→Comments on the redraft: signing |
Ms Sarah Welch (talk | contribs) →Comments on the redraft: I am open to revised/reworded version |
||
Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
::::: I think Sarah's first paragraph is mostly ok, except that I would need the Congress's Muslim partisanship toned down. (Unofficially, Congress is happy with all illegal immigrants, whether Hindu or Muslim.) |
::::: I think Sarah's first paragraph is mostly ok, except that I would need the Congress's Muslim partisanship toned down. (Unofficially, Congress is happy with all illegal immigrants, whether Hindu or Muslim.) |
||
::::: The second paragraph, after the first sentence, is whitewashing the BJP. And, that will need to be integrated with the existing background on the BJP in the article, rather than be its own paragraph. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 09:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC) |
::::: The second paragraph, after the first sentence, is whitewashing the BJP. And, that will need to be integrated with the existing background on the BJP in the article, rather than be its own paragraph. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 09:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{ping|Kautilya3}} I welcome revisions / trimming / rewording, that does not introduce OR or misrepresent Jayal and other scholarly sources. I also would like that we expand the analysis section to include the critical commentary/parts in these scholarly sources, but right now I am focused on the background section. Our goal is to improve this article based on the best quality RS such as peer-reviewed scholarship above, through collaboration within the wikipedia community-agreed content guidelines, it is not to whitewash AGP, BJP, Congress, Left, TMC or anyone. [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 13:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
=== Revised paragraph 2 === |
=== Revised paragraph 2 === |
Revision as of 13:39, 14 January 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
Indian Law is consistent with UN, US and EU laws
The Lautenburg Amendment of 1990 in the US grants asylum based on religion to Christians, Jews and Bahais from Iran but there is no such article against USA based on this amendment, the Constitution of the International Refugee Organization and the UN Convention of 1951 and the European Union use the country of origin and ethnicities in the definition of refugee, and the UN granted asylum to Christians from Syria based on their religion, but they have not been criticized on Wikipedia like in the case of India and Hindus.
The above points are well documented in an article that appeared in Sunday Guardian and can be easily verified by going to the primary documents mentioned in the newspaper. See https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/un-dont-follow-hypocritic-oath-caa
The same newspaper also did an analysis of USCIRF and pointed out that 31 of the 54 commissioners have been activist Christians affiliated with proselytizing groups and the entity's roster of commissioners and former commissioners consists of convicted criminals and those who molested children. See https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/anti-hindu-uscirf-sex-crime-bigotry-name-religious-freedom
Sorry to say this, but for the above reasons, this article is biased against Hindus. Why is it that Hindus cannot do what white people have been doing all these years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.101.164 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- As per WP:NEWSORG, opinion columns in newspapers are not considered reliable sources unless they are written by established scholars or analysts. You are welcome to bring up such commentaries for us to consider, but please do not go around advocating those viewpoints yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Here are the links to the actual documents in that case.
Constitution of the International Refugee Organization which identifies refugees by ethnicity and nationality - https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1948/08/19480820 07-01 AM/Ch_V_1p.pdf 1951 Convention of UN which uses nationality as the criterion - [1] https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.23_convention refugees.pdf
Press release from United Nations headlined "UN assisting Iraqi Christians seeking refuge in Syria" - https://news.un.org/en/story/2008/10/279112-un-assisting-iraqi-christians-seeking-refuge-syria It also has the quote, “Many Christians from Mosul have been systematically targeted recently and are no longer safe there. We are ready to provide support for those Iraqis that seek refuge in neighboring countries.”
UNHCR's criterion for Refugee Status Determination based on country of origin - https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/refugee-status-determination.html This actually states, "Country of Origin Information (COI) is information which is used in RSD procedures. COI reports collate relevant information on conditions in countries of origin pertinent to the assessment of claims for international protection.”
UNHCR's document on Pakistan excludes Sunni Muslims (refworld.org is an official website of the UN used as a repository of their documents) - https://www.refworld.org/publisher,UNHCR,COUNTRYPOS,PAK,5857ed0e4,0.html
UNHCR's document on Afghanistan blames Islamic Sharia law for creating refugees - https://www.refworld.org/publisher,UNHCR,COUNTRYPOS,AFG,4a6477ef2,0.html
EU uses criteria based on national origin - https://www.refworld.org/publisher/ACCORD.html#bbcountry
USCIRF's hypocrisy as it supported refugee status on religious basis for Christians, Jews and Bahais arriving from Iran - https://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/uscirf-concerned-denial-lautenberg-refugees-iran
Lautenburg Amendment in USA uses religion test - https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-schiff-announces-extension-of-lautenberg-amendment-for-iranian-religious-minorities-fleeing-persecution-included-in-omnibus
All these are OFFICIAL links. I only provided the article link to save everyone time and effort in terms of going through multiple links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.101.164 (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
POV tag
[adding disputed version / context back to aid the discussion - MSW]
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".[2][3][4] 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".[3][4] 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.[3][a]
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.[7] 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.[7]
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.[8][9][10][b] 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.[13][14][15] 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.[16][17][18][c]
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.[20] 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.[21] Their "targeted persecution" triggered an exodus and forced them to seek asylum.[22][21] Many of them started arriving in and after 1992 as refugees in India.[21][22] While these refugees were mostly Sikhs and Hindus, some were Muslims.[21] However, India has historically lacked any refugee law or uniform policy for persecuted refugees, state Ashish Bose and Hafizullah Emadi.[21][23]
Notes
- ^ 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."[5] The partition itself, states William Henderson, touched of a "paroxysm of fratricidal slaughter and one of the greatest mass migrations of human history" and associated communal hate-driven refugees and humanitarian crisis on both sides of the Indo-Pakistan border.[6]
- ^ London-based Minority Rights Group and Islamabad-based International and Sustainable Development Policy Institute state that religious minorities in Pakistan such as Ahmadis, Christians and Hindus face "high levels of religious discrimination", and "legal and social discrimination in almost every aspect of their lives, including political participation, marriage and freedom of belief".[11] Similarly, the Brussels-based Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization stated in 2019, that "religious minorities, including Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Ahmadis and Shia Muslims, have perpetually been subjected to attacks and discrimination by extremist groups and the society at large."[12]
- ^ In September 2019, Baldev Singh – a Sikh and a former member of Pakistan's legislative assembly belonging to Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf party – sought asylum in India, along with his family. He stated that the minorities in Pakistan were being persecuted, face "atrocities" and he fears for his family's safety.[19]
References
- ^ https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.23_convention refugees.pdf
- ^ Parliamentary Debates Official Report, Volume 200, Number 13, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Government of India, 18 December 2003, page 383, Quote: "While I [Manmohan Singh] am on this subject, Madam, I would like to say something, about the treatment of refugees. After the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh, have faced persecution, and it is our moral obligation that if circumstances force people, these unfortunate people, to seek refuge in our country, our approach to granting citizenship to these unfortunate persons should be more liberal. I sincerely hope that the hon. Deputy Prime Minister will bear this in mind in charting out the future course of action with regard to the Citizenship Act. "
- ^ a b c A tale of two demands, The Hindu (December 10 2019)
- ^ a b Historical Promises, The Pioneer (December 24 2019)
- ^ Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1947), The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 88, page 387
- ^ William Henderson (1953), The Refugees in India and Pakistan, Journal of International Affairs, Volume 7, Number 1, pp. 57-65
- ^ a b Tetsuya Nakatani (2000), Away from Home: The Movement and Settlement of Refugees from East Pakistan in West Bengal India, Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, Volume 12, pp. 73–81 (context: 71–103)
- ^ Farahnaz Ispahani (2017). Purifying the Land of the Pure: A History of Pakistan's Religious Minorities. Oxford University Press. pp. 165–171. ISBN 978-0-19-062165-0.
- ^ Bert B. Lockwood (2006). Women's Rights: A Human Rights Quarterly Reader. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 227–235. ISBN 978-0-8018-8373-6.
- ^ Javaid Rehman (2000). The Weaknesses in the International Protection of Minority Rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. pp. 158–159. ISBN 90-411-1350-9.
- ^ "Persecution of Pakistan's religious minorities intensifies, says report". Reuters. 9 December 2014. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
- ^ "UNPO: Religious Persecution in Pakistan". UNPO. 14 July 2019. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
- ^ Pakistan 2019 Annual Report, Tier 1 USCIRF Recommended Countries of Particular Concern, USCIRF, USA (2019)
- ^ Pakistan 2018 Annual Report, USCIRF Recommended Countries of Particular Concern, USCIRF, USA (2018)
- ^ Pakistan, Annual Report 2014, USCIRF, USA (2014); Also see Annual Reports for 2006–2017, USCIRF, US Government
- ^ European Parliament resolution of 17 April 2014 on Pakistan, Recent cases of persecution (2014/2694(RSP)), Texts Adopted P7_TA-PROV(2014)0460, P7_TA(2014)0208, P7_TA(2013)0422, OJ C 161 E, 31 May 2011, p. 147, The European Parliament (2014)
- ^ "Texts adopted - Thursday, 17 April 2014 - Pakistan: recent cases of persecution - P7_TA(2014)0460". www.europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
- ^ "Texts adopted - Pakistan, in particular the attack in Lahore - Thursday, 14 April 2016". www.europarl.europa.eu. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
- ^ Chauhan, Satender (10 September 2019). "Former MLA of Imran Khan's party seeks political asylum in India". India Today. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
- ^ Bangaldesh 2018 International Religious Freedom Report, US State Department (2019), pages 11–12
- ^ a b c d e Ashish Bose (2004), Afghan Refugees in India, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 43, pp. 4698-4701
- ^ a b Emadi, Hafizullah (2014). "Minorities and marginality: pertinacity of Hindus and Sikhs in a repressive environment in Afghanistan". Nationalities Papers. 42 (2). Cambridge University Press: 307–320. doi:10.1080/00905992.2013.858313., Quote: "The situation of Hindus and Sikhs as a persecuted minority is a little-studied topic in literature dealing with ethno-sectarian conflict in Afghanistan. (...) the breakdown of state structure and the ensuing civil conflicts and targeted persecution in the 1990s that led to their mass exodus out of the country. A combination of structural failure and rising Islamic fundamentalist ideology in the post-Soviet era led to a war of ethnic cleansing as fundamentalists suffered a crisis of legitimation and resorted to violence as a means to establish their authority. Hindus and Sikhs found themselves in an uphill battle to preserve their culture and religious traditions in a hostile political environment in the post-Taliban period. The international community and Kabul failed in their moral obligation to protect and defend the rights of minorities and oppressed communities."
- ^ Emadi, Hafizullah (2014). "Minorities and marginality: pertinacity of Hindus and Sikhs in a repressive environment in Afghanistan". Nationalities Papers. 42 (2). Cambridge University Press: 315–317. doi:10.1080/00905992.2013.858313.
Discussion
Sarah, can you explain what POV you think exists in the current Background section? That is necessary anyway since you have added a POV tag. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- The POV issues in the Background section are the following:
- [a] the section presents just one side, the "persecution" is summarized as if it were a recent anachronistic claim, an allegation and the focus of only the BJP government (this is one sided, the RS say that both BJP and non-BJP governments (e.g. Congress senior leaders) have expressed similar views over the decades);
- [b] it does not present the background from high quality RS about the persecution, and thereafter the arrival and the continued presence of a large number of refugees of persecuted minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh. These religiously persecuted minority groups of refugees in India, per RS, include both non-Muslims and Muslims. This is important as context to understand the later sections of this article, on both sides. That is, the parts of the Citizenship Amendment Act about non-Muslims such as Hindu, Sikhs, Christians etc; and the concerns of those challenging the Amendment because it does not include persecuted Muslim sects such as Ahmadiyya;
- [c] the perspective of religiously persecuted refugees in India, scholars, humanitarian groups, committees established by past governments, and activists who have studied the 1955 law mentioned in the 2nd-para of this section, and then petitioned for decades for an amendment to their Citizenship Act.
- These I submit are relevant, due and important background material to this article that deserve a few sentences. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Re [a] I don't see where "persecution" is mentioned as an anachronistic claim. It is mentioned as a BJP line because BJP made it an electoral cause and later legislative matter. I have shown calculations elsewhere that Congress has admitted 23 million Hindus into India, persecuted or not, without ever making an issue of it. If BJP raises a hue and cry, we have to state it. What choice do we have? The 30,000 people that the BJP wants to take care of is comparatively a drop in the ocean. But the BJP wants to claim glory for it. So the glory, they get.
- Re [b] As I have said previously, persecution in other countries should not be discussed in this article to any great extent, but the arrival of refugees can certainly be mentioned. The reason we are not yet doing so is that we don't have good data. We also don't have good information on how they have been integrated into India. See my section on #What is this law about?.
- By the way, nobody is challenging the Amendment for the sake of Ahmadiyyas. The Adhmadiyyas just form a red herring to demonstrate that the law is discriminatory. The Hazaras probably form a more real herring, but their numbers are also small. But, nevertheless these example illustrate the principle, which seems entirely valid. The government has never explained why they deliberately excluded Muslims (if anybody really needs such an explanation). The opposition offered clause-by-clause amendments in the Joint Parliamentary Committe. And the BJP voted them all down. So, the BJP didn't accidentally stumble into this tarpit. They deliberately chose it.
- Rec [c], I don't understand what you are getting at. If you provide citations, I will be glad to look at them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Kautilya3: On [a], you write "It is mentioned as a BJP line because BJP made it an electoral cause and later legislative matter"; multiple high quality sources are also saying that several "key non-BJP and senior Congress leaders have promised/asked/demanded/proposed it as an electoral cause and legislative matter" recently and previous decades in the context of refugees and Citizenship Amendments; per NPOV, we should include all sides from these mainstream RS.
