Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

LEAD

I am getting rather tired of this repeated to'ing and fro'ing of the LEAD. As far as I am concerned, the original LEAD that I wrote based on the BBC News was the best one. I am opposed to the NYT-Washington Post perspective. Those people don't have a good understanding of the South Asian history, the partition, refugees, secularism/communalism etc. and possibly equate things with the Mexican problems in the US. If people don't discuss the LEAD here and obtain CONSENSUS, I am going to revert it back to what it was on the day the page went to ITN. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, the lead I read today was apalling; ungrammatical, non-neutral in multiple ways, and misrepresenting sources. In an article this fast-evolving, there isn't a status quo as such. List your specific concerns, if you would, and I'll do my best to address them. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I thought the lead I saw this morning was pretty good, even though the BBC News report itself seemed to be gone. BBC had recognised that the Act was aimed at accommodating religious minorities of the Muslim majority neighbours. (Even that is not entirely accurate from my perspective. It was mainly aimed at Pakistan and Bangladesh, with Afghanistan added as an afterthought because the Afghan refugees were also essentially Pakistani-origin people.) Now the "religious minorities" phrase is completely gone. This kind of misreporting is precisely why the passions are getting inflamed in India. I don't want to contribute to those passions from the Wikipedia desk. We are supposed to be an authoritative sources, not a newspaper that files tip of the tounge reports overnight. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• "Immediate beneficiaries" for the 30,000 people is also an important phrase. I am estimating that the eventual beneficiaries of the law are going to be something like 10 million. Saying that the law benefits just this 30,000 people is a misrepresentation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
• The idea that this law is discriminatory is more a perception than a reality. Given that it is targeting only people that would be called "refugees" in international law, even if it had added Muslims to the list, the number that would qualify would be miniscule. For Afghan refugees, for example, 90% of the refugees are Hindu/Sikh, only 10% are Muslim (people called Hazaras). For Pakistani refugees again, nobody has provided figures for the Ahmadiyya refugees, probably because they are insignificant. So on. Many people did advise the government to drop the mention of religions, but I guess they didn't because the symbolism is important for their politics. But I am not seeing a great deal of difference in the substance. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

  Well, the sources are broadly framing this in terms of discrimination and the BJP's ideology, whether that's accurate or not (that's even true of those scholars who are commenting in RS; there's been no scholarly publications about this as such, yet). So there's not much to be done about that. Your other objections are easily addressed; I think "religious minorities from Muslim majority countries" is redundant, but if people want redundancy, so be it. "Hindus [...] from Muslim majority countries" already makes it clear they are minorities...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Kautilya3. Vanamonde93: It is more accurate and NPOV to state "religious minorities" rather than "Hindu only" here. Their "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019" states so, as do WP:RS. We should not use phrases or reword the language in the Act that inadvertently misinforms and "furthers outside conflicts" (see 1). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The text used in the legislation is "minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians". The "minority communities" is the principle, and "namely" is the elaboration. The Indian newspapers have done a vast disservice by omitting the principle. And, the American newspapers have exhibited total hypocrisy by acting as if there was no such principle at all.

The lead I wrote for the ITN day did the right thin by mentioning "religous minorities" on its own, just as BBC News also did, and enumerated the minorities in a separate sentence. The current lead enumerates the religions first, which is the wrong focus.

Another issue slipped my attention earlier. The current lead, as well as my lead, don't make it clear that the law is talking about people who are already in India. The previous version used the term "illegal migrants" to refer to them, which I removed because I thought they had already been legalised by the previous orders. We can just call them "migrants".

Ms Sarah Welch, please remember that this law covers all the people that arrived in India between 1950 and 2014. So talking about "recent decades" is misleading. In fact, the majority of the Hindu refugees from East Bengal came before 1972, when it was part of Pakistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Good points. Which sentence or para implies this Act applies only to asylum seekers from "recent decades"? If you see one, please fix it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

When you say, "the Act will add 30,000+ citizens...", you have missed the subtlety. I don't think any good source would have said it in such confident terms either. Your coverage of persecution in Pakistan is focused on recent decades and, in any case, it is barking up the wrong tree because Pakistan was mostly emptied out of its minorities by 1950. Bangladesh's Hindu population is said to have reduced from 22% in 1951 to 8% now. We know very little about how and why it happened. That amounts to 10 million people, who could have gone nowhere else except India and, if they are in India, they are 'illegal migrants' by the 1955 law. They are the elephant in the room. Writing 2 lines about them and 20 lines about Pakistani minorities again misleads. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I also believe that the BJP as a party and the BJP-in-government cannot be treated as being identical. As a government they are embedded in the state's policy-making apparatus, which moderates their ideology. They are also required to work within the framework of the Indian constitution, the existing legal framework, and their ability to get the legislation through the Parliament. So it cannot be seen simply as the "BJP law", despite the fact that that is how the Left wants us to see it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I strongly disagree with you here. BJP as a party and the BJP-in-government are both same entities, controlled by Shah and Modi. And both of them are basically part of RSS so they are doing whatever RSS wants them to do. regarding BJP law, if the RS are using it I see no problem there, to state the same here. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 10:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, what BJP as a party promised in their manifesto and what the BJP-in-government put into the law are both described on this page. The difference between them is clear to the naked eye.

Let us also note that this government built stronger links with the "Muslim world" than any other government of India, so much so that Al Jazeera now puts 'anti-Muslim' in scare quotes.

We need sources that evaluate what they see, not what they imagine. New York Times's head line of "blocks naturalization for Muslims" (stronger than the headline they used in the Asia-Pacific edition) is the most disgraceful POV I have ever seen in a western paper in all my life. Can you think of any good reason why they couldn't say "religious minorities" like BBC News did? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

KT3, There are differences in what the BJP-RSS would love to do vs what the BJP can actually do, considering the legal checks and balances in place. So, one must not attribute this to a change of heart or anything. Lets just stick to the source and leave our personal WP:OR out of this. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 11:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That is precisely my point. All parties engage in heavy rhetoric when in opposition and moderate them when in power. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Assuming it's the phrase The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads the Indian government (emphasis mine), you take issue with, it's patently absurd to un-link the effects of BJP-RSS combine/Hindu nationalism from the bill. The long-spanning rhetoric by the incumbent Home Minister about engaging in a nationwide NRC and following it with CAB derives from RSS literature, in near-entirety. ∯WBG^converse 11:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Talking about the long-spanning rhetoric by the incumbent Home Minister here is a tweet/Quote that I feel is worth adding to the article. refs: [1] [2] [3]--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 11:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

No, no. You are going off track. We are discussing sources, not the BJP. This was in response to Vanamonde's comment that the sources are broadly framing this in terms of discrimination and the BJP's ideology. In a way, he is admitting that they are pushing POV's, even if those POVs are based on their imagination of what BJP might do instead of the reality of what BJP is doing. Jeffrey Gettleman's NYT article was titled

India's Parliament Takes Step Toward Blocking Naturalization for Muslims

Gettleman, Jeffrey; Raj, Suhasini . New York Times , Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]10 Dec 2019: A.14.

They softened the title for the next day's Asia Pacific edition, and pulled the original title off the web. It was probably too embarrassing. So you can't see it now. But some of it got republished in TOI [4] Google-cached. (Note that the coauthor pulled out of it!)

It is the original title and article that the USCIRF saw and tweeted [5], which now made it into our LEAD. But it is the same POV that propagated through a large number of American media [6] and also apparently Australia [7]. I have seen it in other US-based articles, which I can't locate right now. All of American attitudes towards what is going on have been poisoned by the NYT. We can't rely on them any more. Fake news web sites are also talking about it [8].

We can emulate New York Times by writing articles titled

India blocks Hindus from going to Mecca

because India subsidises Haj pilgrimage for Muslims and does nothing of the sort for Hindus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

And in response to your Amit Shah tweets, I can quote back your own text to you:

The Government of India already had in its stock of statutes, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950. This act came into effect from 1 March 1950 which mandated expulsion of illegal immigrants from the state of Assam.[10] To identify illegal immigrants, the National Register of Citizens was prepared for the first time in Assam during the conduct of 1951 Census.[11]

If you are going to say they didn't make a distinction between Hindus and Muslims in those days, theoretically, the present law doesn't do so either. It only exempts Hindus that were trying to escape persecution. Other Hindu migrants who came for economic reasons would have to be deported the same way as Muslims. That is what the law says.

Of course, in practice, there is no easy way to determine who came for which reason. Neither is there any guarantee that the government will seriously and sincerely make an effort to determine it. But I also can't see any alternative. You can't ask people who fled persecution to go back to where they came from. That is hardly civilised.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC) extended -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect to you folks, this discussion is going a little off the rails. Each of us presumably has opinions on the CAB. Each of us has opinions on the BJP/RSS (everyone who has read anything about them has some opinion about them). Each of us has opinions about broccoli. They don't matter one whit. NPOV is about summarizing what reliable sources say, period. If we think some of the best media sources in the business are getting it wrong, well, tough luck, until we find equally weight sources saying otherwise. And I see no evidence of that; the NYT wrote a click-bait title, but so does every other news organization. Whether the source is pushing a POV is irrelevant; every source has a POV, just as every person has an opinion. We care about reliability, not whether the writers have no opinions. Also, we don't use titles, we use the substance of the article. Our personal analysis of what the BJP wants vs what it means to do vs what it is doing; none of it belongs here. If the sources are saying this is about discrimination, that's what we say. If they say it's about protecting the victims of persecution by the Pakistani army in 1971, then that's what we say. That's about it, really. This page needs to stick to discussing what the sources say; so let's discuss that, please. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, I thought there was agreement here[9] over a suitable wording for the lead that mentioned Hindus etc as religious minorities but also pointed out that Muslims were excluded from the Act?Bless sins (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, you removed the fact here that the act does not grant eligibility to Muslims.[10] This is a fact that has been covered by many reliable sources. It also deserves to be mentioned alongside the list of religious who are included.Bless sins (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Subtle clarifications!

