deportation, genocide, or segregation of 200 million before I believe that it is a realistic possibility. That means you have to solve the engineering problems. And not to mention the political problems. If you can't do it then you have to admit that it's not likely to happen. If you can't come up with a justification for your views you're just being sensationalist

I gave the examples of China, Australia and the UK to attempt to understand how genocide, segregation and deportation occur in the modern world. I gave reasons for why I believe it is possible for those three countries to engage in those policies, in regards to their domestic politics and their regional or global power. I want you to do the same for India, and if you can I will accept that it is a possibility.

 

[mitter]

I won't deny that I have an unusual and macabre way of assessing a situation, but just because I'm considering the engineering and logistical problems of genocide doesn't mean I condone it or support it. Most people might just say "genocide is horrible," and leave it at that. That doesn't interest me at all, that's obvious and something everyone already knows and agrees with. Whats there to discuss about that? I'm interested in whether or not it is even theoretically possible, let alone a practical future possibility. I suspect that it isn't and gave you my reasons for it.

I'm going to have to see someone post a plausible series of organisational creations that lead to the mass deportation, genocide, or segregation of 200 million before I believe that it is a realistic possibility. That means you have to solve the engineering problems. And not to mention the political problems. If you can't do it then you have to admit that it's not likely to happen. If you can't come up with a justification for your views you're just being sensationalist

I gave the examples of China, Australia and the UK to attempt to understand how genocide, segregation and deportation occur in the modern world. I gave reasons for why I believe it is possible for those three countries to engage in those policies, in regards to their domestic politics and their regional or global power. I want you to do the same for India, and if you can I will accept that it is a possibility.

Read about the partition violence in 1947.

Obviously the South Asian population has grown a lot since then, and we live in a different world where the international community may step in if things get bad enough.

But it really doesn't require much in the way of organizing and logistics. Just mobs of people going around slaughtering minority populations until the minorities decide they better get the fukk out.

 

[cobra]

India has been a safehouse for refugees fleeing religious persecution in western Asia for almost a thousand years longer than the entire history of Islam. It's why today there are almost four times as many Zoroastrians, followers of the ancient Persian religion, in India than there are in Iran. The first wave of Zoroastrian refugees were taken in 2300 years ago after Alexander's conquest of the Achaemenid Persian empire, and the second wave taken in about 1300 years ago after the Islamic conquest of the Sassanian Persian empire. This policy is a modernization of a process that took place organically in medieval and ancient times, before clearly marked borders, passports, visas, and citizenships were a thing.

Obviously Muslims weren't welcome back then, not unless they came strapped and prepared to fight for the right to call India home, because they weren't refugees; they were the ones doing the displacement, not the people being displaced. If that situation hasn't changed in the Islamic lands to the west of India, it would be keeping consistency with thousands of years worth of foreign policy history to admit non-Muslim refugees to India while denying foreign Muslims the right to seek asylum in the country.

However what Rhakim has written about the citizen-stripping law is another matter altogether and I don't dispute or question his analysis on that topic. Refugee intake is something countries around the world closely control, and the common denominator whether it's in Europe or Asia or Australia is that Muslim refugees have a much harder time being admitted than do non-Muslims. Given this, and given the thousands of years of history I referenced earlier, I think it is unfair to single out India's anti-Muslim refugee policy as though it is particularly evil or unacceptable.

This has nothing to do with refugees tho

It is about illegals getting citizenship based on religion, in order to form a vote bank

I would assume actual registered refugees would have already been naturalized