- On [b], you write, "persecution in other countries should not be discussed in this article to any great extent"; I will accept a "brief extent" version: one that fairly summarizes the mainstream multiple RS on this, in their voice, i.e. the numerous RS written on India's 1955 citizenship law, which discuss the religious persecution of refugees who are in India, the need for an amendment to give the refugees their human rights, and to whom this new amended law applies, and whose persecution as mentioned in this legislation's preamble papers in their parliament; (note: the 1951 UN Convention definition of a refugee requires "persecution" of some sort (see page 3 of that UN document e.g.), it is an essential element ; so it is bizarre if you want to suppress that essential element; a few sentences in the background is a must). The numbers are not really that critical to this law article (i.e. whether 31,313 or 72,727... interesting, but a note suffices).
- On [c], just read the sources, embedded quotes and efn notes here (first two para, ignore the last two). There are many more, but let us start with those.
- Now a request: Can you explain your objections to the following: "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".[1][2][3]" Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- That would be partial information. At the time Manmohan Singh made that statement he wasn't a "former prime minister". He was the leader of the opposition. If we add his statement, then we would need to explain what he did after he became the prime minister. If he did nothing, then we need to say that. We would also need to point out that before he became the prime minsiter, the BJP had amended the Citizenship Law, prohibiting "illegal migrants" from getting naturalised. So perhaps they tied his hand? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, we can briefly summarize and further clarify that additional background, per RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- The Manmohan Singh comment was apparently made during the Parliamentary discussion on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, which introduced for the first time the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the law. Manmohan Singh was clearly objecting to labelling refugees fleeing persecution as "illegal immigrants". A perfectly sensible thing to do. I would have thought Manmohan Singh's words would have been music to Advani's ears. But I can find nothing in the Bill that takes care of Manmohan Singh's concern.
- I can find no further progress on these matters during Manmohan Singh's two terms. Of course, most of the news reports from then are not available online. I did find a stray report where Singh promised a delegation from Assam that he would implement the NRC. I know from elsewhere that they did a pilot in one district or something, and found lots of problems. The Supreme Court took charge of the NRC towards the end of his second term.
- It is safe to say that there was full agreement between the Congress and the BJP on the need to exempt the refugees from "illegal immigrants". The only disagreement that arose later was on how the legislation should be worded. Pinging DBigXray, Winged Blades of Godric, Vanamonde93. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- More information is slowly coming up.
In 2012, the then CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat had written to Manmohan Singh, who was prime minister at the time, reminding him of his 2003 statement and urging him to make a suitable amendment in policy to allow “minority community refugees” easy citizenship.[1]
- I can't fathom why Congress did not amend the law at that time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, we can briefly summarize and further clarify that additional background, per RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
- That would be partial information. At the time Manmohan Singh made that statement he wasn't a "former prime minister". He was the leader of the opposition. If we add his statement, then we would need to explain what he did after he became the prime minister. If he did nothing, then we need to say that. We would also need to point out that before he became the prime minsiter, the BJP had amended the Citizenship Law, prohibiting "illegal migrants" from getting naturalised. So perhaps they tied his hand? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ By Listing Religions, Modi's CAA Broke Atal-Manmohan-Left Concord on Persecuted Minorities, The Wire, 29 December 2019.
- I'm not going through this point by point, because the substance of the text doesn't address the substance of my previous concern. Additional sources and additional detail can only be used when that detail fits within the narrative as framed by RS discussing the bill. If we find RS stating, in their own voice, that the Congress and the BJP have previously agreed upon the need to naturalize refugees, that's something we should add. The statements of politicians, regardless of affiliation, are typically meaningless, and should not be used. Politicians a) say things that bear no relation to their positions as documented by RS, b) typically support/oppose the government's actions based on whether they are affilated with the government or the opposition, and c) produce soundbytes on every bill and every activity of the government. Finally, a NPOV tag isn't supposed to be used as a badge of shame, but as a marker of a substantive dispute needing further attention to reach consensus. At this point, consensus on that section is clear; a large chunk of information on persecution is considered undue by at least six editors. You can try to change that consensus through discussion, MSW, but the tag isn't meant to exist until every user is happy with the page. I suggest you remove it as a gesture of good faith. Vanamonde (Talk) 08:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that resolves nothing because we have no agreement on RS means. My position is that newspapers are only good for news, i.e., what they observe and report. They are not RS for constructing narratives. It has been obvious to me for a long time that the NRC necessitates CAA. Manmohan Singh pointed out that immediately in 2003, when NRC was first proposed. I don't see how it can be omitted. And, by the way, Manmohan Singh is not a run-of-the-mill "politician"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: Vanamonde has conceded and agreed that "If we find RS stating, in their own voice, that the Congress and the BJP have previously agreed upon the need to naturalize refugees, that's something we should add." Vanamonde has clearly not read the scholarly sources – including the recent scholarly sources cited above, understandable given the "I don't have time" type messages they keep mentioning. Unlike Vanamonde, you Kautilya3, have clearly read far more relevant scholarly articles and RS on this. The NRC is not a recent BJP invention, nor are versions of CAA - per the scholarly literature. The Assam Accord did necessitate NRC, and their political parties and the Supreme Court championed it (its flawed implementation is a different matter). The NRC, as you correctly state, does necessitate CAA. The current article's background section is a very one-sided, misleading and it does not reflect the balanced view found in scholarship (= serious NPOV issues, if Vanamonde would find the hours to read the RS published in the last 40 years; so the tag will remain there V93). But, we may be on the verge of a collaborative break here: Vanamonde finally agrees we can use RS for such additions to the background, we have already found those RS. How about I add something and you read and double-check the sources I cite to confirm that the cites include peer-reviewed RS that meet our policies (and any reasonable concerns of Vanamonde in your review)? If you find that these are not RS of the type Vanamonde mentions, Kautilya3 can revert me wholesale and I will not reinstate the added sentences and cites. Will that be a collaborative way forward? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- The fundamental problem I see is that MSW wants to add entire emmigration history right from early twentieth century to 2019, into the background section. Please create a seperate article and add everything you want there, spare this CAA from your proposed bloats. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, Kautilya3 and I are not discussing "entire emmigration history right from early twentieth century to 2019". We are discussing something far more specific and directly related to CAA in RS of quality equivalent to or better than those currently cited in the Background section. Let us just note that you did not make any reasoned objections to Kautilya3's comment above. (And once again, in future, please do include edit diffs when you make accusations; you DBigXray have a very bad habit of making false accusations and repeatedly misrepresenting me over the last few days. FWIW, I have never added or tried to add the "entire emmigration history from early twentieth century to 2019" to this article or anywhere in en-wiki. It is disappointing that someone like Vanamonde cares for your opinions and fails to objectively check and examine your wild allegations.) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- A few points in response. 1) In the absence of more than 2 scholarly sources discussing this topic, we have to use high-quality media sources (BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc) for constructing the narrative here. Constructing it based on personal analyses of the topic isn't acceptable. If and when more scholarly sources come out, we can transition to those. 2) I don't particularly care if it was Manmohan Singh or the most junior MP in parliament; quotations in the media mean nothing (even if the politician is a particularly honest and upright one, media outlets are notorious for taking soundbytes out of context). We need substantive analysis of policy positions. As such, if there was agreement in the actual positions of the two parties (not just two politicians saying the same thing) then yes, that fragment would be worth adding. 3) That the NRC necessitates the CAA may be bloody obvious to anyone, but that's precisely why the NRC needs to be covered in background, as I've been arguing all along. That argument also has nothing to do with adding reams of information about persecution of non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which is what the POV tag was about. 4) MSW, the issues you raised haven't found any support here; that Kautilya and I cannot agree on certain things doesn't mean the tag is justified. Kautilya was the one who first challenged your use of it. 5) Given the history of revert warring on this article, and given that the persecution material doesn't have consensus at all at present, I would strongly recommend placing on the talk page first. 6) Since I'm an active editor of this article, and therefore am unable to take admin actions, I am going to ignore all personall commentary, because I'm not in a position to sanction it, and I'm not going running to the administrator noticeboards unless something truly egregious happens. But it's worth remembering that if this dispute does return to the admin noticeboards, everyone's behavior is going to be scrutinized. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: Your comments are duly noted. If we do land up in admin/ARBCOM boards, everyone including you will be scrutinized. I have raised several concerns over the last 2 weeks, and provided RS including scholarly literature related to this law with embedded quotes. I am no longer discussing the original paragraphs that WBG trimmed to a shorter version. Now we have focused on a part of new paragraphs and new sources. Kautilya3 shows support above (please do not misstate). If 2+ scholarly sources is your benchmark, we can meet that too for the content Kautilya3 discusses/supports above. I will resume editing that section after confirmation that we accept a "2 or more scholarly sources" benchmark from either Kautilya3 or you or someone equally experienced with dispute-filled subjects. K3/Other editors: This is a law-related article, one about an "amendment". Laws and amendments typically have a history, scholarly discussions and a background behind why anyone wants to amend the law. This article suffers from serious WP:RECENTISM issues, where a one-sided narrative in breaking news articles/op-eds from select newspapers is being exclusively presented. That is not right. We need balance/NPOV/historical perspective. To make matters worse, summary from mainstream scholarship is being quickly reverted rather than welcomed, since December 26 with false accusations and nasty messages (see DBigXray's accusations and responses for samples). This is supposed to be an encyclopedic/reference article on an amended law. The views of notable leaders such as Manmohan Singh, of legal scholars and of others in peer-reviewed scholarly publications (yes, at least 2 or more RS) about the various attempts/discussions to amend their citizenship act are necessary for NPOV, for a better quality article, and something wikipedia's admins and ARBCOM has repeatedly affirmed in their past decisions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- I hope you do understand that typing in all bold font makes one appear as a moron in the eyes of the reader. 2. whatever be your proposal, you have to propose on the "talk page" first, get consensus and only then should it be added to the article. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 00:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- DBigXray: Please dial down your hostility and abuse. Once again, useless, harassing comments such as "makes one appear as a moron" are not helpful here or to this project. Please see WP:TALK on how best to use this talk page. Let us focus on the content, the reliable sources and the essence of what Kautilya3, Vanamonde93 are saying, and weigh these based on our content policy framework please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- I hope you do understand that typing in all bold font makes one appear as a moron in the eyes of the reader. 2. whatever be your proposal, you have to propose on the "talk page" first, get consensus and only then should it be added to the article. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 00:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: Your comments are duly noted. If we do land up in admin/ARBCOM boards, everyone including you will be scrutinized. I have raised several concerns over the last 2 weeks, and provided RS including scholarly literature related to this law with embedded quotes. I am no longer discussing the original paragraphs that WBG trimmed to a shorter version. Now we have focused on a part of new paragraphs and new sources. Kautilya3 shows support above (please do not misstate). If 2+ scholarly sources is your benchmark, we can meet that too for the content Kautilya3 discusses/supports above. I will resume editing that section after confirmation that we accept a "2 or more scholarly sources" benchmark from either Kautilya3 or you or someone equally experienced with dispute-filled subjects. K3/Other editors: This is a law-related article, one about an "amendment". Laws and amendments typically have a history, scholarly discussions and a background behind why anyone wants to amend the law. This article suffers from serious WP:RECENTISM issues, where a one-sided narrative in breaking news articles/op-eds from select newspapers is being exclusively presented. That is not right. We need balance/NPOV/historical perspective. To make matters worse, summary from mainstream scholarship is being quickly reverted rather than welcomed, since December 26 with false accusations and nasty messages (see DBigXray's accusations and responses for samples). This is supposed to be an encyclopedic/reference article on an amended law. The views of notable leaders such as Manmohan Singh, of legal scholars and of others in peer-reviewed scholarly publications (yes, at least 2 or more RS) about the various attempts/discussions to amend their citizenship act are necessary for NPOV, for a better quality article, and something wikipedia's admins and ARBCOM has repeatedly affirmed in their past decisions. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- A few points in response. 1) In the absence of more than 2 scholarly sources discussing this topic, we have to use high-quality media sources (BBC, NYT, WaPo, etc) for constructing the narrative here. Constructing it based on personal analyses of the topic isn't acceptable. If and when more scholarly sources come out, we can transition to those. 2) I don't particularly care if it was Manmohan Singh or the most junior MP in parliament; quotations in the media mean nothing (even if the politician is a particularly honest and upright one, media outlets are notorious for taking soundbytes out of context). We need substantive analysis of policy positions. As such, if there was agreement in the actual positions of the two parties (not just two politicians saying the same thing) then yes, that fragment would be worth adding. 3) That the NRC necessitates the CAA may be bloody obvious to anyone, but that's precisely why the NRC needs to be covered in background, as I've been arguing all along. That argument also has nothing to do with adding reams of information about persecution of non-Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, which is what the POV tag was about. 4) MSW, the issues you raised haven't found any support here; that Kautilya and I cannot agree on certain things doesn't mean the tag is justified. Kautilya was the one who first challenged your use of it. 5) Given the history of revert warring on this article, and given that the persecution material doesn't have consensus at all at present, I would strongly recommend placing on the talk page first. 6) Since I'm an active editor of this article, and therefore am unable to take admin actions, I am going to ignore all personall commentary, because I'm not in a position to sanction it, and I'm not going running to the administrator noticeboards unless something truly egregious happens. But it's worth remembering that if this dispute does return to the admin noticeboards, everyone's behavior is going to be scrutinized. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, Kautilya3 and I are not discussing "entire emmigration history right from early twentieth century to 2019". We are discussing something far more specific and directly related to CAA in RS of quality equivalent to or better than those currently cited in the Background section. Let us just note that you did not make any reasoned objections to Kautilya3's comment above. (And once again, in future, please do include edit diffs when you make accusations; you DBigXray have a very bad habit of making false accusations and repeatedly misrepresenting me over the last few days. FWIW, I have never added or tried to add the "entire emmigration history from early twentieth century to 2019" to this article or anywhere in en-wiki. It is disappointing that someone like Vanamonde cares for your opinions and fails to objectively check and examine your wild allegations.) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- The fundamental problem I see is that MSW wants to add entire emmigration history right from early twentieth century to 2019, into the background section. Please create a seperate article and add everything you want there, spare this CAA from your proposed bloats. --Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 13:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: Vanamonde has conceded and agreed that "If we find RS stating, in their own voice, that the Congress and the BJP have previously agreed upon the need to naturalize refugees, that's something we should add." Vanamonde has clearly not read the scholarly sources – including the recent scholarly sources cited above, understandable given the "I don't have time" type messages they keep mentioning. Unlike Vanamonde, you Kautilya3, have clearly read far more relevant scholarly articles and RS on this. The NRC is not a recent BJP invention, nor are versions of CAA - per the scholarly literature. The Assam Accord did necessitate NRC, and their political parties and the Supreme Court championed it (its flawed implementation is a different matter). The NRC, as you correctly state, does necessitate CAA. The current article's background section is a very one-sided, misleading and it does not reflect the balanced view found in scholarship (= serious NPOV issues, if Vanamonde would find the hours to read the RS published in the last 40 years; so the tag will remain there V93). But, we may be on the verge of a collaborative break here: Vanamonde finally agrees we can use RS for such additions to the background, we have already found those RS. How about I add something and you read and double-check the sources I cite to confirm that the cites include peer-reviewed RS that meet our policies (and any reasonable concerns of Vanamonde in your review)? If you find that these are not RS of the type Vanamonde mentions, Kautilya3 can revert me wholesale and I will not reinstate the added sentences and cites. Will that be a collaborative way forward? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately that resolves nothing because we have no agreement on RS means. My position is that newspapers are only good for news, i.e., what they observe and report. They are not RS for constructing narratives. It has been obvious to me for a long time that the NRC necessitates CAA. Manmohan Singh pointed out that immediately in 2003, when NRC was first proposed. I don't see how it can be omitted. And, by the way, Manmohan Singh is not a run-of-the-mill "politician"! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Ms Sarah Welch, happy New Year to you. Can you review the changes made to the Background section and see if the POV tag is still warranted? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kautilya3: Thank you and same to you. I will review it in 1–2 days, hopefully later today. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: I checked the sources cited in the 29 December version of this article. Some sentences were not supported by the sources at all, while a few needed a bit of rewording. I have made those corrections, and added a few scholarly sources. Please check the update and the sources. You are invited to revise it further. On the tag, please review and add a few sentences summary from scholarly sources such as one by Tetsuya Nakatani,[1] Niraja Jayal, Haimanti Roy, and others on the history of refugee arrivals in India and the political limbo about their citizenship (all these scholarly RS have been published between 1990 and 2019). That will improve the balance/neutrality, reduce the WP:RECENTISM, and justify the tag's removal. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Tetsuya Nakatani (2000), Away from Home: The Movement and Settlement of Refugees from East Pakistan in West Bengal India, Journal of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, Volume 12, pp. 73–81 (context: 71–103)
- Whether or not I object to this source will depend on what content you are trying to add from it; the source itself cannot be used to frame this topic, and therefore should not affect the POV of the page. NPOV and due weight can only be determined, as I have said before, in terms of coverage in reliable sources of the topic of this page. Other sources may only be used to provide supplementary detail to narratives in sources covering the topic. The absence of a source from before the subject of this page existed is not a policy-based reason to keep this tag, and I will remove it in a few days if other objections haven't been raised. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
New paragraph 1
Here is a new paragraph contributed by Ms Sarah Welch, which I think is too detailed:
On August 15 1985, after six years of violent protests against migrants and refugees in the northeastern states of India, the Assam Accord was signed between the the Indian government and the leaders of the Assam movement in the presence of Rajiv Gandhi.[1][2] This accord, amongst other things, promised that the Indian government will deport all illegal aliens who had arrived after March 1971.[1][2] A 1986 amendment to the Citizenship Act of 1955 was proposed and passed in 1986 by a Congress-led government.[3] This amendment restricted the Indian citizenship to those born in India prior to 1987 to either a mother or a father who was an Indian citizen.[3] The Citizenship (Amendment) Act of 1986 effectively blocked jus soli citizenship to the children of couples who were both illegal aliens and to second-generation refugees from citizenship rights in India.[3] The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 was proposed and amended by a BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government.[4] It added further restrictions on citizenship, by adding a provision that denied Indian citizenship to those born to an "illegal migrant" parent.[3] Under these citizenship laws, illegal immigrants are deemed to be the citizens of other countries who entered India without valid travel documents, or who remained in the country beyond the period permitted by their travel documents.[4][5] In addition, in 1983, the Congress government passed the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, thereby establishing a system to detect and expel foreigners through tribunal proceedings. This Act was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2005, in part because it required Indian citizens to identify and initiate tribunal proceedings against illegal foreigners. The court ruled that the Act was a big impediment to the proper and effective implementation of the Assam Accord.[6]
References
- ^ a b Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty (2019). Assam: The Accord, The Discord. Penguin. pp. 1–14, Chapters: Introduction, 2, 9, 10. ISBN 978-93-5305-622-3.
- ^ a b Sanjib Baruah (1999). India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality. University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 138–139, 160–168. ISBN 0-8122-3491-X.
- ^ a b c d Rolfe, Ella (2008). "Refugee, Minority, Citizen, Threat". South Asia Research. 28 (3). SAGE Publications: 253–283, note 16 (p. 276). doi:10.1177/026272800802800302.
- ^ a b Roy 2010, p. 138.
- ^ Universal's The Citizenship Act, 2003 (2004), p. 2.
- ^ Niraja Gopal Jayal (2013). Citizenship and Its Discontents: An Indian History. Harvard University Press. pp. 64–66. ISBN 978-0-674-06758-5.
Comments to follow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, I firmly believe that this Amendment is a follow-up to the 2003 Amendment, which introduced "illegal immigrants" for the first time into the Citizenship law. What happened earlier is not directly relevant, even though it might be relevant to the NRC, which is a separate topic.
- Deporting illegal immigrants is normal practice all around the world, and it has been present in Indian law since the Foreigners Act, 1946. It is only the implementation that is under issue, not the legislation. The IMDT is a red herring.
- The fact that the illegal immigrants are not eligible for citizenship (which is key to the present amendment) has been lost somewhere.
- I think we really need to focus on what happened since 2003, not before. (Granted that there is very little information available about it. But we need to look.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: Replying to each of your bulleted comments,
- This is an article on "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". The 2016 amendment attempt, the 2003 amendment, the 1986 amendment, the citizenship-related provisions in the Assam Accord, and the 1955 Citizenship Act are directly relevant to the topic. If these earlier amendments/laws are not mentioned, the reader is misled to the impression that the first amendment ever that restricted citizenship rights came in 2003. That is not what the scholarly sources are saying, nor is that accurate/balanced view. A few sentences about the Assam Accord, 1980s legislative developments, are necessary for balance and completeness.
- You are right. This is old. But the version you reverted back to, states, "The [2003 amended] law provided provisions to deport or jail the illegal immigrants." There is a newspaper cite, but I do not see where that source is saying so. It is also wrong. If you review the scholarly sources, this was actually much older provision (as you note), with the most notable changes to the 1946 Act introduced in the 1980s.
- I support you adding an appropriate clarification. Please note that the 1986 amendment already has that language, removing the jus soli citizenship right etc. The 2003 amendment restricted that further. The 2003 amendment did not introduce the idea that "illegal immigrants are not eligible for citizenship". This was true before 2003, for a long time.
- There is a lot of information on the pre-2003 amendment of the Citizenship Act of 1955. See the sources I cited/mention above, for more. These amendments/Tribunal Act/etc were a consequence of the violent protests in Assam in late 1970s and early 1980s. Scholarly publications on the Assam Accord, post-1985, would be another relevant source.
- I concur that the 2003 Amendment is relevant. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are right that the restriction of jus soli citizenship started in 1986 (and this has a huge impact on the NRC). But the restriction that illegal immigrants (or their children) cannot ever become citizens was introduced in 2003. It is the latter problem that the 2019 amendment addressing. So, I am still not sure why we need to go into the pre-2003 history. I will await more input from the other page watchers. Meanwhile please free to create a page on Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986, which can be one click away. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: Replying to each of your bulleted comments,
Discussion of 2003 amendment, copied to Talk:Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003
|
---|
|
Kautilya3: How about a trimmed version of the para above and combine that with a bit to address your concerns in the vote bank section on this talk page? If you need additional sources, please let me know. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not in the background section, because it intervenes before the readers get to the main subject. However, you can discuss it after the Act itself has been presented. Why don't you create a new subsection of Analysis on Implications for Assam, where you can discuss the background as well as the impact this Act has on the situation? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the absence of RS discussing older amendments as relevant to the CAA, this material does not belong in the background section. And as I'm getting tired of repeating, older sources cannot be used to shift the POV of the article, because they do not directly address the subject; they may only be used to supplement a narrative present in sources discussing the topic directly. As such, if neutrality concerns based on sources actually discussing the CAA are not presented here, I will be removing the tag again. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- What about "in the presence of multiple RS discussing older amendments as relevant to the CAA" in peer-reviewed scholarship published between 1986 and 2019? Will you accept those to help improve the NPOV issue here? Kautilya3: I like your suggestion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- If the sources were published before 2016, absolutely not. They do not mention the recent act, and therefore cannot establish the relevance of anything to the recent act. Between 2016 and 2019, iff they make reference to the 2016 bill, which RS are clear is what the recent one drew from. Suggesting that sources published before the recent bill was written somehow establish the relevance of anything to it is original research, and will be treated as such. If you do not present such sources, I will remove the tag later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- So, you are fine with sources published between 2016–2019 for a version of paragraph 1? How about: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc? (ps: Hazarika is a professor and holds a chair at Jamia Millia Islamia, fwiw; for others, please google; I also wish to record my disagreement that pre-2016 are not relevant to this article!, but I am willing to accept the 2016-2019 guideline in the spirit of collaboration even though the current article liberally uses pre-2016 sources) Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- If the sources were published before 2016, absolutely not. They do not mention the recent act, and therefore cannot establish the relevance of anything to the recent act. Between 2016 and 2019, iff they make reference to the 2016 bill, which RS are clear is what the recent one drew from. Suggesting that sources published before the recent bill was written somehow establish the relevance of anything to it is original research, and will be treated as such. If you do not present such sources, I will remove the tag later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- What about "in the presence of multiple RS discussing older amendments as relevant to the CAA" in peer-reviewed scholarship published between 1986 and 2019? Will you accept those to help improve the NPOV issue here? Kautilya3: I like your suggestion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- In the absence of RS discussing older amendments as relevant to the CAA, this material does not belong in the background section. And as I'm getting tired of repeating, older sources cannot be used to shift the POV of the article, because they do not directly address the subject; they may only be used to supplement a narrative present in sources discussing the topic directly. As such, if neutrality concerns based on sources actually discussing the CAA are not presented here, I will be removing the tag again. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have already stated elsewhere on this talk page that the Jayal and Sharma sources are acceptable sources (Indeed, I've even said I'd add them myself when I have the time, which may be this weekend). I do not see where Shamshad makes reference to the recent legislation. The Hazarika sources are not necessarily unreliable, but as opinion pieces, not weighty enough to displace other sources. Finally, a source being acceptable does not imply that all text sourced to it is acceptable; as I've said elsewhere, the substantive conclusions of the papers are what need to be presented, not incidental details picked from within. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- We are not discussing any need to "displace" other sources. If these are acceptable RS as a compromise, then I can draft another version of paragraph 1 based on 2016–2019 sources, one that will help improve the NPOV aspect of the background section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about Vanamonde, but I am not accepting content that talks about the distant past in the Background section, no matter when the source is published. Generalities are fine, but not blow-by-blow history, which is what the above paragraph was trying to do. But, as I said, a later section can discuss the impact on Assam in detail. The Assamese are protesting precisely that the Assam Accord is being violated. So, it is certainly relevant there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- All I've said is that those sources are acceptable. What content we add from them remains to be determined. The critical task is to distill the broad outline of what each source is saying about the CAA. To K's last point; yes, not everything historical needs to go in the background section. The assam accord, when mentioned at all, is mentioned as relevant to the protests in Assam; as such it belongs in the analysis section. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I don't know about Vanamonde, but I am not accepting content that talks about the distant past in the Background section, no matter when the source is published. Generalities are fine, but not blow-by-blow history, which is what the above paragraph was trying to do. But, as I said, a later section can discuss the impact on Assam in detail. The Assamese are protesting precisely that the Assam Accord is being violated. So, it is certainly relevant there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- We are not discussing any need to "displace" other sources. If these are acceptable RS as a compromise, then I can draft another version of paragraph 1 based on 2016–2019 sources, one that will help improve the NPOV aspect of the background section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Jayal's book published by Harvard Univ Press is from 2013. To meet the 2016–2019 guideline, I intend to rely on her 2019 scholarly paper. Clipped quotes are below.
From the 1980s onwards, the legal and constitutional conception of the Indian citizen started to undergo a subtle transformation, through amendments to the Citizenship Act, in response to political developments. The latest in a series of such amendments is the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, introduced in parliament in July 2016 and passed in the lower house of India's parliament in January 2019. [...]