K3: There are several themes above. I do not want your comment about "30,000+ citizens..." and missed subtlety get lost in the fog of those themes. The 30,000+-related statement was there in lead and main before my first edit. I merely clarified that sentence as the original version was incomplete. That number, per the previously cited sources, includes thousands of Sikhs and a few Christians etc. That is notable and well supported. Your point about this Act covering the 1950-2014 period is significant and I encourage you to clarify this if you can find reliable sources for it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Statement Accuracy

The use of "The Indian government says that" in the statement ,"The Indian government says that ... cannot be treated as persecuted minorities" is not exactly accurate as this statement was a counter argument used in the Lok Sabha and not a official statement of the government. "Supporters of the bill argue that" may be a more accurate way to frame the point. The current references of the statement also support this claim. --Zack1455 (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

All the statements made in the Parliament have the effect of the government talking to the people of the country and the public at large. Wikipedia doesn't recognise anything called "official statement" (see WP:RS). It all depends on the context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedia expert but isn't the current wording giving a false impression that the government unanimously agrees with the concerned statement? Selected parts of a debate can't be considered to be a statement to the public. "Supporters of the bill" would be much more true to the source. "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." as per WP:RSCONTEXT, nowhere does the source say that it was a statement by the government... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zack1455 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Supporters is a broader term. For example, it can include those who partially/fully support this bill because they feel compassion for the refugees; or who additionally support citizenship to refugees from Sri Lanka etc; or who are (...). We need to stick with the sources. The BBC/Economist/other sources state this to be the Indian government's position. It is an important, notable side here. A government's position need not be one that is "unanimously agreed" upon in that government. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Off-the-book citizens

After the partition of India,

• the non-Muslims from West Punjab and NWFP, left within 3 to 4 months.
• the majority of those in Sindh left within 3 to 4 years.
• a great majority of those from East Bengal (present day Bangladesh) continued to leave over the next 30 to 40 years.

An important question is how many of these people have Indian citizenship.

As mentioned repeatedly, people that were resident in India at the commencement of the Constitution (c. 1950) were automatically citizens. This covered the refugees from Punjab and NWFP and probably a good majority of the Sindhis. It did not cover the Bengali refugees who came much more slowly and sporadically, but they are in fact the great bulk of the partition refugees. They number at least 10 million, as compared to the 5 million Punjabi refugees ("an unspecified but massive number"). However, the only means available to become citizens after 1950 was by registration or naturalisation. I don't see any evidence that these people applied for citizenship by those means or were told to do so. At the same time, there is no evidence that they have been treated as non-citizens either. These are the people that I am calling "off-the-book citizens".

The successive Congress governments (as well as the CPI governments in West Bengal) treated the Muslim as well as non-Muslim migrants that came from East Bengal the same way. No distinction was applied regarding the causes of their migration. However, in international refugee laws, there is a clear difference between refugees, whose migration is forced, and migrants, whose migration is voluntary. Since India doesn't have a national refugee policy, this made no difference to India.

Up to 1987, Indian citizenship was jus solis (by birth). So, the children of off-the-book citizens born in those years automatically became citizens. This enabled the governments of those days to turn a blind eye to the problem. The off-the-book citizenship lasted only one generation.

But after 1987, Indian citizenship became jus sanguinis (by descent). So the children of off-the-book citizens born after 1987 remained off-the-book. Any NRC exercise that verifies citizenship will be forced to identify all the off-the-book people and declare them non-citizens. This is in essence the crux of the problem the BJP government faces. At the same time, it wants to distinguish refugees from illegal migrants, without having a refugee law. This is essentially the USCIRF's criticism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks Kautilya3. A few of these at the very least should be in Further Reading / ELYES. According to UNHCR data, presented in a table form by the World Bank, India had 195,891 refugees in 2018. This number is quite low compared to your comments (10 million). I located and read a few of the UNHCR's recent annual reports to get more clarity on UNHCR methodology, without success. The only thing I could confirm at UNHCR is that India is not a signatory to the 1951 or 1967 protocols/conventions on refugees. The Tetsuya Nakatani source you attached is supportive of your analysis (see p. 79, Table 1, 1952–1970 totals e.g.). Do you have a good source that explains and discusses the 1987 change? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that UNHCR takes care of the refugees that India doesn't want to take responsibility for, such as the Afghans, Somalis, and possibly even Rohingyas. Pakistani & Bangladeshi refugees are taken care of by India and UNHCR won't be involved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My best guess about the 1987 change is that it was warranted by the Sri Lankan refugees (who number 140,000 now, might have been higher then). Their children born on Indian soil would have been counted as Indian citizens under the original law. The Banglaseshi migrants might have also posed a similar problem. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

This article [11] gives you some idea how the Bangladeshi refugees were dealt with. You can probably find more by googling for for "5 lakh Hindus Assam" or "5,04,800 Hindus Assam". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Total cumulative, remaining Refugee/Asylum seekers in India (1951–2018) = 207,848; Pie chart shows the origin of refugees; There were no refugees in India from Bangladesh/Pakistan. – UN

  China (52%)

  Sri Lanka (29%)

  Myanmar (10%)

  Afghanistan (7%)

  Other (2%)

(ps) These somewhat clarify the complexity in their protests too. While our past editors of this article have lumped all criticism/protests as anti-ACA and for excluding Muslims, the motivations/themes/concerns of the critics/protestors are different. Some criticism/protests such as those in their eastern/northeastern states are against all refugees (Muslims, Hindus, etc): unless I have missed something, they want no forced refugees/voluntary migrants. Some criticism/protests are targeting ACA for discriminating against Muslims. Two totally different perspectives. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the genuine protesters are protesting the NRC, not the CAA. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: This UNHCR source is interesting. Says, the UN Refugee Agency recognizes 207,848 "persons of concern" in India as of the end of 2018. Of these, 11,957 are asylum-seekers in India. Refugees/Asylum seekers from Myanmar are about 10% of the total, Afghanistan: 7%, Pakistan: 0% (none), Bangladesh: 0% (none), Somalia: 0.5%, etc. I can see the data for many years, but I am unable to verify the 17% claim alleged by BBC. It is strange that BBC did not mention that "according to UN, there were no refugees and asylum seekers in India from Bangladesh or Pakistan" (there is 1 person occasionally in some years from Pakistan over the decades, who UNHCR recognizes as a refugee)! But BBC does mention 17%, Tibet and Sri Lanka. Voila, the magic of UN surveys and statistics, then selective media reporting. You are very likely right: UNHCR and Indian government recognize / are talking about two different refugee population sets. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, UNHCR does say 108,000 to 110,000 refugees from China (guess Tibet) and 65,000 to 68,000 from Sri Lanka, which BBC does mention as "the biggest numbers registered with the UN", year after year, for a long long time! That is about 80 to 85% of total. The UN database goes back to 1951, but the data before the 1980s looks incomplete/suspect. FWIW, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Sarah, it is sourced and verified now. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

It is written at the very top of the UNHCR web site:

In New Delhi, UNHCR conducts mandate Refugee Status Determination (RSD) for individual asylum seekers from non-neighbouring countries, with the exception of Myanmar. Together with our partners, we maintain a network of outreach offices across Delhi.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Its India pamphlet says:

However, [India] continues to grant asylum to a large number of refugees from neighbouring States and respects UNHCR’s mandate for other nationals, mainly from Afghanistan and Myanmar. While the Government of India deals differently with various refugee groups, in general it respects the principle of non-refoulment for holders of UNHCR documentation.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Largest numbers of refugees

@Kautilya3, please explain how I am misinterpreting this article.[12]

It says,[13]

According to UN data, the number of refugees in India went up by 17% between 2016-19. As of August this year, the biggest numbers registered with the UN were actually from Tibet and Sri Lanka.

Bless sins (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You ignored the phrase "registered with the UN" when you added it to the article. When the relevant data is already given in a footnote, why do you add data that contradicts it in the main body? How to do you propose to resolve the contradiction? Are you writing the Wikipedia to explain something to the reader or just to put up your own views? What exactly is your purpose here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

As stated before, please don't make personal attacks, whether directly or indirectly. If there is a contradiction, then WP:NPOV requires giving both views as long as they both come from reliable sources. I can re-add this claim with the qualification "registered with the UN".Bless sins (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Executive and Legislative

Vanamonde93, regarding this revert, I don't particularly care for manifesto promises, but the executive orders and legislation merge into each other in this area. Shuvro Prosun Sarker says:

It is important to mention that the wide range of powers granted to the Central Government under the Foreigners Act, 1946 was significant in the drafting of the Foreigners Order, 1948.

It is these rules that the Modi government amended using its executive power, which were then referenced in the legislation. That is certainly a very strange thing to do, and possibly the reason the majority of commentators completely missed it. So, we need to discuss both together. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: It's true that the concepts are related. The way we've structured the article at present, though, the executive orders don't belong where you've put them. I'm not opposed to restructuring the article; we could rewrite the background to include the history of the citizenship law, the ideology of the BJP, and the religious persecution and refugees in South Asia. The executive orders, and all of the government's activities related to this project (including brief mentions of the NPR and the NRC, but mostly the previous attempts at the CAB and the current bill) could be in a separate section. We can't title it "legislative history", though. Incidentally, the rest of the article (after the contents of the bill) is in dire need of restructuring; "aftermath", "analysis", and "reactions" are all overlapping substantially in content. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly care how we title the section, but everything the Modi government did for this class of people hase to be discussed together. Putting some in the Background section, some in Legislative history and some in Analysis section etc. gives a very disjointed picture. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm still trying to deal with the organizational mess that is the reactions section. I think a clearer picture will emerge once I'm done with that. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

India is for Hindus

But scholars point out that this apparent religious neutrality was illusory. Indian legislation on citizenship has always been informed by the idea of "India is for Hindus".

References

Hi Kautilya3, regarding this line above added by you here I would like to discuss if this is a widely held view or only of this author. IMHO this is highly controversial and feel that this is not the WP:MAINSTREAM view but more of the right wing WP:FRINGE view. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 18:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My impression is that practically everybody that has studied Indian citizenship laws and rules comes to the same conclusion, except that this lady said it in more explicit terms than the others. "India is for Hindus" does not mean "India is for Hindus only". It just means that India consistently accommodates the Hindus that want to come and settle in India, especially from other part of the "undivided India". It is there in the Constitution itself if you care to see it. But it is cleverly couched in neutral terms. You have to dig into it to figure out what it really means. And this paper does that.

