Why Bring in Religion? If minorities in the neighboring countries lived happily, there would be no need for this act. Since the persecuted people were oppressed by virtue of them being non-Muslims minorities the CAA had to be about religion. That answers, ‘why bring in religion?’ The important thing is despite being seen as a right-wing Hindu nationalist party, parallel to its pluralism offered compassion, BJP’s CAA does not focus on Hindus alone - not even on Indic religions. It even includes persecuted Christians! Yes, with there being many powerful Christian countries, the troubled Christians could go to those countries as brethren. But curiously, probably because of the often talked about Islamist-globalist nexus the expected ‘Christian ummah’ globally has not helped to alleviate their plight. And when its ‘local ummah’ is vying for an anti Hindu tirade, despite BJP’s magnanimity airing noble effort to alleviate their plight at last, showing no feelings for the persecuted Christians the ‘local ummah’ still opposes the CAA! But then, at least the persecuted Christians are happy with the ‘fascist’ right wing anti minority government! Interestingly, unlike Islamophobia, which gets a global protection, Hinduphobia finds no takers; and in these globe Hindus have no other place to go either. But Why Not Muslims? Although Islam seeks Ummah, not nation, not Christians but Muslims of all sects voted and chose to live amongst Muslims in Pakistan with the guiding principle, ‘We can’t live with the Hindus.’ These countries not only have Sunni majority, but almost reflecting ‘dar al-Islam’ they have declared themselves as Islamic countries, where overall guidance of rule is Islam. That is why despite being a western educated and the highest justice giver in the land, Pakistani Chief Justice denies reconversion of a forcefully converted Hindu girl. Also, blasphemy law is still practiced. In fact, since, these are declared Islamic states — a la dar al-Islam the support of Muslim migration to dar al-harb could amount to disrespect to Islam itself — if not a straightforward Islamophobia. rrespective of that, the CAA isn’t about Muslims of all countries to justify the question ‘why no Muslim.’ It only includes the vivisected countries e.g. Bangladesh and Pakistan, and by extension Afghanistan - where people of India related faiths are persecuted as minorities. The key word here is ‘persecuted minorities’, nothing else. The Shias: Yes Shia Muslims are often killed in Sunni bombings and one could argue their inclusion in the list. But, like earlier routine Hindu Muslim clashes in India yet unlike the exploited non-Muslim minorities in those countries, they fight back too. Since they are seen as non-Muslims or bad Muslims by Sunnis, the problem is theological and can be solved theologically. Thus, in their case citing theological differences, whole sect could claim ‘persecuted minority.’ With it fearing demographic change, repeat of earlier routine clashes, and even a 2nd vivisection of the motherland and a history of Indira Gandhi even rejecting the incorporation of Bangladesh in 1971 (opposing Congress Party should know this), India may not feel comfortable with the influx of Shias. With the theology not limited to ‘Pakistani Sunnis’ but extending to Indian Sunnis that even has transpired some to find solace in peaceful Hindu Nepal or in support of the BJP their migration into Muslim areas could be reminiscent of the Muhajir. When resource paucity is added even local Shias could act like Assamese. And when they get transplanted into Hindu areas like the Rohingyas, Hindus won’t be happy either. Despite theological denigration, dar al-harb has been kinder to the suffering Middle Eastern Muslims than dar al- Islam (Muslim countries). Thus, dissolving into majority Shias, and even governing over the minority Sunnis, Iran may be the land of bread and honey for the Shia influx. The Ahmadiyya: Yes, Ahmadiyyas themselves chose not to remain with Kafirs during partition and Md Jafarullah Khan himself wrote the Lahore resolution in 1940. However, more than just individual humiliations, Pakistan’s constitution itself denies Ahmadiyyas their faith as Muslims. However, with their addition of a ‘prophet’ after Mohammed being a theological misfit — even amongst Indian Muslims — they may not find peace even in religious India. Or as invited trouble they may need much resource draining security. Instead, less religious liberal West may suit them better unless doctrinal readjustment is made. The Rohingyas: Yes, Rohingyas are refugees, but CAA isn’t about Myanmar. Also, while Muslim Bangladesh becomes uncomfortable with them, a question becomes relevant; why didn’t Myanmar persecute and expel the Hindu minority but just them? In fact, as Bangladesh asserts, they could pose a threat to Indian security. In addition, they have massacred innocent Hindu women anThe Sunnis: With them, by definition, not being the religiously persecuted minority and if allowed they - the Sunnis — could only constitute a large chunk of economic migrants — as is happening in its North East. India cannot afford to restrain that flow of Sunnis because of vote bank politics and the resources needed to investigate individual cases. India certainly cannot be Germany - neither in resource as said above, nor in liberalism. Not even in historical context. The Critics/Apostates: Islam prescribes death for apostates and critics face death threats. They are as much a persecuted minority in those countries. Surprisingly, however, not being gay/lesbian issue the rules of globalist-Islamist fleeting bond makes the Indian atheist communists not see ‘workers of the world unite’ in them let alone voice their lack in the ACC. Prominent ones like Taslima Nasreen and Tariq Fatah seem to feel secure in the liberal West than religious India. d children in Myanmar for not converting to Islam. India is duty bound to protect its citizens. It can’t take that risk. Far from blocking Muslims or showing inequality, as allowed by its 1955 Act India has given citizenship to thousands of Muslims over the years. One was given recently. With it having a fear of population boom, state agitations, vote bank politics, religious riots, competition of resources for proper living and the burden of probing each case India cannot afford an influx of demography changing economic migrants from the majority community - who chose to live in those countries during the partition. While this sequela is bad even for Indian Muslims, unlike the Indianized Muslims, the migrant Muslims come with the Pakistani trait. While the Indian Hindus fear being minority if that is allowed, the minority refugees feel getting Indian citizenship pointless, if the persecutors are allowed to accompany them. CAA, thus, would not only be pointless but cruel. If the CAA is bad, it is bad for the opposition alone. NEXT BACK

Theological clash between Shias and Sunnis