The present amendment consolidates a trend that began with the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 1985, which amended the provisions pertaining to naturalisation. This gave legal expression to the Assam Accord between the Rajiv Gandhi government and the Assamese students’ organisations that had led the agitation against the enfranchisement of migrants from Bangladesh in Assam. [...] The enfranchisement of the migrants was widely attributed to the Congress. The common perception was that all Bangladeshi immigrants were Muslims, and the Congress Party was seen as the prime beneficiary of their votes. The Accord put in place measures for the detection of foreigners and their deletion from the state’s electoral rolls.
The 1985 amendment to the Citizenship Act that followed the Accord introduced a new section titled 'Special Provisions as to Citizenship of Persons Covered by the Assam Accord'. [...] All those who came before 1966 were declared citizens; those who came between 1966 and 1971 were struck off the electoral rolls and asked to wait ten years before applying for citizenship; and those who came after 1971 were simply deemed to be illegal immigrants. In 2004, an amendment to the Citizenship Act provided that, even if born on Indian soil, a person who had one parent who was an illegal migrant at the time of their birth would not be eligible for citizenship by birth. Since most of the migrants from Bangladesh were Muslims, this covertly introduced a religion-based exception to the principle of citizenship by birth, undermining the principle of jus soli. These provisions were a response to the political situation in Assam—where anti-migrant sentiment was at a fever pitch—but already contained the seeds of the politicisation and incipient communalisation of the issue of migrants.
[...] While some elements of religious difference had, as mentioned above, been covertly smuggled in earlier, this bill [2016/January 2019 version] seeks to do so overtly. It provides that Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis (Zoroastrians) and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, [...]
– Niraja Gopal Jayal (2019) Reconfiguring Citizenship in Contemporary India, Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(1), pp. 33-50, doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1555874
FWIW, if this article's background was broadly similar to one in Jayal's paper, I would not have NPOV concerns. I can prepare a redrafted paragraph 1 by Monday, based on Jayal's 2019 paper above, sources I listed above and other RS. But, if someone else wants to do it, you are most welcome. K3: As always, you are welcome to collaboratively re-organize/revise/move some sentences into another section after your due reflection. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ok, I admit that she is drawing a straight line from 1986 to 2016 that you have been arguing for. But she hasn't done such a good job, has she? In the second paragraph you quote, it is a
common perception that all the Bangladeshi migrants are Muslims
. In the third paragraph you quote, she is taking it for granted thatmost of the migrants from Bangladesh were Muslim
. Are we to understand that "all" is a perception and "most" is a reality? One can have the cake and eat it too in this manner! By my calculations, the number of Hindu migrants and Muslim migrants is roughly equal, or perhaps Hindu migrants outnumber the Muslim migrants by 50-100%, but in the same order of magnitude. So, both "all" and "most" are incorrect. Anyway, she is a legal scholar. She may not know much about the facts on the ground. - But, what do we make of the fact that on top of page 35, she completely misses the condition of religious persecution that is hidden in the Bill? She mentions it in the middle of page 35, but hints disbelief. But a legal scholar has to first comment on the law as it exists, setting aside one's beliefs.
As part of its deposition to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the bill, the Home Ministry’s Intelligence Bureau made it clear that anyone applying for Indian Citizenship under the amended law will have to “prove that they came to India due to religious persecution” – a very difficult proposition.[2]
- It is funny how the legal scholars (she isn't the only one) seem to miss this condition, but the newspaper commentators are able to pick it up fine.
- At the same time, she misses the rationale given in the Bill that this was intended for "Indian origin" people who aren't always able to prove their Indian origin.
- On page 36, she calls it "fast-tracked citizenship". But it isn't really. In the 2016 bill, it was a seven years residency requirement, the same as for all citizenship by registration applicants. (In the 2019 bill that got passed, it seems to have been reduced a bit but I have to double check.)
- Anyway, please feel free to use it, but cautiously. She seems to have reproduced what she hurriedly wrote for news magazine commentaries and peer reviewers didn't know any better. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Roy 2010, p. 138.
- ^ Shoaib Daniyal, Four myths about the Citizenship Bill – from fighting religious persecution to helping NRC-excluded, Scroll.in, 8 December 2019.
- Kautilya3: Your comments are perceptive. This talk page is already a wall of text. A proper and complete answer to your questions will add to the bulk, and serve little purpose given the 2016–2019 compromise guideline above. So I will try to be brief: the context behind all and most in Jayal's 2019 paper is the perception in the 1980s. You are right about the persecution part. It has long been discussed by different political parties and is there in the context of their Citizenship Amendments and its interpretation by their courts. Jayal's 2013 book and other scholars discuss it. On rest, the reality is that the "illegal migrants" have already been given "voter IDs", have "voted" and have enjoyed "political patronage with land grant and housing etc by the past WB/Assam/Rajasthan/etc state governments", since the 1980s, per Jayal and other scholars. We need to focus on this article in light of all these sources. Now that we have the 2016–2019 compromise guideline, I will draft a short paragraph and post it in this thread for further discussion, today or tomorrow. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Ms Sarah Welch, you need to consider the fact that the UN, US and EU use religion as the criteria for granting asylum to applicants. The Indian law is no different from the laws of these other places. Targeting Hindus alone and presenting them as biased only makes Wikipedia look biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.10.101.164 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposed redraft for insertion into the background section
Here is the draft of two paras to be inserted into the background section. They meet the agreed guidelines that everything be supported by an RS from the 2016–2019 period in the context of CAB/CAA. The two pre-2016 cites below are second/third source for the convenience of any reader interested in more background. Everything below is supported by more than one RS. I have checked that the context in the RS is the language in the subject of this article, i.e. 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act. I have also tried to keep the summary close to the source, in scholar's own voice, and in-text attributed to address any potential WP:Plag concerns.
Political developments in the 1980s, particularly those related to the violent Assam movement against all migrants from Bangladesh, triggered revisions to the Citizenship Act of 1955.[1][2][3] The Citizenship Act was first amended in 1985 after the Assam Accord was signed, wherein the Rajiv Gandhi government agreed to "detect foreigners and delete them from Assam's electoral rolls",[1][4] and expel these foreigners from India.[3][5] The illegal migrants from Bangladesh had been given the right to vote. According to Niraja Jayal, this enfranchisement was "widely attributed to the Congress" and "the common perception was that all Bangladeshi immigrants were Muslims, and the Congress Party was seen as the prime beneficiary of their votes".[1][6]
The promise to "detect and delete" the illegal migrants from Bangladesh that were made under the 1985 Assam Accord remained unfulfilled between 1985 and 2014.[3][7][8] In the 2010s, the BJP-alliance repeatedly highlighted this issue in its election campaign in Assam and promised to remove illegal Bangladeshi migrants.[9][10] In addition, the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government amended the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950, and the Orders under the Foreigners Act, 1946. These amendments exempted migrants "belonging to minority communities in Bangladesh and Pakistan who were compelled to seek shelter in India due to religious persecution or fear of religious persecution" from the requirement of holding valid passports and visas, and their deportation.[9][4]
I will also like to append the following efn note, after the 'detect and delete' sentence above:
In 2005, the Supreme Court of India scrapped the Illegal Migrant Determination by Tribunal Act (IMDT), 1983 that aimed in part to protect genuine Indian citizens and expel illegal migrants from Bangladesh.[3] The Supreme Court described the migration from Bangladesh as illegal and as an act of aggression.[3] According to Chetna Sharma, "The political–ideological context of judgement is important because by this time the numbers of migrants, the demographic shifts in Assam had already been discussed and debated. The judgement also discussed demographic shift not in terms of the linguistic profile, as was the case earlier, but in terms of the religious profile of the state, emphasising the increase in the Muslim population, and the threat it posed not just to Assam but to the whole of India. In another case (Mustt Sardari Begum and Syera Begum and ors v. State of Assam and ors, 2008) Court referred to growth of Bangladeshi as cancerous. Reiterating this logic in a recent judgement the Meghalaya High Court urged the centre to allow citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Christians, Khasis, Jaintias and Garos from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Judge Sen in his judgement stated ‘I make it clear that nobody should try to make India as another Islamic country, otherwise it will be a doomsday for India and the World."[3]
Additionally, this efn note appended after the "election campaign in Assam" sentence:
Other parties have raised similar concerns in West Bengal. For example, states Rizwana Shamshad, "Pradip Banerjee – former MP of the TMC – compared the CPI (M) with Assam’s nationalist party, the AGP which uses the same election strategy of "migration from Bangladesh". He further claimed that both the CPI (M) and the Congress are exploiting the Bangladeshis. The underlying assertion is that the CPI (M) uses all kinds of tactics and ruses to enlarge and secure their vote. He also included the Congress in vote bank politics: "The CPI (M) and the Congress use Bangladeshis as vote banks. In West Bengal it is the CPI (M) policy that if you vote for them, you would get your ration card."[11][12]
Comments welcome. @Kautilya3: I have emailed you the full papers for your review. Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ a b c Niraja Gopal Jayal (2019), Reconfiguring Citizenship in Contemporary India, Journal of South Asian Studies, 42(1), pp. 34–36 (context: 33-50), doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1555874
- ^ Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty (2019). Assam: The Accord, The Discord. Penguin. pp. 1–14, Chapters: Introduction, 2, 9, 10. ISBN 978-93-5305-622-3.
- ^ a b c d e f Sharma, Chetna (2019). "Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016: continuities and contestations with special reference to politics in Assam, India". Asian Ethnicity. 20 (4). Routledge: 522–540. doi:10.1080/14631369.2019.1601993.
- ^ a b Mihika Poddar (2018), The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: international law on religion-based discrimination and naturalisation law, Indian Law Review, 2(1), 108-118, ((doi|10.1080/24730580.2018.1512290}}
- ^ Assam and the CAB, Sanjoy Hazarika (December 13 2019), Quote: "In the 1980s, the Congress Party faced the brunt of the ‘anti-foreigner’ movement with confrontation and violence erupting in the state till a 1985 accord with the government of then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi appeared to assuage the situation. Foreign nationals would be detected and expelled as per provisions of law after 1971, it said, and the people of the state would be provided preferential treatment and constitutional safeguards to protect their identity."
- ^ Rizwana Shamshad (2017). Bangladeshi Migrants in India: Foreigners, Refugees, or Infiltrators?. Oxford University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-0-19-909159-1.
- ^ Niraja Gopal Jayal (2013). Citizenship and Its Discontents: An Indian History. Harvard University Press. pp. 64–76. ISBN 978-0-674-06758-5.
- ^ Roy, Anupama (14 December 2019). "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016 and the Aporia of Citizenship". Economic and Political Weekly. 54 (49): 28–34.;
Roy, Anupama (25 June 2016). "Ambivalence of Citizenship in Assam". Economic and Political Weekly. 51 (26/27): 45–51. - ^ a b Niraja Gopal Jayal (2019) Reconfiguring Citizenship in Contemporary India, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, 42:1, pp. 36–37 (context: 33-50), doi:10.1080/00856401.2019.1555874
- ^ Assam and the CAB, Sanjoy Hazarika (December 13 2019)
- ^ Rizwana Shamshad (2018). Bangladeshi Migrants in India: Foreigners, Refugees, or Infiltrators?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-909159-1
- ^ Kamal Sadiq (2008). Paper Citizens: How Illegal Immigrants Acquire Citizenship in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press. pp. 143–144. ISBN 978-0-19-970780-5.
Comments on the redraft
- My initial comment from cursory reading is that it does represent the history quite accurately and somewhat exposes the fallacies of the present day commentaries. But it is also ignoring BJP's own ideology and political interest, making it look like the Assam situation is the central problem. In reality, BJP has generalised the Assam problem to the whole of India on its own accord. It also wants to distinguish between the Hindu migrants and Muslim migrants, which was not an issue for Congress or any other party. The present CAA arises precisely from that concern. So the emphasis is somewhat wrong. I will have to think about it more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The existing background already extensively covers the BJP ideology and politics in many paragraphs. To clarify, the above paragraphs are not meant to entirely remove and replace the existing background. The proposal is to add these paras to better reflect the 2016–2019 peer-reviewed mainstream scholarship on the background behind the CAB/CAA, for NPOV and completeness. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- The proposed paragraphs summarize the history of citizenship law quite fairly, but at the moment they constitute obvious undue weight in this article. They belong in an article about citizenship law in India. As I said before, the only truly weighty source you have used here is Jayal. The others are opinion pieces, or, so far as I can tell, do not cover the CAB (I cannot access Pisharoty's book, but if you are saying that it discusses this recent bill directly, then please provide quotations backing that up). Jayal's thesis about the bill is encapsulated in the following quote, which most of that paper is given over to substantiating:
"From the 1980s onwards, the legal and constitutional conception of the Indian citizen started to undergo a subtle transformation, through amendments to the Citizenship Act, in response to political developments. The latest in a series of such amendments is the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, introduced in parliament in July 2016 and passed in the lower house of India's parliament in January 2019. If passed in the upper house as well, this could culminate in a fundamental metamorphosis, displacing the principle of jus soli in favour of jus sanguinis, and thereby entrenching a majoritarian and exclusionary conception of citizenship, replacing the existing, albeit already weakened, pluralist and inclusive conception."