By my calculation, the Congress party has accommodated 23 million Hindus that fled Pakistan and Bangladesh over the decades. Let them tell us how many Muslims they accommodated. I would guess no more than a few hundred would have been genuinely naturalised. (Of course, millions have been accommodated illegally and they have formed the vote banks for Congress, CPM and TMC in West Bengal and Assam.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I will add some more quotes below as I find them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Chapter 2 argues that the tension between these two conceptions of citizenship was present from the founding moment of the republic, and, with the passage of time, citizenship laws are increasingly rather than decreasingly informed by the divisive legacy of the Partition. Through a survey of the evolution of laws on citizenship, and of the jurisprudence on the subject, the book argues that this bias is most visible in the manner in which law and policy have negotiated the question of Bangladeshi (Muslim) immigrants, as also in the manner in which the claims of wealthy diasporic Indians (mostly Hindus) have been sought to be accommodated.

References

If it is as you say that "It just means that India consistently accommodates the Hindus that want to come and settle in India," then perhaps we should clarify this clearly if we add this into the article, currently it is giving an impression that India is for Hindus only and the Muslim residents need to be thrown out of India (which is a right wing view). --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I think we need to be more careful about the right wing view. They want to throw out the Muslim "illegal immigrants". That is what the law says they should do. And they didn't make that law. So, what do you mean by the "right wing view"? Whoever made that law was of that view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, they did make that law in 2003. So I will need to recalibrate my whole world view. Give me some time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• Flyby note:- I don't agree with Kautilya's addition or specifically the framing of it. However, it has been a fact that India's legislation on issues of immigration (and accompanying political stances adopted by a multitude of parties across the divide) have indeed favored the Hindu community, though often in quite nuanced manners (rather than the brazen polarizing nonsense, BJP is indulging in). There is an excellent book by N. G. Jayal on this locus (and the overall domain of citizenship in India), which ought be a necessary read. ∯WBG^converse 06:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have quoted from Jayal's book too above. There is also Anupama Roy's book which makes similar points. But the paper I cite brings it all together as a context for this bill. So it is entirely relevant and proper.

The Congress party knows how to play the secular game while doing the same thing that the BJP does. What stopped it from giving citizenship to the 12 million Bangladeshi migrants that it knew existed? See a quote below from the Assam PCC president which sounds as if it is taken right out of the BJP playbook. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3: You write, "By my calculation, the Congress party has accommodated 23 million Hindus that fled Pakistan and Bangladesh over the decades". Where are these calculations? By "accommodated", do you mean "not deport" or do you mean gave something equivalent to the "Indian citizenship"? Any sources? If you are referring to the Nakatani paper, which page? Based on what I have read so far – e.g. the Rizwana Shamshad source published by Oxford Univ Press, if my memory serves me right – the sources say that the past state governments led by Congress/CPI/TMC leaders gave the Bangladeshi refugees/migrants ration cards, voter ID and other paperwork, but not Indian citizenship. This has been a major political issue in Assam, Tripura, WB, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, essentially, accommodated = not deported/detained/sanctioned. I don't know what they did by way of citizenship. Until 1987 it was not an issue because the jus soli citizenship operated for their children. But now it has become an issue. I haven't studied the Rizwana Shamshad book (don't know why it didn't show up in my searches). If you have precise information about these issues please consider adding them to Refugees in India and/or Illegal immigration to India. Those articles are in poor shape. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh, about 23 million, please search for "3 million" and "20 million" on this talk page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, they and related articles are in appalling shape. Does your 3+20 million calculation assume that "if there was no exodus, the % would approximately be constant" and that the difference reflects net migration? If so, that need not be so. The fertility rates, among other things, have significantly varied among the religious groups in South Asia (1, 2 (Figure 1 and Table 2), 3, etc). This can partially explain the difference and the falling % non-Muslims in Bangladesh and Pakistan between 1951 and 2011. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this assumes the same population growth rate as in the original countries. Please keep in mind that it is a ballpark estimate, not meant to be a precise figure of anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That significantly higher # of children per Muslim woman than # of children per Christian/Hindu/Sikh/etc woman in Bangladesh/Pakistan account for a big part of that 3+20 million over 60 years. This fertility rate was much higher in the 1950s and 1960s, for all groups, than in the 1990s and 2000s. I hope no one has added, or used, or will use, any of this 20+3 million first guess estimate or logic in this or another related wikipedia article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Twice the article states that "scholars point out...Indian legislation on citizenship has always been informed by the idea of "India is for Hindus'". But the source only quotes a single scholar. Are there other scholars as well who share this view?Bless sins (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Even as some scholars might believe "India is for Hindus", that has to be balanced with reliable sources claiming that CAA is the "first time" religion has been used as a criteria for Indian citizenship.[14][15]Bless sins (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

To say the "first time", the source must be a WP:HISTRS. In general, WP:SCHOLARSHIP always ranks higher than a newspaper commentary, a lot higher. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have removed the removed the sentence in question. First, I'm unsure if this specific idea (citizenship law, specifically, has favoured Hindus) has wider support. Second, the author's arguments are fairly complex; a single sentence doesn't do them justice. The conclusion of the paper is that the CAB is still reinforcing the "India for Hindus" idea, whereas the sentence added has the effect of exculpating the present government from any responsibility for that concept. Third, I'm concerned about synthesis, as before. The narrative in RS about this bill refers to the Constitution and citizenship law as written, and points out that the CAA changes that from religion-neutral to religion-aware. It says nothing of the intent behind the law or of how it was enforced in practice. This paper is, on the other hand, about intent and motivation. Contrasting the two is tending to original research, because all it's really doing is saying that discrimination against non-Hindu populations in India has been common (which is just stating the bloody obvious). As such, if we use this paper (and I'd support that) we've to make sure we're presenting the author's chief point; that this bill fits in with a history of conceiving of India for Hindus. And I for one would like to see that text gain consensus here before being added. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that after considering the arguments above, I agree with the removal. If someone would now like to get some version of it back into the article, they wil need to propose it on the talk and gain consensus per WP:BRD--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are right about Jayal's book published by Harvard Univ Press. It is RS. He is indeed stating what you write above, "the tension between the two conceptions of citizenship was present from the founding moment of the [Indian] republic, and, with the passage of time, citizenship laws are increasingly rather than decreasingly informed by the divisive legacy of the Partition" (page 14, part of your quote). The real discussion is on pages 52–64. He mentions the impact of Pakistan civil war in 1971, and how the mass influx of Bangladeshi migrants/refugees affected the views of the national leaders. He provides more depth than Sharma, but essentially is saying what you wrote. I also checked the Rodrigues 2008 source in Bhargava (ed), the Sadiq 2009 source, and the Roy 2010 source. These support your comments. Jayal does not quite agree with them, presents a more nuanced view, emphasizing the Muslim and non-Muslims as the perceived primary fault line of the religious difference, particularly since the issue came to the forefront in the 1980s (Assam Accord and the rest). Jayal provides the history of the Act, from different sides and those who opposed/denied the "religious angle". Then writes Jayal (page 61), "Nothwithstanding these denials, the question of citizenship remained deeply imbricated in religion, and closely linked to property" and "Discouraging the putative (Muslim) citizen from returning was thus a dominant theme in the formulation of Article 7 of the [Indian] Constitution". Here is more history:

1. The issue of refugees in India began to be discussed as the partition of British India into a Muslim state (Pakistan) and non-Muslim state (India) became a likely development in the 1940s. In a July 21, 1947 letter to Krishna Das, for example, Mahatma Gandhi wrote, "Jinnah Saheb has himself said that non-Muslims will have the same place in Pakistan as the Muslims. But it remains to be seen whether or not such a policy is implemented. The poor Hindus who will migrate owing to oppression will certainly be accommodated in India. But this much is certain that they will have to labour for their bread." – Mahatma Gandhi

2. "However, the religion-based divide that had informed many of the submissions before the Assembly, seem to be finding ground in recent changes to the citizenship law. Several amendments to the citizenship law and political developments have started to reflect a shift towards a more exclusionary jus sanguinis notion" – Mihika Poddar, India Law Review (2018)

3. "Veteran Congress leaders such as Nalini Ranjan Sarkar and Kiran Sankar Roy, both originally hailing from eastern Bengal but had made their political career in Calcutta, publicly voiced their reasons for supporting the movement. In a series of public lectures and essay in major newspapers, Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, a veteran of the 1905 anti-Partition movement, assured those Hindus who would surely become part of Pakistan in the event of the division that, “In a divided Bengal those Hindus who might be left in East Bengal should have this satisfaction that West Bengal as a separate province would be there as a safe home for Hindu culture and economic interests" – Haimanti Roy, Modern Asian Studies (2009)

So, what Kautilya3 explains above is not the view of just Sarma, or a fringe view. It is at least a significant mainstream view that should be included for NPOV, with attributions and in their voice. But, I must say, that the other side "India is secular" is also in many sources, but Indian secularism "does NOT" mean "separation of religion and state, or religion and law". Indian secularism means something entirely different than what it means in the West (or Japan/Australia/etc). FWIW, I have skipped quite many more sources, Kautilya3, this is already too long a reply. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Poddar's statement above is what Jayal (Niraja - "she") calls consensus view, which "while not incorrect", misses the much more complicated history of the Indian legislation of citizenship. Both Chetana Sharma and Niraja Jayal discuss how the constitution itself is apparently secular but has hidden meanings which you only understand if you know the whole history. I didn't know, until I read these discussions, that the constitution had prescribed two modes of naturalisation, one for "undivided India" and another for the rest of the world. If that is not jus sanguinis then what is? They also point out, for example, that Muslims and non-Muslims were distinguished by euphemisms, such as "refugees" for one and "evacuees" for the other.

Unlike them, I don't think these were necessarily bad ideas. They are inevitable consequences of the Partition. I don't bemoan the so-called "legacy of Parition". India is a product of Partition, and it has to accept it and live with it. India doesn't become any less secular by accepting Hindus and other non-Muslims from the "undivided India". The foreign authors like Nakatani and Kamal Sadiq are able to write much more sensitively and impartially than the Indian authors because they are not saddled with these prejudices.

