Dutt mentions? First, let us understand that there is a difference between operation due to political struggle and systemic oppression due to oneРІР‚в„ўs religion.

But still, why not make it easier for the communities Ms. But before that, let us note that the citizenship law as it is can be used by all these communities, all that is being done for the oppressed minorities in the three neighbouring counties is making it easier for them. This is a good and worth examining argument. And what of the Rohingya? Targeted ethnic cleansing of this Muslim community in Myanmar makes them the textbook examples of persecuted minorities in their countryРІР‚Сњ. Her argument is that РІР‚СљShiites, Ahmadis, Balochis - all Muslims - have faced violence and disenfranchisement. Dutt understands this, but she objects to РІР‚Сљthe assumption that in the South Asian neighborhood only Hindus, Christians or Buddhists are at the receiving end of oppressive Islamist regimesРІР‚Сњ. India is only offering to make things easier for these oppressed people. And this identification by РІР‚ВreligionРІР‚в„ў is made by РІР‚СљPakistan, Afghanistan and BangladeshРІР‚Сњ through systematic and sustained persecution of these communities in their countries. What is the basis for this preferential treatment to РІР‚СљHindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and ChristiansРІР‚Сњ? It is not religion, though they are identified by their religion. Also, Muslims from these counties will have to wait for 12 years to become naturalised citizens. The Muslims who are coming from these countries can apply if they have valid travel documents only, otherwise will be considered illegal immigrants. Thus, her objection is not РІР‚Сљcontrol of immigrationРІР‚Сњ as such but, according to her РІР‚Сљthe basis to accept one population and reject another cannot be religionРІР‚Сњ.Р”Р‡irst, let us note that the bill is not about giving citizenship directly, it is about РІР‚Вmaking people of minority communitiesРІР‚в„ў in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh РІР‚ВeligibleРІР‚в„ў to apply for citizenship without legal travel documents and/or with expired travel documents and reducing the naturalisation period from 12 years to 7 years. Dutt admits that РІР‚Сљevery country has the absolute right to control immigrationРІР‚Сњ, please pay attention the terms РІР‚Сљabsolute rightРІР‚Сњ. The issue is: do these changes in the Citizenship Act, 1955 constitute unwarranted discrimination against Muslims and РІР‚СљIslamophobic campaignРІР‚Сњ as Ms. The bill also makes changes regarding РІР‚СљOverseas Citizen of India CardholdersРІР‚Сњ but that is not of interest in the present discussion. The second change, relevant to the present discussion, it makes is that of duration of naturalization from 12 years to 7 years, again for РІР‚Сљpersons belonging to minority communities, namely, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and PakistanРІР‚Сњ, Muslims are not part of the list.

Note that the list of exempted communities does not include Muslims. As per the new bill РІР‚СљHindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan РІР‚В¦ shall not be treated as illegal migrantsРІР‚Сњ. According to the Citizenship Act 1955 any one entering India without passport or other travel documents or staying beyond the permitted time period is an illegal migrant. One, what this bill was supposed to do is to change the definition of РІР‚Сљillegal migrantРІР‚Сњ. The bill (which was placed in the Lok Sabha and expired before being placed in the Rajya Sabha) she refers to is called РІР‚СљThe Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2016РІР‚Сњ, Shah has said many times that it will be brought before the parliament again.

And, two, we should examine her charges of discrimination against Muslims and Islamophobia seriously. Well, let us grant that she knows her Gandhi and he would have been as predictable as she concludes.Р”В«ut, one, fasting against something, even with the name РІР‚ВsatyagrahРІР‚в„ў, does not make it morally and legally wrong. And most confidently declares that if Gandhi РІР‚Сљwere alive today, he would most certainly have been sitting on a РІР‚СљsatyagrahaРІР‚Сњ against citizenship laws that discriminate on the basis of religionРІР‚Сњ. In her wisdom she proclaims РІР‚СљEven if the proposed new law does nothing to diminish their rights, there is great humiliation in just one religion - their religion - being kept out of the mixРІР‚Сњ. Barkha Dutt has written on the same issue and calls this anti-Muslim and РІР‚Сљan Islamophobic campaignРІР‚Сњ. There is a lot of concern regarding Home Ministers repeated statements regarding giving citizenship to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, Parsis and Christians coming from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh and keeping Muslims out of this list. Barkha Dutt in Washington Post (where else?) on 8 th October 2019. РІР‚СљGandhi would be fasting against IndiaРІР‚в„ўs discriminatory new citizenship lawРІР‚Сњ declares Ms.

Barkha dutt salary