Any use of Jayal as a source needs to begin with including her main thesis, not tangential detail. This ought to have been very clear by now, but "mentioned by RS also covering this topic is not equivalent to "relevance as demonstrated by RS". In the absence of substantive neutrality concerns based on material about this bill, I am removing the tag once again. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Both Jayal and Sharma are directly related to CAB/CAA, both are scholarly sources published by reputed publishers. Why are you calling Sharma's paper an "op-ed"? The Assam Accord and later developments are not tangential background at all, they are an essential part of the history of CAB/CAA 2019 per Jayal . The current background already covers the majoritarian view, and there is no need to repeat it (we can certainly cite Jayal elsewhere if you want). The other sources do cover CAB/CAA directly, or are second/third sources for additional background to interested reader (e.g. Pisharoty's book; we can remove that source if you wish). I have already "quoted" from the sources in-text in some cases, and I will be happy to embed quotes elsewhere if you identify any specific concerns. Please do not remove the NPOV tag, meanwhile. Of course, you are free to go through the dispute etc noticeboards. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- (ps): I have rechecked and added more scholarly sources. Every line in two proposed paragraphs above is sourced to the Jayal 2019 journal paper, or the Sharma 2019 journal paper, or the Poddar 2018 journal paper, or a combination of these sources. All are secondary and peer-reviewed, and they are far better than many of the newspapers/op-eds currently cited in the current background section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Your question above borders on gaslighting. In the version I commented on, Sharma was not cited in the body text, just in the footnote. You know it was, because you later amended your two body paragraphs to include the Sharma source. The Sharma source was thus incidental, and I made no reference to it. NPOV is not simply about reproducing material from good sources. It's about accurately summarizing those sources. To put it another way, it's not enough for the content to accurately represent a fragment of the source; it must accurately represent the substance of the source. The version above does not do that. Moreover, it takes two papers that are quite critical of the bill and the BJP. The framing of these paragraphs is distinctly different from that of the very sources you are relying on. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93: That is not the collaborative spirit I expected from you. FWIW, I saw my proposed efn notes above as an integral part of the complete proposed addition. But if you did not read my efn sources, I understand. Let us move forward. I hope you agree that we have multiple scholarly RS (every source above is by a professor, some of whom have published with Harvard Univ Press, Oxford Univ Press, etc). Now you are apparently hinting that it may not "represent the substance of the source". You are simply wrong. It surely is. It is essential background and a part of the substance of these journal papers. That is the background in these scholarly sources, all published in the 2016–2019 period, all directly related to CAB/CAA that is subject of this article. That background helps the reader understand why people in Assam and their northeast have responded and protested in December 2019/January 2020 the way they have. Look, you can keep stonewalling and we will end up in dispute resolution / admin / ARBCOM proceedings where our edits will get scrutinized. It will help if you can cogently explain your objection to this essential "background" content that is well supported in multiple recent peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Once again, please remember this article is not about "Media narrative on CAB/CAA", rather it is an article on "CAB/CAA". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think this discussion is going a bit haywire. We are discussing the Background section. There is no effort to "summarise" the sources. The sources are brought in only to demonstrate the relevance of particular pieces of background to the current CAA.
- Everybody is dodging around a particular piece of realpolitik that says that no Indian government can ever deport a Hindu to where they came from. It has never been done and it will never be done, says the realpolitik. So, all the promises made by the Congress party are hollow because, unless they found a way to distinguish the Hindu migrants from the Muslim migrants, they wouldn't be able to deport anybody. So, the need of deporting illegal migrants is certainly part of the context of this bill, and it didn't just start with the NRC concept introduced in the 2003 amendment.
- I think Sarah's first paragraph is mostly ok, except that I would need the Congress's Muslim partisanship toned down. (Unofficially, Congress is happy with all illegal immigrants, whether Hindu or Muslim.)
- The second paragraph, after the first sentence, is whitewashing the BJP. And, that will need to be integrated with the existing background on the BJP in the article, rather than be its own paragraph. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3: I welcome revisions / trimming / rewording, that does not introduce OR or misrepresent Jayal and other scholarly sources. I also would like that we expand the analysis section to include the critical commentary/parts in these scholarly sources, but right now I am focused on the background section. Our goal is to improve this article based on the best quality RS such as peer-reviewed scholarship above, through collaboration within the wikipedia community-agreed content guidelines, it is not to whitewash AGP, BJP, Congress, Left, TMC or anyone. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93: That is not the collaborative spirit I expected from you. FWIW, I saw my proposed efn notes above as an integral part of the complete proposed addition. But if you did not read my efn sources, I understand. Let us move forward. I hope you agree that we have multiple scholarly RS (every source above is by a professor, some of whom have published with Harvard Univ Press, Oxford Univ Press, etc). Now you are apparently hinting that it may not "represent the substance of the source". You are simply wrong. It surely is. It is essential background and a part of the substance of these journal papers. That is the background in these scholarly sources, all published in the 2016–2019 period, all directly related to CAB/CAA that is subject of this article. That background helps the reader understand why people in Assam and their northeast have responded and protested in December 2019/January 2020 the way they have. Look, you can keep stonewalling and we will end up in dispute resolution / admin / ARBCOM proceedings where our edits will get scrutinized. It will help if you can cogently explain your objection to this essential "background" content that is well supported in multiple recent peer-reviewed scholarly sources. Once again, please remember this article is not about "Media narrative on CAB/CAA", rather it is an article on "CAB/CAA". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Revised paragraph 2
Second paragraph with new bits added (highlighted in red):
The "detection, deletion and deportation" of illegal migrants has been on the agenda of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) since 1996.[1] In December 2003, a coalition led by BJP passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003, which included a mandate to create and maintain a National Register of Citizens. The bill received the full support of the Congress and several other opposition parties in the Lok Sabha, and was unanimously approved in the Rajya Sabha.[2][3] During the parliamentary debate on the amendment to the Citizenship Act, the leader in the Upper House Manmohan Singh – who later served two terms as the prime minister of India, stated that the refugees belonging to the minority communities in countries such as Bangladesh have faced persecution and requested that they should be granted citizenship more liberally.[4][5][6]
References
- ^ Gupta 2019, pp. 2–3.
- ^ Dual Citizenship Bill passed in Rajya Sabha Archived 28 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Hindu, 19 December 2003;
- ^ Neena Vyas, Anita Joshua, Dual citizenship Bill passed Archived 28 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Hindu, 23 December 2003.
- ^ Parliamentary Debates Official Report, Volume 200, Number 13, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, Government of India, 18 December 2003, page 383, Quote: "While I [Manmohan Singh] am on this subject, Madam, I would like to say something, about the treatment of refugees. After the partition of our country, the minorities in countries like Bangladesh, have faced persecution, and it is our moral obligation that if circumstances force people, these unfortunate people, to seek refuge in our country, our approach to granting citizenship to these unfortunate persons should be more liberal. I sincerely hope that the hon. Deputy Prime Minister will bear this in mind in charting out the future course of action with regard to the Citizenship Act."
- ^ BJP digs up Manmohan speech seeking citizenship for persecuted refugees Archived 20 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Times of India, 20 December 2019;
A tale of two demands, The Hindu (December 10 2019);
Historical Promises, The Pioneer (December 24 2019)- ^ M. K. Venu, By Listing Religions, Modi's CAA Broke Atal-Manmohan-Left Concord on Persecuted Minorities Archived 29 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Wire, 29 December 2019.
Comments to follow. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- "coalition led by BJP" and "Congress and several other opposition parties" are technicalities. They are unnecessarily detracting.
- "Unanimously passed in Rajya Sabha" etc. are mentioned on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2003 page, which is linked. I am not sure why we need to repeat it here. I don't mind adding "Left parties" if we can find a source that says so.
- "who later serves two terms as prime minister". This is certainly important, but I am working on what actually happened in those two terms regarding this issue. My previous contribution was reverted by Vanamonde93. I intend to open a discussion about it. Please join us in that.
- "faced persecution" etc. is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kautilya3: Replying here too, to each of your bulleted comments,
- This paragraph starts with "agenda of the Hindu nationalist" side. That is accurate and relevant. Yet, as you have noted in other threads on this talk page, their history and political positions on refugees/migrants/illegal aliens have been complex. By adding "Congress and several other opposition parties", as well as mentioning the unanimous support in their Upper House of parliament for the 2003 Amendment, the reader discovers that the support was broad and not limited to the "agenda". I encourage more clarification that there was a broad support for the 2003 amendment by their so-called "secular" or "non-nationalist" political parties.
- See above.
- Ok.
- Thanks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kautilya3: Replying here too, to each of your bulleted comments,
- I have no objections, as such, to including the support of the CPI and Congress for the 2003 amendment in the background section, including Manmohan Singh's statement, assuming that we are basing that inclusion on this source. However, if we're using that source, we need to also include the author's main conclusion, which is that the recent amendment ran contrary to the principle expressed in that debate, that all persecuted individuals needed to be treated equally. The paragraph also needs to state that that amendment was still religion-neutral. I will add this material to the analysis section shortly. If there are objections, then we need to return to the status quo as it existed before this discussion, as in without any mention of what various parties were saying about that amendment. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. FWIW, the "religion-neutral" part was the last sentence of the 1st para in the original disputed draft (see above, at top of this thread). I am glad Kautilya3 and Vanamonde now agree and have improved the wording. We need to be careful in not injecting any OR. M.K. Venu is summarizing an interview, makes no claims about party-wide support based on some "assumption", or CPI agreeing in 2003. The Venu source is about what a confidential current BJP leader claims were the beliefs of Advani and Singh in 2003, and what happened between Karat and Singh in 2012. We should definitely add the religion-neutral part, but stick with what the source states. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I have no problem in accepting that Congress and CPI(M) would instinctively use religion-neutral language. Whether they really mean it or not is anybody's guess. The letter Prakash Karat wrote to Manmohan Singh was inspired by the agitations of the Namasudra refugees, Hindu Dalits (often referred to as Matuas).
Matuas and their leaders have always been wooed by political parties. In the past, several Left Front leaders, including CPI(M)’s politburo member Brinda Karat, state secretary Biman Bose and former minister Subhash Chakraborty had visited Matua sammelans to seek support from over 2 crore Matuas.[1]
- Note also the eye-popping number of "2 crore". In 2012, the CPI(M) passed a resolution that said:
This Party Congress demands a suitable amendment in Clause 2 (i) (b) of the said Citizenship Act in relation to the Bangladesh minority community refugees.[2]
- Nobody would have imagined in 2012 that "Bangladesh minority community" meant the Ahmadiyyas.
- In the Joint Parliamentary Committee, the Congress, CPI(M) and TMC pressed for religion-neutral language. The BJP refused. So, we have the current battle. Whether there was a "concord" or not, we have no idea. I think this needs to be attributed to M. K. Venu. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. FWIW, the "religion-neutral" part was the last sentence of the 1st para in the original disputed draft (see above, at top of this thread). I am glad Kautilya3 and Vanamonde now agree and have improved the wording. We need to be careful in not injecting any OR. M.K. Venu is summarizing an interview, makes no claims about party-wide support based on some "assumption", or CPI agreeing in 2003. The Venu source is about what a confidential current BJP leader claims were the beliefs of Advani and Singh in 2003, and what happened between Karat and Singh in 2012. We should definitely add the religion-neutral part, but stick with what the source states. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Matuas: nobody's people, everybody's votebank, The Telegraph, 16 March 2019.
- ^ For Rights of Bengali Refugees, Resolution Adopted at the 20th Congress of the CPI(M), Kozhikode, April 4-9, 2012, Communist Party of India (Marxist).
Bibliography
- Bhavnani, Nandita (2016). "Unwanted Refugees: Sindhi Hindus in India and Muhajirs in Sindh". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 39 (4): 790–804. doi:10.1080/00856401.2016.1230691.
- Kudaisya, Gyanesh (2006). "Divided Landscapes, Fragmented Identities: East Bengal Refugees and Their Rehabilitation in India, 1947–79". Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography. 17 (1): 24–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.1996.tb00082.x. ISSN 0129-7619.
- Nakatani, Tetsuya (2000), "Away from Home : The Movement and Settlement of Refugees from East Pakistan in West Bengal, India", Journal Of the Japanese Association for South Asian Studies, 12: 73–, doi:10.11384/jjasas1989.2000.7
- Roy, Haimanti (2013), Partitioned Lives: Migrants, Refugees, Citizens in India and Pakistan, 1947-65, OUP India, ISBN 978-0-19-808177-7
- Roy, Rituparna (Summer 2009), "The Hungry Tide – Bengali Hindu refugees in the Subcontinent (Review)" (PDF), The Study (51)
- Bhattacharjee, Saurabh (1 March 2008), "India Needs a Refugee Law", Economic and Political Weekly, 43 (9): 71–75, JSTOR 40277209
- Scheel, Stephan; Squire, Vicki (2014), "Forced Migrants as 'Illegal' Migrants", in Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh; Gil Loescher; Katy Long; Nando Sigona (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies, OUP Oxford, pp. 188–, ISBN 978-0-19-164587-7
- Poddar, Mihika (2018), "The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016: international law on religion-based discrimination and naturalisation law", Indian Law Review, 2 (1): 108–118, doi:10.1080/24730580.2018.1512290
- Sarker, Shuvro Prosun (2017), Refugee Law in India: The Road from Ambiguity to Protection, Springer, ISBN 978-981-10-4807-4
Can someone please make a diagram for the article?
Can someone please make a diagram? Even a simple pen and paper one will do (can be converted later). A diagram of the history-tree of the CAA 2019. How it is linked to previous amendments and acts. No need for extra detailing in the diagram. Just the main stuff, simplified?
--DTM (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
- Would this be for inclusion in the article as an image or just for editors on the Talk page to understand it better?
--Bless sins (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)- Bless sins, It is intendedInsertion by JerzyA (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC) for the article.
- DiplomatTesterMan, check out wP:GRAPH on ways to make it.