Coming back to the issues at hand, I think the Washington Post claim should be either junked or immediately contradicted with the informed scholarly view. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3: An informed, mainstream summary from these scholarly sources should be included. I am neutral to junking or keeping the newspaper op-ed. FWIW, newspaper op-eds by authors who have no major well-received scholarly book on the topic, are little more than blog-like opinions, one typically limited by space/word-limits. The selection of the author, and the op-ed piece does not go through the kind of scholarly peer-review that journals and university press publications go through. Between the above sources, I favor Jayal more, her discussion of the history of their Citizenship law and revisions/amendments is more thorough. Others can be 2nd/3rd/etc cites. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Kamal Sadiq (2009), Oxford University Press, writes

While a majority of the Bangladeshi refugees returned [after the 1971 Pakistan civil war] to their homes, many Bangladeshi Hindus and Muslims stayed in India. The strengthened Bangladeshi ethnic networks facilitated large flows into the Northeast Indian region, particularly Assam. This led to tremendous anti-immigrant agitation and violence during the mid-1980s, which resulted in the Assam Accord. The centerpiece of this accord was a new section of the constitution, 6A, which was meant to exclude Bangladeshi illegal immigrants from claims to Indian citizenship. Almost forty years after independence, the citizenship law was amended in 1986 and again in 1992. Jus soli would apply only to those born prior to the first amendment; those born in India after 1986 can claim citizenship only if one of their parents is a citizen of India at the time of their birth. The need to protect Indian citizenship from the encroachments of Bangladeshi illegal immigrants was made even more explicit in the 2004 amendment. A new clause was introduced into the Citizenship Act, which states that the right to citizenship by birth specifically excludes any individual whose parent was an illegal migrant at the time of his/her birth. Those gaining Indian citizenship were now assuredly of Indian descent, coming from Indian parentage and nationality. The exclusionary impact of jus sanguinis circumscribed the demos of Indian citizenship from the unwanted influence of illegal Bangladeshis.

– Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries, (page 10)

The 2019 amendment is built on the 2004 amendment of the Citizenship Act, which itself was one more step after the 1992 and the 1986 amendments (by Congress-led governments). The Jus soli principle was already crumbling in the 1980s. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, Sadiq's book makes it clear how the exercises like NRC are self-defeating, because the "illegal immigrants" know how to play this game better than the Indians do. So, by making the requirements harder and harder for people to prove their citizenship, the Indian state would be putting its own people through misery while the "illegal immigrants" will skim through them perfectly fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray, a quick one-sentence summary is the New York Times catch line:

India makes naturalization harder for Muslims

While the NYT believes that this has happened now, the scholars say that was always the case from the time of independence. The Indian laws were so engineered that it would be easier for non-Muslims to come and settle in India, while it would be harder for Muslims to do so. Since the means to do this covertly change over time, the Citizenship law was amended repeatedly. Also, a lot of this was done "off-the-book" by amending the "Rules" through which the law is implemented. The Rules can be amended by executive fiat without the public knowing anything about it.

Even now, the game could have been played by replacing the line:

any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan

by

any person belonging to religious minorities of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan

That is all it takes. Then the New York Times and Washington Post could not have claimed that "Muslims are excluded". The difference between the BJP and Congress just amounts to this choice of wording. That is how the game is played, while the intent being the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC) While we are on this subject, let me also note that the 2016 bill had subtly different wording

persons belonging to minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan

Some of the sources commented on this wording even though they were ostensibly talking about the 2019 bill. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Sources not mentioning the CAA

I've made this point above several times, but I'm going to repeat it here for the record, because it's being lost in the reams of discussion. There are plenty of sources exploring the history of Indian citizenship law, refugees in India, and persecution in India's neighbors. But, these were written without knowing of the existence of the recent law. Therefore, any attempt to use a narrative drawn from those sources to contextualize the present law is going to be original research by definition, unless the narrative is framed using sources that actually discuss this recent law. Regardless of the weaknesses of these contemporary sources, that is our only option, and this is a point I am becoming tired of making. And before anyone uses this as an excuse; yes, I've read the few decent contemporary sources. Yes, I've read many of the older ones, too; but while I may find them personally edifying, they need to be framed appropriately to include here. Also, for the record, I'd have very little objection to adding such scholarly sources to a new page about the history of Indian citizenship law. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

But you removed content sourced to

• Sharma, Chetna (2019). "Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016: Continuities and contestations with special reference to politics in Assam, India". Asian Ethnicity. 20 (4): 522–540. doi:10.1080/14631369.2019.1601993. ISSN 1463-1369.

which is precisely about this law, and made a statement that directly contradicted the Washington Post. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

@Kautilya3: My issue with the Sharma source was quite different; it was with how the material from the source was presented. I intend to fix that, when I have a moment; I'm not ruling it out as a source at all. I made this quite clear above; why do you feel the need to bring it up again? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Background

The background section currently contains lots of text that is sourced to sources that have nothing to do with CAB. Instead of going into all the details about the treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, links should be given for further reading somewhere in the article.Bless sins (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No. The CAB is about persecuted religious minorities. That is essential background. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Having just gone through these, I'm a little concerned about those sources, too. It's one thing to use sources that don't mention the CAB to elaborate on information that CAB-related sources touch upon; it's another thing altogether to add a whole section on religious persecution in Pakistan with much older sources. No connection to the CAB has been presented. The connection has to be made in reliable sources (and more than just "there has been religious persecution in Pakistan"). @Kautilya3, Winged Blades of Godric, and DBigXray: thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Vanamonde here, all we need here is a line or two that the Government has cited persecution as a justification (excuse ?) for the law. And perhaps may be a link to the article on religious persecution in those countries should suffice as far the CAA article is concerned. A heavily bloated section is not needed IMHO and this has to be cut down massively. --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 19:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Ispahani source is from 2017, not "much older sources". How is the background on the persecution of religious minorities not relevant when CAB explicitly states "who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution"? These scholarly sources published in recent years obviously cannot have anticipated that a law will be passed in December 2019. If you have indeed read sources such as Shuvro Sarker that I cited and other related scholarly sources, it should be pretty obvious that they are discussing religious persecution, refugees and that India needs to amend its citizenship law for refugees from its neighbors. Skipping it all together or trimming it massively would be inappropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, please move these to the individual persecution articles and add a link here to them if you want. This entire section is a massive WP:COATRACK and WP:SYNTHESIS. Please explain why the entire section should not be trimmed down to a couple of sentences ? --DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 20:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, there is no coatrack there. Their law clearly mentions "religious persecution" and the background is highly, directly relevant. Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. It states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." There are no new conclusions drawn or implied by combining sources in that section. If you allege synthesis, be prepared to show how and where the summary "reaches or implies a conclusion not explicitly stated". Perhaps, you may want to re-read the examples in that WP:SYNTHESIS section. You are an experienced editor, and you know this. Just stating, for other t/p readers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The law itself is a reliable source only for its own text. It is unreliable for analysis. The connection to persecution has to be made in reliable sources, because government sources can mention absolutely anything they like as a justification (this applies to any law, passed by any government). There are sources making the connection to religious persecution, but only when they mention in the same breath that religious persecution has occurred in all of India's neighbors, and this law only covers some of those victims. If you're going to add material discussing religious persecution, it needs to be a uniform analysis of persecution in all of India's neighbors; not limited to those countries mentioned in the law. Otherwise, I'm afraid this is WP:SYNTH, though you clearly didn't intend it to be; because it is combining material from one unreliable source (the law) with information from reliable sources that cover persecution (but not the law) to imply a conclusion unsupported in any reliable source (this law was passed in response to religious persecution in Pakistan). Vanamonde (Talk) 20:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The recent article in The Economist and other sources in this article make exactly that analysis and link, plus they go further. They discuss "this law was passed in response to religious persecution in Pakistan" etc, but then go on to state more.... e.g. that Ahmadis etc are also persecuted and much more. So, that link has already been made by external sources. Yes, I can see ways to shorten it plus the whole background section, one above religious persecution section as well. It too uses old pre-2019 sources quite a lot. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: That's an odd reading of the economist article (I assume you mean this one). That article says, very clearly, that the authors opinion the bill was passed to hurt Muslims, not actually in response to religious persecution. Moreover, the article mentions persecution of the Ahmadis, but the section in the article doesn't clarify that they are not covered by this bill. The section above religious persecution is framed on sources about the CAB; it uses other sources for specific dates and factoids that contemporary sources gloss over. If you're unwilling to address these points, we're really going to have to remove that section, because there's now three editors questioning the way in which sources have been used, and you've not budged an inch. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The refugees are there in India. They themselves form the evidence of persecution, since they fled it. There are some recent news sources that covered them [16] [17] [18] [19]. Government officials have said that there are two lakh refugees.[20] The newspapers don't know where they are. Neither have these people applied for long-term visas, as far as we know, except for the 30,000 that have been reported. If the NRC gets implemented then perhaps all of them will come out of the woodwoork and possibly many more. That might explain Amit Shah's "lakhs and crores" phrase.

I think it will be best to summarise the persecution issues in 3-4 lines and then present the actual situation of the refugees. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's a considerable number of refugees, who have a variety of struggles. The point is, those aren't exclusively Pakistani, Afghan, or Bangladeshi; nor are they exclusively of the religious denominations benefiting from this bill. If we're summarizing the refugee situation, again, it needs to be broader than just those sections of the refugee population; else we're getting into SYNTH territory (I don't think you were suggesting we be selective, K, were you?) Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The Economist has several articles on this, and you looked at a different one. Your earlier allegation was, that the section is "implying a conclusion unsupported in any reliable source", i.e. this law was passed in response to religious persecution in India's neighboring countries. Now, let us look at the source (setting aside further analysis, which we can summarize in other sections). In this different article, The Economist writes, "When Amit Shah, India’s home minister, proposed his bill in parliament on December 9th, he framed it as an act of mercy. Henceforth, he promised, people who have fled persecution in neighbouring countries and taken refuge in India would be granted quicker access to citizenship". That is a direct link and support for "this law was passed in response to religious persecution in India's neighboring countries". Do you need more sources? I have already offered to trim that subsection a bit, if we remain consistent in similarly trimming other subsections to a consistent standard. We can also incorporate ideas of Kautilya3 above. I need to run to take care of some chores, but should be able to reply to any additional reasonable concerns you may have within a few hours. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC) [(ps) WP:SYN explains terms such as conclusion/arguments/etc in interchangeable/broad sense; summarizing such background from RS is common practice, see this and other edits by Vanamonde in this article and elsewhere.]

The religious persecution subsection summary does include Ahmadis etc. They are included with Hindus, Christians, etc in the cited sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

If persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh is to be covered in this article, then it needs to be done neutrally. In a section above (Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Pakistan_minorities_etc.), Kautilya3 said, "The topic of this article is Indian citizenship law. This stuff is entirely tangential and doesn't belong her." The topic in question was whether Pakistan's Hindu population had declined or not. If the discussion on Pakistan's Hindu population is raised in this article, then that deserves mentioning. A BBC article also points out that "individual Hindus have risen to prominent positions in both Pakistan and Bangladesh, notably as chief justices in the two countries."[21] And this article does so in the context of discussing CAB. So if detail is to be given to this topic, then all significant viewpoints to this topic should be presented.Bless sins (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Bless sins. Things changed a bit since we had that discussion. Now it is becoming clear that all the refugees that India absorbed between 1951–2014 are potentially covered by this law. So, the reduction in Hindu populations of both Pakistan and Bangladesh are now relevant, though for a different reason.