- --DBigXrayᗙ 14:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Bless sins, yes, the article, as DBX answered. & Will see wP:GRAPH . I guess I may end up making something if no one else does.
--DTM (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)- Talk is cheap, always, and WikiTalk can be cheaper than silence ... tho 5 days isn't that long on WP (except when compared to the speed of proof by blatant assertion).
--JerzyA (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- JerzyA, who are you talking to? Me? (If you are talking to me then I was talking in WikiSpeed terms above; and WikiSpeed can be fast or very slow. There isn't any rush as far as this is concerned) The Act was passed only a few days ago anyway.
- Getting a poster or flowchart is easy. There are enough online and I saw this one at a protest (image on the right). But this/they are not really what I was looking for. A manual one is needed. DTM (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Talk is cheap, always, and WikiTalk can be cheaper than silence ... tho 5 days isn't that long on WP (except when compared to the speed of proof by blatant assertion).
Second line of lead of this article incomplete and misleading
The second line of the lead is incomplete. It does not tell that the law is subject to exemption under Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder. Due to this, there is impression that all Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christians who came from the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan before 2014 are exempt while this is not the case. It is subject to those who already got exemptions under said laws.
I propose modifying the second line of the lead of the article to -
It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities that had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014 and who have been exempted by the Central Government by or under clause (c) of sub-section(2) of section 3 of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or from the application of the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 or any rule or order made thereunder [1]
The italics part is the proposed addition.
Please give your opinion along with your detailed reasons.
Edit - As per the response by some editors, giving alternate proposed addition as and who have been exempted by the Central Government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 [2]
Kmoksha (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kmoksha, Can you propose again by using English rather than Legalese DBigXrayᗙ 12:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- The wording is in commonly used English only. There is no legal terminology used in the proposal.
- Kmoksha (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Some newspapers explained it saying "persecuted minorities" have been given special citizenship privileges [3]. You will find even BJP politicians using such wording. But it is wrong. The law gives privileges to individuals who faced persecution. Everybody that claims exemption under the said clauses needs to individually demonstrate that they faced persecution. The international conventions that India is a signatory to do not allow entire communities to be branded as "persecuted". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kautilya3 , "
that had fled persecution
" does not convey meaning of being exempted under the said laws. There is absolutely no technical word in my proposed addition, it is plain English.
- Anyone can claim that "they had fled persecution", are from minority religion of these countries and came to India from these countries. But that is not what the law is saying. Law involves giving exemption under the said laws and then only they will get Indian Citizenship.
- Even the second paragraph of the lead talks nothing about the exemption under these laws, which is a crucial part of CAA 2019. And as you have given reference of an article, just saying "persecuted minorities" or "religious minorities that had fled persecution" fails to convey the true meaning of crucial part of the act and is therefore misleading.
- Kmoksha (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Then you should read the body of the article. You can also read the laws cited and explain what the difference is. Without that you are simply being disruptive. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 I have read the law and also the body of the article and then only started a thread on this.
- Your accusation on me regarding "Distruptive Editing" is untrue as I have not made any article edit recently. And I put up this here after I was asked to discuss issues with this wiki article on the Article talk page. And that is exactly what I am doing.
- I have already explained that just saying "they fled persecution" does not convey meaning that the people have to first get exemption under Foreigners Act or Paassport (Entry into India ) Act and then only they can get Indian Citizenship. Such incomplete wording is misleading since it gives impression that all Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christians who came from the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan before 2014 are exempt while this is not the case.
- Kmoksha (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Proposal for section "Indian Government Response" to be marked as needing improvement and inserting Indian Government response with counter-points
Reasons:
The article section says "Indian Government Response" but that section does not have any Indian Government Response in reality. Saying the PM response to be Indian Government Response is incorrect. It is like saying that view of a Wikipedia editor is view of Wikipedia community. Indian Government gives response based on consensus amongst the various ministers and officials of the Government. Hence, the Indian Government Response should be put in that section and not what the PM said on this issue. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the section "Indian Government Response" ?
If you compare the section "Indian Government Response" with the other sections of the article, the other sections have more balanced view points. In the other sections, view point of a politician is given and then a counter by a critic is given. That is what I am aiming for in this section. Why such neutrality cannot be done for this section ?
If Government is lying or is contradicting itself, still the Indian Government Response should be given since that is what the section says. To keep the section neutral, counter-points should also be put.
So, I propose to mark that section needing improvement to include all the viewpoints and counter-viewpoint according to the section title. And then we can build up the section having viewpoints and counter-points by means of discussion here.
Proposed Content for section "Indian Government Response":
I will give few examples of the content along with their counter-points below -
1. In a series of tweets posted through the Press Bureau of India (PIB) Twitter handle, the government has tried to bust the myths about the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. "Mythbusters focusing on North-Eastern India, especially Assam, surrounding the Citizenship Amendment Act. The 11-points address the most common misconceptions and fears in the region," PIB tweeted. livemint
Critics claim that "The ‘myths’ that the PIB attempts to bust in these posts, amount to little more than the government’s propaganda, an attempt to stifle criticism and generate public support for this anti-secular agenda."sabrangindia
2. In the FAQs released by Home Ministry, it also mentioned that CAA has nothing to do with deportation of illegal Muslim immigrants. However, the deportation of any foreigner irrespective of their religion is implemented as per the Foreigners Act, 1946 and/or The Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. Mumbai Mirror
3. The Government has said that "Baluchis, Ahmediyas & Rohingayas can always apply to become Indian citizens as and when they fulfill the qualifications provided in the relevant sections of The Citizenship Act, 1955." Sentinel
But critics have said that "The answers released by the Central Government to FAQs on CAA/NRC are highly misleading and at times totally false, hiding more than they reveal."radicalsocialist
=== End of Proposal ===
Kmoksha (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 You had asked to give a full proposal along with the content. I have given this proposal which is having neutral point of view also. From your past comments, I get that you consider the Government response as false. But a statement even if false should be put, if it is according to the subject. The section title says "Indian government response" and so real Indian Government Response should be put. To balance the view point, I have put the critic view-point. That will take care of your concern that the Government response is misleading because we have included that also as critic response to response of Indian Government. So, kindly respond to this comprehensive proposal.
- @Vanamonde , Ms Sarah Welch and others, request you all to also respond so that we can work towards improving this section.
- Kmoksha (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Blog posts are ok to discuss among ourselves, but they cannot be cited on Wikipedia (unless they are written by well-known experts). But I agree with the blogger's assessment. I suggest that you drop the subject. We are not going to reproduce content that is misleading and at times totally false. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 There are no blog posts which I see in this proposal. Please point them out if I missed anything. I have added critic assessment of Government Response.So, is it not balanced point of view now ? What is the purpose of this section "Indian Government Response" when it does not have any real Indian Government Response ?
- Kmoksha (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mistook Radical Socialist to be a blog site. Perhaps not. But it is not a mainstream news source anyway and it would not be proper to cite it.
- But the bigger point is that Wikipedia is meant to provide information. Your insistence that we should provide misinformation or disinformation, via the claim that the government viewpoint needs to be represented, is not going to find any takers on Wikipedia. So I still maintain that your should drop it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 You have not answered my question, request you to answer it - "What is the purpose of this section "Indian Government Response" when it does not have any real Indian Government Response ?"
- Blog posts are ok to discuss among ourselves, but they cannot be cited on Wikipedia (unless they are written by well-known experts). But I agree with the blogger's assessment. I suggest that you drop the subject. We are not going to reproduce content that is misleading and at times totally false. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- You say that you are against "misinformation" or "disinformation". But the section title is very misleading since the section does not have any real Indian Government Response. If you do want to put the Indian Government Response in the article, then why create such a section "Indian Government Response" at all ?
- That is why my proposal was to mark the section "Indian Government Response" as needing improvement. In this way, more people will contribute to improving the article section. You have not given any comment on that as well.
- That section explains what the government has been doing in the face of the crisis. I am satisfied with what it says, and don't see any problems of "neutrality" that you seem to believe.
- As for sabrangindia, it is also not a mainstream source, and we normally don't cite it even if we agree with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- That section contains response of Modi on his personal platform and police action, Projecting PM statements as Indian Government Response is like saying that Wikipedia editor opinion is the opinion of Wikipedia community. That is more than just non-neutral, it is highly misleading.
- Also, I think considering only a few newsmedia as mainstream is not correct. See what the Wiki policy says about Mainstream media -
"Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. This means that writers and editors on Wikipedia should strive for articles that would be appreciated as being of the highest quality by a consensus of experts in any field of science or scholarship.Crucially, this means that Wikipedia content is not based on a popularity contest. In many debates, the most popular view is different from the scholarly or scientific view. In such cases, Wikipedia depends on the most reliable sources to verify content, and Wikipedia relies on vetted academic sources to determine what the mainstream understanding of a topic is. While what is considered "mainstream" may sometimes be a minority view in society, the mainstream understanding will conform to explanations provided by the highest-quality sources." Wikipedia:MAINSTREAM
Vote banks
Vanamonde93 changed this text:
Many of those affected were Bengali Hindus, who constitute a major voter base for the BJP.[1] They also include Bangladeshi Muslims who constitute a vote bank for Congress, CPI(M) and the Trinamool Congress.[2][a]
Notes
References
- ^ "Citizenship Amendment Bill: 'Anti-Muslim' law challenged in India court". BBC. 12 December 2019. Archived from the original on 16 December 2019. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
- ^ Gupta 2019, pp. 5–6.
- ^ ‘Five lakh Bengali Hindu NRC rejects will get citizenship Archived 12 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Times of India, 11 December 2019.
- ^ Sanjoy Hazarika, Assam's Tangled Web of Citizenship and the Importance of a Consensus Archived 21 December 2019 at the Wayback Machine, The Hindu Centre for Politics and Public Policy, 18 October 2019.
to this:
Many of those affected were Bengali Hindus, who constitute a major voter base for the BJP; as a result, the BJP withdrew its support for the NRC in Assam shortly before its publication.[1]
References
- ^ "Citizenship Amendment Bill: 'Anti-Muslim' law challenged in India court". BBC. 12 December 2019. Archived from the original on 16 December 2019. Retrieved 16 December 2019.
Two problems:
- 1. The immigrants forming vote banks for the three parties is clearly in the source:
The Congress, after Bordoloi’s death, began gravitating towards cynical electoral politics of using illegal migrants as a captive vote-bank by providing them with ration cards and thereby qualifying them to be included in electoral rolls. This model was later adopted in West Bengal by the CPI(M)-led Left Front and its successor TMC regime."[1]
- You might not like this source, but there are plenty of others who will corroborate, including scholarly sources.
- 2. BJP voter base being the reason for its rejection of the NRC is certainly a BBC claim. But the NRC page describes it with a lot more nuance:
it [the BJP] did not find the results of the Assam NRC meeting its expectations. It believes that several legitimate citizens were excluded while illegal migrants were included.[2]
- This is quite believable because the UPA government itself estimated 5 million illegal migrants in Assam, whereas at most 1.2 million were identified via the NRC. (The remainder are North Indians apparently. How they got excluded from the NRC is anybody's guess.)
- The BBC's theory is also flawed because the BJP brought in the CAA explicitly to help the Hindu migrants (its voter base, no contest about that). So, there is no reason why it should reject the NRC for the sake of its voter base.
So, I am reinstating the original content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Gupta 2019, pp. 5–6.
- ^ BJP Concerned Over NRC in Assam, But Wants Register Across India, The Diplomat, 30 August 2019.
- And I have reverted you, because the "vote bank" claim does not pass muster at all. 1) If there's a problem with the BBC claim, then add what conflicting sources say. 2) The BJP's vote bank is only relevant because the BJP switched positions on the NRC, and the link is made by the source. The Congress's vote bank doesn't enter the picture. 3) Whether other sources say that the INC benefits from the votes of illegal immigrants is irrelevant. They have to discuss it as relevant in the context of the CAA. The sources currently in the article make the connection to the BJP's support base, which is why it's in the article. 4) Most critically, the source says illegal immigrants constituted a vote bank for three parties. The text you've added says Muslim immigrants. Kautilya, that conflation is not something I would expect from you of all people. @RegentsPark:, input from a cooler head would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I accept that I made a mistaken conflation. But the Muslim immigrants do constitute part of the vote bank for Congress etc., if not the whole of it. And other sources do observe that, after the BJP started eating into the Hindu parts of their vote banks, they are increasingly dependent on the Muslims among them. But in either case (wheter all illegal immigrants or just Muslim immigrants) their interest in opposing the NRC are clear.
- Mind you that BBC's reliability does not extend beyond WP:NEWSORG. I would be happy to get rid of all discussion of vote banks as it is extraneous to the topic. The BJP's interest in the issue is a lot deeper than vote bank politics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to step in here, it's wrong to assume that the BJP voter base is comprised of "Hindu migrants". I'm one of those muddled in with the right-wing, but I know for a fact that most Indians on the right-wing are opposed to immigration beyond the communal politics of Hindus vs Muslims. Afghanistan/Bangladesh/Pakistan are three large populous countries that Indians mostly dislike. The BJP voter base is basically Hindus from all sorts of backgrounds including students/professionals/gays/women/buddhists/etc, and to an extent a lot of Islamophobes from other communities such as Christians. It has core voter base in Hindi speaking areas where ethnolingustic politics isn't popular - in places with strong ethnolingustic parties, the right-wing (some would say far right) parties oppose all immigrants.
This is why the content of this article and the other article is questionable. The Assamese are opposed to all immigration and especially Muslim immigration - the same is true of Shiv Sena supporters and AIADMK supporters. This effects counries like Pakistan and Bangladesh more because immigration in these massive countries are mono-directional towards India, whereas Nepal/Bhutan/Lanka are small countries that are more developed and whose asylum seekers tend to prefer going to developed western countries (as what happens with Nepali and Sri Lankan refugees).
The Act is basically forwarding the BJP's Islamophobia - assuming three Muslim-majority countries can't protect the rights of religious minorities. However, many Indians are opposed to all immigration from these Muslim majority countries. Zunitroys (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- Poll analyses show that BJP was able to win votes in both Assam and West Bengal through its twin promises of deporting illegal immigrants and taking care of Hindu refugees. So in that light, the Hindu refugees do form the voter base in those two states. It may not be so in the rest of the country. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- The BJP can also win the same votes, if not more, by objecting to all immigration. There have been several articles alluding to the BJP forwarding the Act to benefit its core voter base - which isn't Assam but rather the Hindi belt (UP etc...). Nearly all right-wing ethnolingustic parties operate on an anti-immigration agenda, hence why Shiv Sena has voiced concern at the Act. Both Shiv Sena and the AIADMK are likely to accept immigrants of their own ethnicity, but would object to immigrants of other lingustic groups. The BJP's core voter base is therefore the Hindus of the Hindi-belt, then the Hindus of all of India, and finally other religious minorities like Buddhists.
- West Bengal is a different story. I don't know whether the people of West Bengal and Pubjab are similar to Maharashtra or Tamil Nadu, in that they will accept immigrants of their own ethnicity, but I also consider that Pakistan/Bangladesh are very large countries that would produce far more immigrants that what Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra would have to deal with.
- Since I was pinged! I can't really comment on the content because there is a lot to read and most of it is confusing, but, once again, I suggest that close adherence to sources and avoiding OR is probably a good idea in a contentious topic such as this one. Much of the discussion in this section reads like OR. For example, almost the entire discussion immediately above appears to be wikipedia editors trying to understand the motivations behind the act. Just to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with the discussion itself, rather, that you should be careful that the stuff you finally add to the article is not the result of your synthesizing information from multiple sources. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- +1 to "close adherence to sources" remark of RegentsPark. @Kautilya3: Please see Kamal Sadiq's discussion of "illegal migrants" voter base and their importance to Assam and West Bengal politics in Paper Citizens. He discusses Hindus / Muslims / Congress / BJP / Left / vote banks / electoral base / phantom voters / etc. See pages 140–153, etc. The issues related to their illegal migrants, the politics, and the attempted amendments to the Citizenship Act are clearly far more complex than the simplistic summary based on the BBC News source. Your efforts to improve NPOV deserve praise, but yes, we should avoid conflating and closely adhere to the sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- It is well and good to say close adherence to sources. But when the sources are half-baked and POV-ridden, it is not going to do us any good. Until this amendment happened, citizenship was a sleepy, boring subject that everybody took for granted. So very few journalists or commentators ever thought about it or researched it. Their ability to distinguish fact from fiction is very limited. For example, the BBC attribution that Vanamonde93 inserted was originally attributed to another journalist called Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty. And her own article attributed it to a Congress MP.[1] So, partisan POV is getting polished up and presented as high-quality reliable information, which it is not. Those of us who know something about the subject know it to be crappy information. So, trust me when I say it is crappy. I don't do it lightly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty, Why Is BJP Changing Tack on NRC in Assam?, The Wire, 30 August 2019.
- K3: Good points. Here are Kamal Sadiq comments, as he discusses Citizenship laws of India, vote bank politics in Assam, and the illegal migrants from Bangladesh:
On the other hand, there has been a rising consolidation of the minority and immigrant vote behind the Congress Party (see table 5.2), although, on occasion, immigrant Muslims have shifted their votes to regional minority organizations, such as the UMF or the Assam United Democratic Front (AUDF). Most of the time, such rebellion against the Congress is led by local Muslim leaders, disenchanted with the capacity of the Congress Party to protect Muslim immigrants. If such parties succeed, and the Muslim vote is divided between the Congress and another regional party, the Congress loses the election to an anti-immigrant party, such as the AGP. However, more often than not, there has been an upward trend, with the Congress Party increasingly getting the support of Muslims, both immigrants and natives. [...] What has further helped the Congress Party is its electoral alliance with the Muslim-led UMF or AUDF, which has been especially strong in the immigrant Muslim strongholds of Dhubri, Nagaon, and Barpeta. The Congress Party's increasing dependence on the immigrant Muslim vote also has to be seen in the context of its shrinking electoral base among tea-growing laborer and tribal communities.
– Kamal Sadiq, Paper Citizens, Oxford Univ Press, p. 154
- There is a lot more in Sadiq source and other RS. Per Sadiq and other scholars, although the Bangladeshi migrants/refugees are not citizens of India, they have ration cards and voter cards of India. The political strategy of all sides including BJP and Congress have targeted this vote block of illegal migrants from Bangladesh, in different ways, because it affects the election outcome. For some views on illegal migrants and politics in West Bengal, please see papers by Michael Gillan, by Anand Kumar and by James Mayers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 and Vanamonde93: Many political parties have been concerned about the impact of illegal migrants on vote banks and elections. Rizwana Shamshad (2018) book, published by Oxford Univ Press, is another scholarly source. She writes,
The issue of ‘infiltration’ from East Pakistan was first discussed in 1962 in parliamentary debates in India which focused on the Muslim migrants in Assam and Tripura. Bangladesh was East Pakistan at that time and many politicians in India defined the migrants as ‘Pakistani infiltrators’ (Schendel 2005, 194). It was the ethnic Assamese nationalists who first proposed fencing the border with Bangladesh. They also led the first movement against Bangladeshi migrants called the Assam Movement (1979-85) in the late 1970s. [...] Assam’s regional nationalist party, the Assam Gana Parishad (AGP), and the main separatist group, the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), were the two major outcomes of the movement. The major concern of the AGP was that Bangladeshi and Bengali ‘foreigners’ might demographically overwhelm the ethnic Assamese people. [...] The AGP remains the most strident political party opposing the presence of Bangladeshis and Bengalis.
In the 1990s, ‘infiltration’ from Bangladesh was a major theme in the popular election campaign of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the political face of the Hindu nationalists in India. The Muslim Bangladeshi migrants were defined as an ‘economic threat’ and the ‘Muslim demographic threat’ at that time (Gillan 2002; Ramachandran 2002 and 2004). The major worries of the BJP concerning the Bangladeshis are that the Bangladeshi migrants are used by other political parties as vote banks; they are exhausting India’s scarce resources; they have a potential demand for separate Muslim states called ‘Greater Bangladesh’ in Assam and West Bengal; and that they are the agents of the Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). All these worries fuse together into a primary anxiety that Bangladeshi migrants, being Muslims, will divide the country once again. Bangladeshi migrants were regarded as Islamist terrorists and a security threat from the late 1990s and this was exacerbated by post-September 11 anxieties about Muslims (Karlekar 2005, 199; Kumar 2010, 107-8).
Vote banks or electoral politics is a central concern for the Hindu nationalists and the Assamese ethnic nationalists in relation to Bangladeshis. The BJP saw the Muslim Bangladeshi migrants as a loyal and captive ‘vote bank’ of the INC in Assam and Delhi and the Communist Party of India (Marxist) the CPI (M) in West Bengal (The Organiser 23 December 2007, 18). [...] The BJP held the former CPI (M)-led state government of West Bengal responsible for encouraging and approving Muslim Bangladeshi migration and not taking adequate action in ‘dealing with the influx’ (Wright 2002, 391). In addition to vote-bank politics, the current charges against the Bangladeshi migrants made by the Hindu and ethnic nationalists are that: Bangladeshi migrants are serious economic threats, they constitute a demographic invasion, and they are a worrying security threat.
[...]
Pradip Banerjee, former MP of the TMC, compared the CPI (M) with Assam’s nationalist party, the AGP which uses the same election strategy of "migration from Bangladesh". He further claimed that both the CPI (M) and the Congress are exploiting the Bangladeshis. The underlying assertion is that the CPI (M) uses all kinds of tactics and ruses to enlarge and secure their vote. He also included the Congress in vote bank politics: "The CPI (M) and the Congress use Bangladeshis as vote banks. In West Bengal it is the CPI (M) policy that if you vote for them, you would get your ration card."– Rizwana Shamshad (2018). Bangladeshi Migrants in India: Foreigners, Refugees, or Infiltrators?. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-909159-1. [emphasis added]
- Here is a clip from India Today on illegal migrants:
Mamata Banerjee has declared that her government will not let the Citizenship Amendment Bill be implemented in West Bengal. This is an about-turn by Mamata Banerjee on the issue of illegal migrants particularly those coming from Bangladesh. She had led a forceful campaign against the Left Front government of West Bengal accusing it of not addressing the issue of illegal migration from Bangladesh for vote-bank politics. – India Today, December 12 2019
- Two or three sentences to acknowledge these sources would be fair, improve NPOV and hopefully address the concerns Kautilya3 mentions above. K3: Shamshad summarizes a lot more on vote bank politics, includes views of leaders from AGP, BJP, CPI, Congress, TMC, academics, diplomats, etc. She does so in the context of Citizenship Act and amendments prior to 2014, as well as the IMDT Act and other laws. She has a chapter on Parliamentary Debates on Bangladeshi Migrants (1971-2009) as well. I have provided a few sample clipped quotes above for review and discussion. The sources Shamshad cites are also worth looking into. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that this material needs to be covered somewhere on Wikipedia; I disagree that most of it needs to be covered here. We probably need an entire article discussing the history and politics of immigration from Bangladesh into India; but this article cannot serve as a coatrack for that material. I emphasize that the BJP's vote bank is only mentioned because it has been interpreted as relevant to the BJP's reversal of its position on the NRC by reliable sources; and the NRC itself is interpreted as relevant to the CAA, again by reliable sources. It's fairly obvious that very many political parties have taken cynical advantage of immigrant populations and generally derived political mileage from an emotive issue. But that stuff doesn't belong here unless and until reliable sources make the connection. The material that does belong here is the magazine pieces looking at other parties' positions on this act, but that belongs in the reactions section, as it's not relevant to understanding the genesis of this act, which is what background is for. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: The subject of this article is "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". The subject is not "other parties' positions on this act", or disputes, or reception of this act. To tailor this article's background to the latter is inadvertent coatrack-ing. I agree with you that these disputes/reception aspects need to be covered somewhere in wikipedia in greater detail, but here we need to remember what the subject of the article. Kautilya3's concerns are valid and relevant to "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: How is that different from anything I said? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- The subject isn't a particular party's views/statements on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. See the last three paragraphs of the background section. It is mostly focused on their Hindu nationalist party's views/statements on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. The scholarly sources such as the above present a more complex background and context for this Amendment Act over the 1975–2019 period, with the views/statements of the ABP, Congress, Left, TMC and others on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, you're unhappy with the BJP's views being included in the background? They're linked to the topic by multiple RS, including both scholarly sources on the CAA. We cannot dump those in favor of sources from before this act was passed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93: You are over-interpreting/over-projecting what I wrote, and that too incorrectly. I think all views should be briefly included. Somewhere together. For NPOV. That does include BJP's. And all notable ones from scholarly sources in the scholar's voice, closely following the sources. The current article does not. I welcome everyone here including you to join me in what our ARBCOM has repeatedly affirmed, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited." [emphasis added] Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- NPOV is determined by accurately summarizing what reliable sources about this topic say. Other sources can only be supplementary. If such RS highlight the ideology of one party over another, or the views of one party over another, then so do we. There's no basis in policy for including one party's views just because another party's have been, and there's no basis in policy from moving a party's views out of the background when those views have been described in RS as relevant to the genesis of the bill. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. The above scholarly sources should have convinced you of that by now. Have you read them? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- NPOV is determined by accurately summarizing what reliable sources about this topic say. Other sources can only be supplementary. If such RS highlight the ideology of one party over another, or the views of one party over another, then so do we. There's no basis in policy for including one party's views just because another party's have been, and there's no basis in policy from moving a party's views out of the background when those views have been described in RS as relevant to the genesis of the bill. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93: You are over-interpreting/over-projecting what I wrote, and that too incorrectly. I think all views should be briefly included. Somewhere together. For NPOV. That does include BJP's. And all notable ones from scholarly sources in the scholar's voice, closely following the sources. The current article does not. I welcome everyone here including you to join me in what our ARBCOM has repeatedly affirmed, "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited." [emphasis added] Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oh, you're unhappy with the BJP's views being included in the background? They're linked to the topic by multiple RS, including both scholarly sources on the CAA. We cannot dump those in favor of sources from before this act was passed. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- The subject isn't a particular party's views/statements on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. See the last three paragraphs of the background section. It is mostly focused on their Hindu nationalist party's views/statements on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. The scholarly sources such as the above present a more complex background and context for this Amendment Act over the 1975–2019 period, with the views/statements of the ABP, Congress, Left, TMC and others on the Citizenship Act and its Amendment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: How is that different from anything I said? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde: The subject of this article is "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". The subject is not "other parties' positions on this act", or disputes, or reception of this act. To tailor this article's background to the latter is inadvertent coatrack-ing. I agree with you that these disputes/reception aspects need to be covered somewhere in wikipedia in greater detail, but here we need to remember what the subject of the article. Kautilya3's concerns are valid and relevant to "Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Even though I started this section saying "Vote banks", I realized that my concern was really about accurately representing the BJP's rejection of the Assam NRC. As I mentioned a Congress MP's view is masquerading as a reliably sourced view. I will work on it this weekend. But there are a lot many more important things to be done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Kautilya, where are you getting the idea that the Congress MP's view is masquerading as anything? A Congress MP may have made the same claim, sure; that does not imply that the BBC reporter did not independently come to the same conclusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- The BBC reporter is presenting the views of one side. We need a more balanced view from mainstream RS by multiple scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- What the BBC reporter thinks is of no consequence. Quoting WP:NEWSORG,
News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)
. If it is a widely held view, that is a different matter. But I have given you an analysis by The Diplomat, which gives BJP's actual view. BJP is not the only one concerned about the accuracy of the Assam NRC. Practically everbody in India is concerned about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)- MSW: unless the BBC is explicitly quoting, it is publishing its own views, and as a weighty source (in the absence of scholarly sources) it is a view that requires inclusion. I don't know what opposing views you are referring to; please present any sources you have that say different things. K, the Diplomat goes deeper into what the BJP's motivations are, but it does not contradict the BBC source; indeed, it says quite explicitly
"The BJP is no less concerned over the exclusion of a large number of Bangladeshi Hindus from the NRC, a group it considers as a vote bank."