• For Pakistan, the census data shows a reduction from 3.44% in 1951 to 1.85% now. (See Hinduism in Pakistan.) That is about 3 million people at today's population levels.
• For East Bengal/Bangladesh, it went down from 22% in 1951 to about 9% now. (See Hinduism in Bangladesh.) That is about 20 million people at today's population levels.

I will let these numbers sit here until we make use of it in the article at some point. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

In response to Vanamonde93, the two lakh refugees mentioned are Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Trimmed the bloat. That being said, we ought to use better sources than USCIRF. ∯WBG^converse 13:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

WBG: It would have been better if you had waited for a consensus to emerge. After your bold move, I have trimmed the bloat in the section above the one you trimmed. In the subsection you trimmed, there is an overcite issue and a need for more balance. I will clean that up shortly. We will then have two versions to work with, one before your edit and one after mine. We can work from there, as we collaborate and improve this article further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I spot V93, K3, DBX, BS and me in favor of a trim.; you against. Five-one makes a clear consensus for me. ∯WBG^converse 16:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Are there specific sources you had in mind when you wrote "present the actual situation of the refugees" in the trimmed section? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: The second Economist article doesn't support the extended religious persecution section either. The article makes it clear that religious persecution was the motive presented by Amit Shah, and it does not at any point endorse that framing of the issue; and it says quite directly that the law is intended to marginalize Muslims. Indeed this source supports the "religious discrimination within India" framing even more explicitly than the NYT sources do. I note that the section has now been trimmed (thanks, WBG) but my other concern; that this cherry picks persecution in Pakistan and Bangladesh; whereas what we ought to do (if we mention religious persecution at all) is to summarize all the material about religious persecution in India's neighbors. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: The Economist article verifies that is the government's view (with Amit Shah as spokesman). Then it offers its own view. Those are two sides, and this disputes-filled topic has many sides. For NPOV, we must present all sides, not join one side. That subsection is essential for NPOV and was/is summarized in a fashion similar to what you did with this edit to the background section just days ago (and many more of your edits). Let us let it rest. I like the compromise trimmed version. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what NPOV requires. NPOV requires us to present all significant points of view in reliable sources, duly weighted (emphasis mine). The government (or any political party) is not a reliable source. It's views need to be described as reliable sources describe them; we do not balance the government's viewpoint with that of independent scholars and commentators, because that is false equivalence. I do not like the trimmed version for the reasons I have given; it is still a violation of WP:SYNTH. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93: The Economist is an RS. The "religious persecution" paragraphs cite independent reliable sources, not any political party or government. We are making no new conclusions, no new arguments, Everything is in and from the reliable sources. So, I do not understand you. Maybe you can explain your point, why just days, ago, you yourself add this, this, etc. @Kautilya3: can you review all this, suggest a compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an example of me moving content, not adding it. This was added because, as I've said already, many many sources make it clear that this bill is the first instance of religion being made a criterion for citizenship. It's a fact mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; the Jaffrelot source simply provides additional detail. None of the sources you've provided actually substantiate the claim that this bil was spurred by persecution in Pakistan. That's a claim made only be the government; and we've taken it and provided background for it the same way we would for a claim in a reliable source. That's the problem, and it's concerning me that you can't see that. Kautilya (and WBG, and DBigXray, and others) don't propose a compromise, for god's sake; this isn't just about finding middle ground, it's about following policy. Not all viewpoints are equal with respect to content, and not all opinions on this talk page carry equal weight. Look through the relevant portions of WP:SYNTH, and the sources, and see if you can find a credible argument to cover religious persecution in the manner MSW wishes to. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I agree that we must follow our core policy, rather than any misinformed compromise/consensus. NPOV is a core policy, and that is my primary concern here. You explain your edit with, "It's a fact mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; the Jaffrelot source simply provides additional detail." (let me set aside the claim "was secular" [tense]; you cited pp 41-67 which covers an entire chapter where this Act/Amendment is not mentioned/discussed). In other words, what you did was not WP:SYNTH and you agree that you added a background statement of relevant, related facts from a scholarly source, even though the source itself makes no mention of this Act/Amendment. Would you also confirm:

• You agree that per NPOV, we should not take sides, just explain the sides.
• You agree that it is okay to summarize recent quality sources that discuss this citizenship amendment act and state the government side on religious persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan
• You agree that it is okay to summarize peer-reviewed scholarly sources published after 1951 that discuss refugee situation in India from its neighbors, the need for changes to its citizenship/refugee law, and/or the need for humantarian action in India for persecuted minorities and such background (on one or more of the following: Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, others)
• You respect that others editors can also add "a fact mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; where the source simply provides additional detail" ("add a background statement of facts from a scholarly source, even though the source itself make no mention of this act/law";)

If not, please clarify. We can then collaboratively revise this article in the spirit of our content policies, rather than a vote that mocks NPOV. I am willing to work with you to remove whatever seem a bit off, and summarize other more relevant/policy-compliant reliable sources. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

From my point of view it is pointless to argue that the Act is not justifiable. It clearly is. If we stop doing that, there would be no need to start justifying it.

My calculations above showed that 23 million Hindus (which may or may not include Sikhs) have likely entered India from Pakistan and Bangladesh since 1951. The successive Congress governments have accommodated them and possibly given them citizenship. So it is not as if Congress does anything different from the BJP but rather that they would like to do it covertly whereas the BJP wants to do it overtly.

The overt treatment is also necessitated by the NRC exercise, which requires people to prove their citizenship. The Congress way of surreptitiously giving them ration cards and voter registrations won't pass muster. So, searching for ulterior motives behind the BJP actions is also quite pointless.

The best thing to do would be to focus on the substance of what Jaffrelot & Laliwala point out:

The CAB would not only change how the state views its citizens’ rights but, it would also revise the conception of group rights in India. ... The Modi government plans to radically reformulate the logic of community rights in India to exclude some Muslims from Indian citizenship. In turn, this new definition of group rights will worsen the socio-economic conditions of Muslims, who are already experiencing some decline.

My favourite analysis comes from Nobel laureate Venki Ramakrishnan:

“Now, people say that the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill doesn’t affect Muslims who are already in India and are Indian citizens. But that’s not the point. The point is that it makes those 200 million Muslims feel as if somehow their religion is not as valid or as Indian as the others. That’s not a good recipe for harmony. India should not be competing with Pakistan or Afghanistan.”

If we stick to solid insights like that, we will make progress instead of going around in circles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

References

@Kautilya3: I don't give two hoots over whether the content we add justifies the bill; what I care about is whether the content frames the bill in the same way reliable sources do. MSW I honestly feel like I'm repeating myself here, but in recognition of your past work in this broad area I will try once more. Our narrative about the bill needs to reflect what reliable sources are saying about the bill. Not what they are reporting, but what they are saying, in their voice. And a broad narrative in high-quality sources has been; "India did not have religion as a criterion for citizenship; now it does, because of the ideology of the present government." The material I added fleshed out details used by contemporary RS (those discussing the bill) to substantiate this narrative. The narrative in RS about persecution is, broadly; "Refugees from religious persecution have entered India from many countries; the BJP has defended this bill on the basis of persecution of non-Muslim religious denominations in Muslim-dominated countries". Substantiating this with older information about persecution of non-Muslims in Pakistan is okay; but this also needs information about persecution of other groups in other regions mentioned in this context by RS (Sri Lankan Tamils; Ahmaddiyas (which are in the section, but the fact that they aren't covered by the bill is lacking there); Tibetan buddhists; Rohingyas). That's what needs to be added. If I had the time I'd add it myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree with the last point. There is no obligation on any country to give citizenship to people that it gives refuge to. Giving refuge is a humanitarian concern. Giving citizenship is a national concern. The two need not coincide. Pakistan and Bangladesh were once part of the undivided India. Afghanistan was added later as an afterthought because the Hindus and Sikhs coming as refugees from there were also originally from the undivided India. So those people can be expected to fit into India and become loyal citizens. Others may not be so. There would also be security implications and foreign policy implications in giving citizenship to people of other countries. So we should not go off on tangents. The three countries that are in frame are the only ones that can be discussed to any great extent, at least in this article. Again, I also believe that they should only be discussed to the extent that they affect the refugees and migration into India. Their internal affairs are not the concerns of this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources mention persecution in other countries too in the context of this bill; therefore we have to cover it. It's as simple as that. We are not a news outlet; we don't discard material we don't like because of personal beliefs in it's irrelevance. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 02:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, I am not sure why this comment got inserted here. But what you are calling "reliable sources" are in fact news outlets, which are running around like headless chickens and have no clue what is going on. India Today has claimed even two days ago that since persecution is not the criterion, [the Act] does discriminate against illegal Muslim immigrants from these three countries. That too under the pretentious title of Everything you wanted to know about the CAA and NRC. Obviously, the author never bothered to read the Act itself or didn't understand what it said.

People of "Indian origin" (which meant descending from ancestors in undivided India as in the Government of India Act 1935) always had special provisions in the Citizenship law right from the Constitution of India. Tibetans and Sri Lankans don't belong there. Trying to equate them with the minorities of Pakistan/Bangladesh is nonsense.

Please read the one scholarly comment that has appeared since the bill has passed. EPW has thankfully made it publicly readable. There is no mention of Tibetans or Sri Lankans, or Muslims for that matter. If you have genuine reliable sources (by scholars, policy makers or policy analysts), please bring them forward. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why this comment was inserted here either, but I was on mobile, and odd things often happen. I will move this discussion to its proper place after posting this. Yes, I am calling media sources reliable. The NYT, BBC, The Hindu, India Today, and so forth have been the staple sources for contemporary politics in South Asia for a long time. If you're unwilling to use them, we might as well delete this page, because we have nothing else besides that one EPW source. The EPW source is good, but it discusses the history of the bill itself; it does not explore persecution at all. If we're going to base our narrative on that source (which may not be a bad idea) we'd have to dump the contentious "religious persecution" section above entirely. I have, incidentally, read the entirety of the text of the act. It does not make reference to religious persecution. At all. The "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS" section of the bill, which is only a government statement and isn't passed into law, is what refers to religious persecution. So the India Today isn't wrong; whatever the government's intentions, the act does not only make refugees eligible for citizenship, it makes all migrants eligible. But that's irrelevant. As I've said before, we summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. If insufficient sources exist, the article shouldn't exist. If the sources are contradicting each other, then we use many of them, to determine what the consensus is. Policy forbids picking and choosing sources based on our personal impressions of what the narrative ought to be; yet that seems to be happening a lot on this page, and it's very concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: discussion beginning at first post above by "Karellen93" (my alternative account) has been moved here, because that's where it was supposed to go. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Act covers people who have been exempted by the 2015 central government orders. Those orders exempt people on the grounds of religious persecution. In fact, The Wire ran a story as early as 5 December, covering persecution. If other newspeople can't be bothered to read, there is nothing we can do about that. But the scholarly comment, by one who has thoroughly studied the bill and the debates surrounding it, makes clear that persecution was the grounds on which citizenship is being granted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Where are you getting that? The gazetted act that I am reading doesn't say anything of the sort (link). Also, to be clear, I'm not against discussing religious persecution; it's the manner in which we discuss persecution that's the issue. Anti-Hindu riots in Bangladesh obviously have a place. But enough RS writing about the bill have highlighted Rohingya and Ahmadiyya persecution that not mentioning those isn't an option. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, I quoted page 2, line 5. The relevant extracts from the 2015 order are given on the main page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: You did not confirm or deny/clarify what I asked above. Since you have been badgering me about policy so far, it would help if you answer them. Those four questions will come up again, if we need to and do take our dispute through the noticeboards, then up (ARBCOM or wherever it might be appropriate). You write, "Not what they are reporting, but what they are saying, in their voice". My reply: We need to do both, per NPOV policy. Those are the notable major sides of this subject and related dispute per the reliable sources. I agree that we need to do this in their voice. I believe the versions created by WBG/Kautilya3/me/you almost always do that, and I welcome rewording/copyediting/revisions to address "in their voice" aspect, and any other issues of style, per the RS. I believe that you are mistaken. Were we to suppress the government/supporters' side and their arguments – as stated in the reliable sources – regarding religious persecution in Afghanistan/Pakistan/Bangladesh in relation to this law, we will violate our cherished NPOV policy. Over the last few days, I have read peer-reviewed articles on their refugees and their last 40+ years of discussions/efforts to review and amend the Citizenship law in refugees-related matters. I am convinced that your views do not reflect what the peer-reviewed scholarly sources (and recent reliable sources) are saying. @Kautilya3: Please summarize that and related sources in the Analysis section. It would improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's possible we are talking past each other, because I am not proposing to suppress the BJP's explanation; what I am opposing is fleshing out that explanation with sources that do not discuss this topic. I could agree with most of your points above, but I find the way you've written them to be ambiguous; so here's my versions of those. a) NPOV requires that we take the side of the preponderance of reliable sources; if no clear consensus exists among reliable sources, then we explain the positions taken by those sources. If a "side" has no support in reliable sources, we do not give them weight. b) Yes, it is perfectly fine to summarize high quality contemporary sources discussing this bill, including summarizing their description of the government's position. c) I agree that it is fine to summarize RS (not just peer-reviewed sources; media sources too; if you're disallowing media sources on this point, we have a disagreement there too) discussing the refugee situation in India, and the persecution of religious minorities in India's neighbors. However, we need to summarize the entire body of this information. If you leave out persecution in Tibet, or Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, we have a problem, because both those situations are mentioned very prominently in the literature. d) No. We can flesh out positions contemporary reliable sources take with information from earlier reliable sources. We cannot flesh out positions merely reported by contemporary sources that have no support in RS, because that is a violation of WP:SYNTH. To make an analogy; we can report that an environmental activist opposes GMOs; but in doing so, we cannot provide "background" that fleshes out theor argument about health risks of GMOs. @Winged Blades of Godric and DBigXray: some fresh perspective would be welcome, and you've both been active here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you answer is a) Yes, b) Yes c) Yes and d) No. We agree on first three, and our dispute is on the last one. It is very odd that your edit(s) in this and other articles have added "fact(s) mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; where the source simply provides additional detail" to background section and you do not consider it WP:SYNTH, but you are unwilling to accept/respect other editors can add "fact(s) mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; where the source simply provides additional detail" to background section because you think that is somehow WP:SYNTH (see my 4th bullet point above). I have earlier reliable sources, by the way, published over the last few decades that discuss India's refugee issues, their 1955 Citizenship act and religious persecution of non-Muslims (both scholars and others such as their non-nationalist former prime minister; as we can expect their nationalists have talked about this years before 2019). Would our dispute be resolved if I were to reference/summarize those as well. If not, is there any other type of reliable source that I can briefly include and summarize to address your concern, as the RS I have read so far do support that religious persecution background is relevant and necessary in the background section for NPOV. If you have no suggestions, and your stance remains the same, then our next option is to pursue this dispute through the appropriate channels as far as we need to, in the best interest of this project. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The content I added explicitly supports the narrative of contemporary sources describing the bill (which make it clear that Indian citizenship law and the constitution did not discriminate based on citizenship). That is why it does not violate WP:SYNTH, because the overall narrative is supported by RS even if the factual detail required more specific sources. At the moment, the text you've added supports the "bill was written in response to persecution in Pakistan" narrative, which no RS supports (only the government). What all RS recognize is that there has been religious persecution in South Asia, and that this history is relevant to understanding the history of the bill. Therefore, the section you've added needs to summarize religious persecution in India's neighbors. You've covered Pakistan already, and Bangladesh to some extent. Religious persecution everywhere else needs to be fleshed out. this would be a decent place to begin, because it summarizes the totality of refugee movement in the region. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• User:প্রলয়স্রোত has blanked the section, with a nice edit summary. I cant say I disagree with them for this. Vanamonde has responded well to the filibustering above. MSW Consensus is against you. Drop the stick and move on. there are other issues waiting to be fixed. Looking at the length of this discussion. Way to much editor time is being wasted on this dispute. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  To be clear, I do think some coverage of religious persecution is necessary, but it needs to be a holistic view of persecution in India's neighbors and its link to refugee populations in India. We don't need to go into a huge amoung of detail. I will try to add some of this later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Vanamonde93, ok, that would be preferred by me as well. Though I am not sure a seperate section (in comparison to few lines) is merited in this case. But I would prefer to have the proposed version discussed on talk first. It would be helpful to gain consensus, if you can share your proposed version of the content here on the talk page first. This will also avoid edit warring among the participants. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 10:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly care for a bloated Background section. We shouldn't put anything in there that is not covered by reliable sources, and I don't regard newspaper critiques as reliable sources. Newspapers are only reliable for news. Why are we forgetting that?

The Background section need only contain the absolute minimum necessary for a reader to understand the main subject. Nothing more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I also think the current subsection on NRC in the Background section should eventually be moved out, by discussing the interactions between the CAA and NRC in a separate subsection in the Analysis section. Practically everybody now knows and admits that the CAA without NRC and the CAA with NRC are completely different beasts. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

The interactions between the NRC and the CAA absolutely need to be in the analysis section. However, the NRC predates the CAA, at least in terms of implementation. Ignoring it altogether in the background doesn't make sense to me. The background has a paragraph on the NRC at the moment, giving just the bare details; I don't think we need more there, but we should move that bit. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde: You did not directly answer my question, but perhaps indirectly AGF. You write, "At the moment [my emphasis], the text you've added supports the "bill was written in response to persecution in Pakistan" narrative, which no RS supports (only the government)." So, I have addressed "at the moment" hint, by adding a summary on background related RS on citizenship act, refugees and religious persecution. Perhaps you were not aware of these. There are many more related RS over the decades on their citizenship act, the refugees, their religious persecution, and proposals/discussions how their act should be amended. We do not need to OVERCITE, but if something is unclear, please let me know. I hope this addresses your concerns. If not, once again, "is there any other type of reliable source that I can briefly include and summarize to address your concern, as the RS I have read so far do support that religious persecution background is relevant and necessary in the background section for NPOV". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• I will note here that MSW has tried to Edit war the disputed content into the article, twice in the last hour [22] [23], This Edit warring behavior while a discussion is ongoing is not expected from an experienced editor. Continued Attempts to wrestle in the disputed section against consens will lead to blocks. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Threats are against WP:TALK guidelines, so I have struck that out. Please respond constructively to my comment above, and explain your objections to the new reliables sources and content added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• I note a third revert from MSW today. The entire section is disputed, In the garb of new content that has not been discussed, you are trying to get your preferred version into the article. MSW the next post will be on WP:ANEW and not on your talk page as I have already warned you and you seem to consider mandatory warning templates as harassment. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Also stop WP:REFACTORing my talk page comments, You are not allowed to do that. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Disputed section: Persecution

Per our NPOV guidelines, just like the newly added background "Bharatiya Janata Party agenda" section with new sources, we should add a similar background "Persecution" section with similar quality sources. Here is a version:

Previously elected members of Indian parliament have discussed and urged the grant of citizenship to persecuted refugees from the minority communities in India's neighboring countries. For example, Manmohan Singh – former Prime Minister of India, in a 2003 parliamentary discussion on India's Citizenship Act, stated that "after the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh have faced persecution" and asked "Indian citizenship for persecuted refugees". A resolution by CPI (M) introduced in the Lok Sabha by Basudeb Acharia similarly demanded in 2012 that the Citizenship Act be amended for "Bangladeshi minority community refugees". However, these requests neither limited the scope of the persecuted minorities in India's neighbors on the basis of religion, nor the list of eligible countries.

According to Tetsuya Nakatani – a Japanese scholar of Cultural Anthropology specializing in South Asia refugee history, after the mass exodus of refugees during the 1947 partition of British India, there were several waves of non-Muslim refugees arrival into India. These refugee movements were in some cases triggered by actions of India such as the annexation of the Muslim princely state of Hyderabad in 1948, or more often after various religious riots between 1949 and 1971 that targeted non-Muslims within West Pakistan or East Pakistan – which after their civil war in 1971 became the independent countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively. Their status in India has remained in a political limbo.

Militancy and sectarianism has been rising in Pakistan since the 1990s, and the religious minorities have "borne the brunt of the Islamist's ferocity" suffering "greater persecution than in any earlier decade", states Farahnaz Ispahani – a Public Policy Scholar at the Wilson Center. This has led to attacks and forced conversion of Christians and Hindus, as well as attacks on Sufis and Ahmadis. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedoms (USCIRF) echos a similar view, stating that "extremist groups and societal actors [have] continued to discriminate against and attack religious minorities" in Pakistan. The European Parliament has expressed it concern that "for years Pakistan's blasphemy laws have raised global concern because accusations are often motivated by score-settling, economic gain or religious intolerance, and foster a culture of vigilantism giving mobs a platform for harassment and attacks" against its religious minorities.

Similar concerns about religious persecution of minorities in Bangladesh have also been expressed. The USCIRF notes hundreds of cases of "killings, attempted killings, death threats, assaults, rapes, kidnappings, and attacks on homes, businesses, and places of worship" on religious minorities in 2017. According to Ashish Bose – a Population Research scholar, Sikhs and Hindus were well integrated in Afghanistan till the Soviet invasion when their economic condition worsened. Thereafter, they became a subject of "intense hate" with the rise of religious fundamentalism in Afghanistan. Their "targeted persecution" triggered an exodus and forced them to seek asylum. Many of them started arriving in and after 1992 as refugees in India. While these refugees were mostly Sikhs and Hindus, some were Muslims. However, India has historically lacked any refugee law or uniform policy for persecuted refugees, state Ashish Bose and Hafizullah Emadi.

References

It is wrong and WP:OWN behavior to summarily remove the new sources and this summary section, as DBigXray insists, without proper reason. Constructive comments on these RS, the summary, as well as any improvements to the above, are welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

MSW, I find your last edit summary funny. Why would i be lying here ? I cursory checked and found both content similar. If you had made subtle diffrences between the two content (that escaped my eyes) then perhaps you should have informed that the 2 versions were different. Now which version The one above or the one below do you want me to review ? Please respect others time also and dont ask multiple versions to review. thanks. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The changes and additions are not "subtle". You continue to misrepresent me in bad faith. Please stop this "wasting time"-style hostility on this talk page. Please read the many newly added sources above in new paragraphs. I have many more RS, and we can discuss them as we make progress in our effort to improve this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I am not used to navigating humongous walls of texts spread across multiple threads on multiple pages. So kindly forgive me if I fail to notice the difference. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Request for partial revert for NPOV

Moved from User talk:DBigXray

Request for partial revert, or an ANI/AN review of your editing privileges

DBigXray: I generally hesitate in starting new ANI cases and requests for sanctions/blocks for editors. Please allow me to offer an interim compromise as a goodwill gesture before seeking a review of your editing privileges. Would be you be willing to at least partially self-revert the section you have reverted twice. Reason: this partial section is entirely new and based on new reliable sources, and none of this has ever been discussed on the article's talk page:

[CONTENT removed as it is same as the one listed above] - this note added by DBigXray was struck and replaced with the following by Ms Sarah Welch

Previously elected members of Indian parliament have discussed and urged the grant of citizenship to persecuted refugees from the minority communities in India's neighboring countries. For example, Manmohan Singh – former Prime Minister of India, in a 2003 parliamentary discussion on India's Citizenship Act, stated that "after the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh have faced persecution" and asked "Indian citizenship for persecuted refugees". A resolution by CPI (M) introduced in the Lok Sabha by Basudeb Acharia similarly demanded in 2012 that the Citizenship Act be amended for "Bangladeshi minority community refugees". However, these requests neither limited the scope of the persecuted minorities in India's neighbors on the basis of religion, nor the list of eligible countries.

According to Tetsuya Nakatani – a Japanese scholar of Cultural Anthropology specializing in South Asia refugee history, after the mass exodus of refugees during the 1947 partition of British India, there were several waves of non-Muslim refugees arrival into India. These refugee movements were in some cases triggered by actions of India such as the annexation of the Muslim princely state of Hyderabad in 1948, or more often after various religious riots between 1949 and 1971 that targeted non-Muslims within West Pakistan or East Pakistan – which after their civil war in 1971 became the independent countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh respectively. Their status in India has remained in a political limbo. According to Ashish Bose – a Population Research scholar, Sikhs and Hindus were well integrated in Afghanistan till the Soviet invasion when their economic condition worsened. Thereafter, they became a subject of "intense hate" with the rise of religious fundamentalism in Afghanistan. Their "targeted persecution" triggered an exodus and forced them to seek asylum. Many of them started arriving in and after 1992 as refugees in India. While these refugees were mostly Sikhs and Hindus, some were Muslims. However, India has historically lacked any refugee law or uniform policy for persecuted refugees, state Ashish Bose and Hafizullah Emadi.

References

Wikipedia, as you know, welcomes new contributions from RS. Your cooperation with a partial self-revert to include the above will be consistent with that guideline and spirit. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks I have moved this thread from my talk page since there is no need to open multiple threads for the same thing. I will review and respond. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: You alleged "[same as the one listed above]". Not true. Please do not misrepresent others on article talk pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

replied above (diff)--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This request for partial self-revert, obviously, for a start. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

May I know which version, the one You posted today on the top or the one in this section you want me to review ? I hope that you wish to get one of them and not both at the same time to the article. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 16:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Just one. Not both. This shorter version. That is what "partial" means. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that by using the word "partial" you were referring to this "shorter version". With all my knowledge of the language, I would never have guessed that. Talking about the content, this version you are asking me to restore back into the article still suffers from the problem of WP:SYNTH. You have added sources that have absolutely no relation with the "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019" and have cherry picked lines that support your version of the POV and have created this version. I am sorry to say no to your request to self revert, since I cannot agree to add this into the article, You will have to get consensus for this, if you want this version to be added. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: You are misrepresenting the sources. This is self-contradictory too: "added sources that have absolutely no relation with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019" and "cherry picked lines that support your version"! If there is "absolutely no relation", there cannot be any lines in the source to "cherry pick"! Your arguments are not helpful, just a bad case of WP:TE. The Tetsuya Nakatani, Ashish Bose and Hafizullah Emadi - three scholarly sources – are related, rather directly and explicitly related, to refugees in India, their persecution in neightboring countries, and this Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Please explain why this is WP:SYNTH, given the clarifications on WP:SYNTH and Vanamonde's own use of similar sources for background in this and other articles. In other words, why in the above summary WP:SYNTH, and why is Vanamonde's summary not WP:SYNTH? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This is my second warning to you to stop removing/editing my comment as you did here. Also Why are you moving this thread repeatedly, this thread is on the section "Religious persecution" and it should remain together. Stop this childish behavior please.

As for the content, if you want to cover the "refugees in India, their persecution in neightboring countries" then you better create another article with an appropriate title. I have stated my concerns and I will ignore the continuous accusation of bad faith from you. I will reply only if you make a WP:CIVIL comment addressing the content. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 18:38, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: Your attempts to WP:OWN this talk page is apparent too. The removal of one of your phrases was inadvertent, one you added as a second edit. It was just a result of an edit conflict; I started the edit before you edited your comment again for the second time to make that minor addition. Now, can you please address the substance of my reply... your misrepresentations of the reliable sources etc above. That is directly-related and necessary background here for NPOV, just like the content recently added to the background section by numerous editors. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

After editing all these years, do I have to teach you that you need to gracefully handle the WP:EDITCONFLICT ? Do I need to remind you that when you see that edit conflict box, you have to be careful so as not to remove another editors comment ? So you blatantly edit war and when your efforts are objected, you accuse them of WP:OWN ? Kindly stop this ludicrous behavior. Talking about the content, among these numbered refs. Tell me by enumerating, which of these explicitly refer to the CAA ? --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

O please. Learn to communicate with others without that hostile, obnoxious "do I have to teach you" style! I already mentioned three scholar names in my recent replies to you. If you look in the reflist above, the sources corresponding to those names would be [6], [7] and [8]-[9]. Let us focus on these first, we can cover [1]-[5] later, along with the numerous RS on this I have (which all support this partial section above). We can discuss them as we develop a collaborative, consensus version of a more balanced "Background". If you want to focus on just one first, let us try [8]-[9] and work our way back. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If you do not like being reminded to handle WP:EDITCONFLICT gracefully, then perhaps you should take care not to refactor other's comment that you did twice on this talk page.

6. Tetsuya Nakatani (2000),

7. Ashish Bose (2004),

8. Emadi, Hafizullah (2014).

9. Emadi, Hafizullah (2014).

I note that all these refs are several years old. Oldest being 20 years and newest being 5 years. Are you really claiming that these sources are referring to the CAA "2019" law ? That will be quite impressive if they did.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 19:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: Do you understand what the word "Background" means? did you understand what Vanammonde explained a few days ago about relevance to the Background section of "a fact mentioned in the subsequent, contemporary, sources, in their own voice; where the source simply provides additional detail"? If you study the edits of other editors including Vanamonde's recent edits, such as this, and actually read what is in that chapter of the source Vanamonde added, you will see it makes no mention at all of Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. That is pretty common for Background section in encyclopedic articles (and our FA, GA articles, for that matter). But, just like the source Vanamonde added is relevant to the Background, and Vanamonde's contributions are constructive (and not WP:SYNTH), the above sources are relevant to the Background and the summary is constructive (and not WP:SYNTH for the same reason). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, As a matter of fact I do understand. There is a limit to how far back you can go in a background section. At this point you are forgetting that this article is about CAA, and it must only include sufficient background, that helps the reader get the necessary info on the topic. You don't really need to start explaining, how badly Pakistan, or Bangladesh treats its minorities in the CAA article. It is obvious to understand why User:Bless sins and others are crying foul, on this kind of coverage, on a controversial article. Then it becomes a WP:COATRACK, when you are trying to take potshots on Pakistan instead of talking about CAA. There are articles that cover the persecution of minorities (example, Hinduism in Pakistan and Anti-Hindu_sentiment) . you can link to them but there is no need to create a WP:COATRACK of these articles here in the background section. Anyway, I have said that I don't agree with this proposed version and due to the reasons I listed. Obviously there is a difference of opinion between the two of us, and I hope you have enough decency to respect this difference of opinion, instead of accusing others of having malicious intentions and name-calling. Now, lets wait what others have to say. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray: It is bad faith for anyone to make up excuses to block or edit war the addition of the mainstream scholarship and related summary from multiple RS. We need this for NPOV. The background is currently taking a side, rather than presenting a neutral version that presents all sides and one that reflects the mainstream reliable sources in their voice. A few sentences summary on persecution, from scholarly sources that discuss "refugees-in-India and persecution and their Citizenship law and their recent attempts to amend that law" – when the senior leaders of both BJP and non-BJP governments have talked about this exact thing in the last 20 years, is not WP:Coatracking. It is essential background content. It is stone-walling, and a violation of our cherished NPOV policy for you to argue otherwise. Will you be fine if the reliable sources I cite are from the same period of time as Vanamonde and others who have contributed to this article, particularly in the Background section? I have so many RS on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Enough, with the WP:ABF. I will wait for others if they have anything to say about your proposed version above.--Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 21:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"It was shocking to me"

At the end of this heart-rending talk by Rohini Mohan on the Assam NRC, a young woman asks (around 1:09:30):

You talked about women who are married to certain people but they wouldn't be able to prove documentation by themselves, right? So, I am trying to understand, even if some one is not a citizen of India, but married to a citizen of India, there is a way you can apply for citizenship, right? How does this work in the whole NRC process?

Can anybody understand, how a man could be an Indian citizen and his wife could be put in detention centre (and perhaps children too)? Anybody?

The answer isn't that great:

None of the ways one can naturalize etc. in the rest of the country, they don't apply in Assam right now.... Even if your husband is Indian, it doesn't matter because you have to prove that your ancestors, your bloodline, is Indian. Ideally, according to the Indian law, you can show your father or mother. But, again, by practice, I have seen many documents, many tribunal orders. They said no, we can't accept your mother's documents. It was really shocking to me. You are supposed to accept any parent. The thing is that in Indian citizenship,... it is kind of by what it is not. Neither of your parents should be an illegal immigrant. They both don't have to be Indian. One could be an immigrant with a visa. But again none of this applies in Assam, under the NRC. Under the NRC, you have to show your blood line.

Mohan apparently remembered the law but didn't quite process it. This doesn't have anything to do with Assam. That is the law. An illegal immigrant doesn't have the ability to apply for citizenship, no matter whom she/he is married to. And the children with an illegal immigrant as a parent, well, they are illegal immigrants too. This isn't a special law for Assam. This is the law for the whole of India.

How the hell could this happen? It was the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, passed unanimously in the Rajya Sabha, and passed "without acrimony" in the Lok Sabha, with full support of the Indian National Congress. And, look at its coverage in The Hindu, the nation's best newspaper: 19 December 2003, 23 December 2003. Apparently a "dual citizenship" law was passed. So much for media "narratives"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing issue

An ongoing issue with this "background" information is that it is of questionable relevance to this topic. There are volumes of information on the treatment of religious minorities in Pakistan, Bangladesh etc and most of it doesn't belong in this article. A simple proposal to keep this in check would be: use only sources that connect background information to CAA (with some exceptions). If a source doesn't even mention CAA then it is difficult to guarantee that the information it contains is relevant to this article and it will create disputes. This also alleviates any WP:SYNTH concerns. If an exception to this proposal is sought then the editor must explain why he/she is unable to find even a single WP:RS that ties the information to be included to CAA.Bless sins (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bless sins and what I said above is similar to this proposal. and just to be clear, by CAA we are referring to the CAA law that was passed in 2019, --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 20:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins: The new sources Kautilya3 and I are discussing do mention this Citizenship Act. If your comment is directed broadly to the background section, it is problematic. Because if you go through some of the cited sources, they make absolutely no mention of the Citizenship Act, either the original 1955, or discussions/attempts to amend it over the years, or this latest one. We will end up deleting a lot of content that Vanamonde and others added, something that will weaken this article. But, the specific summary Kautilya3 and I are discussing, it and additional sources I have meet your screen. @WBG and Vanamonde93: any additional suggestions on the today's suggestions above by Kautilya3? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

No one cares if "a lot of content that Vanamonde and others added" gets deleted or if "a lot of content that MSW added" gets deleted . If the content fails to get consensus, it has to go. Bless sins and I have suggested a good starting point to trim the bloat and create a sensible background. Lets take it from there. A version satisfying this criteria should be created and proposed ON the TALK PAGE and NOT ON THE ARTICLE. After that we can discuss what gaping holes are there and what needs to be allowed even though it fails the criteria. The entire thread shows that MSW is intent on bloating this and all others want it cut down. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of content is unfortunate but part of the WP:BRD cycle. If I add content that is not relevant, it should be deleted too.Bless sins (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Islam as state religion of Pakistan

Ms Sarah Welch restored this[24]

...Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are "Muslim-majority countries" where Islam has been declared as the official state religion through constitutional amendments in recent decades...

It was sourced to a BBC article[25]. But that same article also notes that

However, all these countries have constitutional provisions stating that non-Muslims have rights and are free to practise their faith.

If the constitutions of Pakistan and Bangladesh are discussed then WP:NPOV requires having all significant viewpoints. There is another article in Indian Express that discusses Pakistan's constitutional provisions regarding religious minorities[26]. A compromise wording could be something like:

Pakistan and Bangaldesh are Muslim-majority countries where Islam is the state religion and theeir constitutions also guarantees freedom of religion to minorities.

Bless sins (talk) 13:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It is better if we stick to what the source is stating. I have added that to the main, wording and attributing it to the source, plus avoiding WP:Synthesis issues. The lead should remain as it is, per WP:Lead guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that, but it seems repetitive and I will try a different wording.Bless sins (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

For now I've removed this from the lead[27]. If anyone puts it back in the lead, then it should be covered more neutrally, using either my wording or Ms Sarah Welch's wording[28] or some other reasonable alternative.Bless sins (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Bless sins: The NPOV is with respect to the reliable sources, nothing else. We can't suppress or dilute the arguments from one side, just because our editors from India or Pakistan or wherever feel bad or proud about their country, or just because one side is partly right or wrong. All we can do is to summarize from the reliable sources as to who/why/how/when they are wrong. It, frankly, does not matter whether a constitution has a line or two about people being free to practice another faith, if the quality, mainstream peer-reviewed reliable sources are stating that Ahmadis, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, etc are being systemically persecuted for their religious beliefs and Churches/etc blown up. The lead must follow WP:LEAD guidelines. It is a short summary of the entire article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bless sins in this discussion. Either we state both facts or we state none. This WP:COATRACKING has been going on at other places as well. it is as if this article is being used to take pot shots at Pakistan and other countries. this is unacceptable POV pushing. I support entirely removing the disputed content. Use a link to the respective article if you need to. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 15:44, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the information is not being removed from the article, but rather left in the body rather than the lead. The Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are not so important to this topic as to merit inclusion in the lead. Not all information in the article merits inclusion in the lead.Bless sins (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Pls add FAQ provided by government and put all facts on wikipedia and ppl will make their own opinion. Wikipedia is not place for spreading one sided propaganda and as of now the article is completely biased and propaganda based Abhishekaryavart (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

What is this law really about?

There is already a section in the Citizenship Act (Section 5 - Citizenship by registration), which gives an unlimited scope for the government to admit people of all religions from Pakistan and Bangladesh.

As far as citizenship by registration is concerned, a person of Indian origin, that is, if he or either of his parents were born in undivided India and who was ordinarily resident in India for five years before applying (p.38) for citizenship, is entitled to be an Indian citizen by registration. Under this type, the following categories of persons can seek citizenship: (1) persons of Indian origin resident in any country by following a set of procedures; (2) a person married to a citizen of India and resident in the country for five years immediately before making an application; (3) minor children of persons who are Indian citizens; and (4) persons of full age and capacity of a country specified in Schedule I (Commonwealth countries) of the Citizenship Act 1955.

So, it does not seem that any new amendment was necessary to admit these people. So why was this done?

At the moment I can think of two reasons:

• The devil in the detail: What the scholars have clubbed under "set of procedures" are not satisfiable by these people. There is in fact a residence requirement as well, which is either seven years or five years depending on which source we are looking at. Most passports don't last that long. So, sooner or later they become "illegal immigrants". There could be other people who are genuinely "illegal immigrants", i.e., they did not have travel documents and never made any effort to register or contact the authorities. It seems that, once they are labelled as "illegal immigrants", they become ineligible for citizenship. The government already passed an order in 2015 making such people "legal". (These are the famous "exemptions", based on religion and grounds of persecution.) Once they are legal, they should be qualified for citizenship and so, again, it is not clear why an amendment was necessary.
• Problem with "Indian origin": The 2016 Bill had this in its Statement of Objects and Reasons:

Many persons of Indian origin including persons belonging to the aforesaid minority communities from the aforesaid countries have been applying for citizenship under section 5 of the Act, but are unable to produce proof of their Indian origin. Hence, they are forced to apply for citizenship by naturalisation under section 6 of the Act, which, inter alia, prescribes twelve years residency as qualification for naturalisation in terms of the Third Schedule to the Act.... It is proposed to amend the Third Schedule to the Act to make applicants belonging to minority communities from the aforesaid countries eligible for citizenship by naturalisation in seven years instead of the existing twelve years.

Being unable to prove Indian origin is entirely understandable. Once they have left their country of origin, there is no chance in hell that they would be able to obtain birth certificates to prove their origin. This seems like a mere technicality, but one that the government takes seriously enough that it cannot give them citizenship by registration. Instead it wants to given them citizenship by naturalisation. Hence it wants to reduce the residence requirement for this particular class of people in line with those for the "citizenship by registration" class. (This makes nonsense of the newspaper commentaries that they were being "fast-tracked".)

But, once again, nothing stops the government from giving them citizenship by naturalisation after the prescribed residence period. So there is no big necessity for the amendment here either.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Everything I have read since this post convinces me that this Act wasn't really needed. In 2003, they didn't think it was needed. Manmohan Singh had requested that the persecuted minorities should be treated more liberally, and Advani had agreed. It seems to have been assumed that the executive orders would take care of it.

Anupama Roy states, "the CAB sought to bring the citizenship law in line with the executive orders and rules issued by the government in 2015". But there was nothing to bring in line. The 2016 CAB had only two clauses. The first was a repeat of the executive order, viz., that these people would not be regarded "illegal immigrants". The second clause said the residence requirement would be six years instead of eleven. The justification given for this was this was that these people were unable to prove their "Indian origin" (which would make them eligible for citizenship by registration). So they were forced to apply for naturalisation, which requires eleven years. So the only reason for the CAB in 2016 was to get the residence requirement reduced for naturalisation.

But the Bill went to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, where it got policised. The BJP was likely trying to make a show of how they were rescuing persecuted Hindus. But the politics badly backfired. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

References