which is emphasizing that the BBC's conclusion is not unjustified. Also, the Diplomat source is, so far as I can see, from the section called the "Pulse", which the magazine itself categorizes as a blog. If the author is a heavyweight, it may still be a usable source; but it's not weighty enough to just replace all news sources with. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)- That the Hindu immigrants form BJP voter base is public knowledge. But to state that as the cause of BJP's rejection of NRC is moronic, as I explained right at the top. BJP had a strategy for taking care of its "voter base", which is the very subject of this article. So, why are we detracting from that and chasing red herrings? The author of the Diplomat piece is stated as a senior journalist of Assam, which is not very different from Pisharoty's own status. And, Pisharoty's own column is going into all the complexities just as Rajiv Bhatacharyya's. This oversimplification is BBC's own contribution, which I am not buying as a "reliable source", even when attributed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93: You state BBC to be a weighty source, but clarify "in the absence of scholarly sources". But, that is what Kautilya3 and I have been saying. There ARE scholarly sources. Multiple. And these present a multi-sided, more balanced view. They include the electoral/vote bank politics of the AGP, BJP, Congress, Left, TMC and others on Bangladeshi illegal migrants and non-citizens of India who were given voter cards by non-AGP/non-BJP governments and they do vote. The BBC source does not mention all that. I have already listed and quoted a bit from a few RS above. I sense you have not found time to read these books published by Oxford University Press etc in the last 5 to 15 years, on the subject of the Citizenship laws of India and illegal migrants. Please join me and encourage Kautilya3 to add a 2 to 3 sentence summary of this balanced view given the availability of scholarly sources / RS on this subject. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- MSW, I think you need to be a little careful here. Since the CAA is recent, there are unlikely to be scholarly sources that discuss it. The sources you talk about cannot, by definition, link anything to the CAA and should therefore be used with care. My suggestion is that the article be centered around sources that explicitly talk about the CAA and that you should use older sources only to add support to statements or connections already made in these "explicit about CAA" sources. Otherwise I don't see how you can avoid getting into WP:OR territory. --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: This is all in the context of the background section. If you check the cites therein, most are sources published before this particular CAA was enacted, some published in 2003 etc. The scholarly sources we are discussing/quoting above are "sources that add support to statements or connections already made in these "explicit about CAA" sources". In other words, we agree. We should and are already following that guideline. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- If a reliable source is creating the context, then that's not a problem. If, however, we create our own version of the context, then we have a big problem of OR. As an example, consider the exchange below (under "Vote banks without citizenship). If reliable sources link the vote cards etc. to CAA, then it is ok to include it here sourced to those reliable sources. But, if the "most democracies" and "weak institutions" material are from your own research, then it isn't ok to include that in the article. Backgrounds are tricky because one is linking historical material to a current event and what may appear obvious or relevant to me or you may not stand up to peer review (and that's why we have policies like OR and SYNTH). --regentspark (comment) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, "if reliable sources link the vote cards etc. to CAA, then it is ok to include it here sourced to those reliable sources". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- If a reliable source is creating the context, then that's not a problem. If, however, we create our own version of the context, then we have a big problem of OR. As an example, consider the exchange below (under "Vote banks without citizenship). If reliable sources link the vote cards etc. to CAA, then it is ok to include it here sourced to those reliable sources. But, if the "most democracies" and "weak institutions" material are from your own research, then it isn't ok to include that in the article. Backgrounds are tricky because one is linking historical material to a current event and what may appear obvious or relevant to me or you may not stand up to peer review (and that's why we have policies like OR and SYNTH). --regentspark (comment) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Contradicting the narrative in post-CAA sources with material from pre-CAA sources is original research. I don't have to read the entire volume of scholarship about citizenship law, because those scholars were not psychics, and could not discuss anything about a 2019 bill in an early 2000s publication. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- No problem if you haven't or don't want to read these scholarly sources, some of which were published after 2016. FWIW, the narrative in post-CAA publications already make the statements or connections to all this background context. It is why they are relevant and not OR:Synthesis. Now consider this: your edits to this article in the last 5 weeks used source(s) that make absolutely no mention of 2019 CAA or 2016 CAA or any prior related amendment-connection! Show me on which page, if you disagree. Please explain how the usage of such sources by you in this article was okay in light of what you are now insisting about what Kautilya3 or other editors should not do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is the second (third?) time I have been asked, and have answered, that question, which suggests you are not listening. The secular nature of the Indian constitution, and the fact that the citizenship laws were religions-neutral when implemented in 1955, are facts whose relevance has been established by sources covering the CAA (sources from December 2019). It is therefore necessary to include them; the Jaffrelot source merely provides additional verification, and the date of 1950. Any use of older sources needs to meet the same criterion. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Please remember that next time before objecting to Jaffrelot-type scholarly sources that make absolutely no mention of CAA 2019 or earlier versions of CAA. For similar notable "facts whose relevance has been established by sources covering the CAA (sources from December 2019)", it is okay to include such RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is the second (third?) time I have been asked, and have answered, that question, which suggests you are not listening. The secular nature of the Indian constitution, and the fact that the citizenship laws were religions-neutral when implemented in 1955, are facts whose relevance has been established by sources covering the CAA (sources from December 2019). It is therefore necessary to include them; the Jaffrelot source merely provides additional verification, and the date of 1950. Any use of older sources needs to meet the same criterion. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- No problem if you haven't or don't want to read these scholarly sources, some of which were published after 2016. FWIW, the narrative in post-CAA publications already make the statements or connections to all this background context. It is why they are relevant and not OR:Synthesis. Now consider this: your edits to this article in the last 5 weeks used source(s) that make absolutely no mention of 2019 CAA or 2016 CAA or any prior related amendment-connection! Show me on which page, if you disagree. Please explain how the usage of such sources by you in this article was okay in light of what you are now insisting about what Kautilya3 or other editors should not do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- @RegentsPark: This is all in the context of the background section. If you check the cites therein, most are sources published before this particular CAA was enacted, some published in 2003 etc. The scholarly sources we are discussing/quoting above are "sources that add support to statements or connections already made in these "explicit about CAA" sources". In other words, we agree. We should and are already following that guideline. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- MSW, I think you need to be a little careful here. Since the CAA is recent, there are unlikely to be scholarly sources that discuss it. The sources you talk about cannot, by definition, link anything to the CAA and should therefore be used with care. My suggestion is that the article be centered around sources that explicitly talk about the CAA and that you should use older sources only to add support to statements or connections already made in these "explicit about CAA" sources. Otherwise I don't see how you can avoid getting into WP:OR territory. --regentspark (comment) 15:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93: You state BBC to be a weighty source, but clarify "in the absence of scholarly sources". But, that is what Kautilya3 and I have been saying. There ARE scholarly sources. Multiple. And these present a multi-sided, more balanced view. They include the electoral/vote bank politics of the AGP, BJP, Congress, Left, TMC and others on Bangladeshi illegal migrants and non-citizens of India who were given voter cards by non-AGP/non-BJP governments and they do vote. The BBC source does not mention all that. I have already listed and quoted a bit from a few RS above. I sense you have not found time to read these books published by Oxford University Press etc in the last 5 to 15 years, on the subject of the Citizenship laws of India and illegal migrants. Please join me and encourage Kautilya3 to add a 2 to 3 sentence summary of this balanced view given the availability of scholarly sources / RS on this subject. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- That the Hindu immigrants form BJP voter base is public knowledge. But to state that as the cause of BJP's rejection of NRC is moronic, as I explained right at the top. BJP had a strategy for taking care of its "voter base", which is the very subject of this article. So, why are we detracting from that and chasing red herrings? The author of the Diplomat piece is stated as a senior journalist of Assam, which is not very different from Pisharoty's own status. And, Pisharoty's own column is going into all the complexities just as Rajiv Bhatacharyya's. This oversimplification is BBC's own contribution, which I am not buying as a "reliable source", even when attributed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- MSW: unless the BBC is explicitly quoting, it is publishing its own views, and as a weighty source (in the absence of scholarly sources) it is a view that requires inclusion. I don't know what opposing views you are referring to; please present any sources you have that say different things. K, the Diplomat goes deeper into what the BJP's motivations are, but it does not contradict the BBC source; indeed, it says quite explicitly
- What the BBC reporter thinks is of no consequence. Quoting WP:NEWSORG,
- The BBC reporter is presenting the views of one side. We need a more balanced view from mainstream RS by multiple scholars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Vote banks without citizenship
@Kautilya3:, others: The above scholarly sources state that the "illegal migrants" in Assam, West Bengal etc carry vote cards and ration cards, that they have been "voters without being citizens" in Indian elections. That is odd and notable, particularly for readers outside South Asia. In most democracies, it is unlawful and a crime for any alien (non-citizen) to vote in any election. Should we mention this "vote banks/voting without citizenship", the role it played in this Amendment, in the background section or somewhere? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is what Kamal Sadiq means by "weak institutions" of the developing countries. India can't regard itself as a developed country until it is able to give valid birth certificates to all its citizens, and only its citizens. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- Weak institutions since 1950 have definitely been a big part of the problem. I am not in a position to assess if the weak institutions were deliberately maintained or just an accident of history. That millions of migrants/non-citizens were given voter ID cards by local officials and have been voting in India for decades, like citizens, in the border states is inconceivable in modern major democracies of the West. Kamal Sadiq has a chapter on "Voters across Borders". For a source that meets the latest comments by RP and V93, see this.
The article mentions the Left parties there too. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Realising their potential as a vote bank, the CPI(M) promptly distributed voter ID and ration cards even though their application for citizenship was pending with the Government of India in accordance with Article 6 of the Constitution. [...] With assembly elections slated for 2021, both the BJP and TMC are using the CAA-NRC to further their political agenda.
- Weak institutions since 1950 have definitely been a big part of the problem. I am not in a position to assess if the weak institutions were deliberately maintained or just an accident of history. That millions of migrants/non-citizens were given voter ID cards by local officials and have been voting in India for decades, like citizens, in the border states is inconceivable in modern major democracies of the West. Kamal Sadiq has a chapter on "Voters across Borders". For a source that meets the latest comments by RP and V93, see this.
Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020
" I tadded the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the Act,"
has to be edited as " It added the notion of "illegal immigrants" to the Act," Anverps (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Request for Comments: Should second line of lead of this article be modified ?
Should the second line of the lead of the article be modified from:
It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities that had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014 pib.gov.in
to:
It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities that had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014 and who have been exempted by the Central Government under the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 or the Foreigners Act, 1946 scconline.com
Please choose from the Options listed below in the `Survey` section and also give your reasons and comments in the `Threaded discussion` below.
11:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Second_line_of_lead_of_this_article_incomplete_and_misleading
Survey
- Option 1: Agree that the proposed content should be added to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article
- Option 2: Diagree with the proposed content but suggest other modification to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article.
- Option 3: Disagree with the proposed content and no other addition is needed to be added to the second sentence of the lead of this article.
- Option 1: Agree that the proposed content should be added to improve the second sentence of the lead of this article Abhishekaryavart (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Option 3. There is no limit to the number of definitions that can be added to this sentence. The proposed addition is utterly opaque even to people with some knowledge of the topic, and would require more detail to be added to be comprehensible. The current version summarizes the effects of the act, as discussed by reliable sources, adequately. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Option 3. The lead sentence has to be understandable, and not refer to obscure sets of rules that nobody knows about. I would firmly oppose putting in these obscurities into the lead sentence. "Have been exempted" is also wrong tense. I haven't seen anybody say that people can't apply for such exemptions now and apply for citizenship after receiving them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Option 1: Lead is supposed to tell the main elements of law. otherwise it is misleading and gives impression that Citizenship is granted automatically to all Hindus, Sikhs, Christians etc., from PAB which is not the case. A crucial element of this act is that it gives citizenship to only those persons who already have got the benefit of waiver of Foreigners Act and Passport (Entry of India) Act. That should be in the lead. -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Option 3 I will simply refer to comments by VNM and KT3 and not repeat what already has been said. per WP:MOSLEAD the lead lead is supposed to be an easily understandable summary of the entire article. This is not supposed to be added to the lead. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
The second line of the lead of the article gives impression that all Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christians who came from the countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan before 2014 are exempt while this is not the case. It is subject to those who already got exemptions under said laws. This addition will make the second line more clear. Abhishekaryavart (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Completely agree with you @Abhishekaryavart
- @Kautilya3 You said "The lead sentence has to be understandable, and not refer to obscure sets of rules that nobody knows about" These rules are essential elements of the law. The lead is supposed to tell what the law is because the article is on the law. Instead, the lead is full of other things which should not be in the lead, it should be covered in the main body of the article.
- What do you have to say about these statements in the first and second paragraph of the lead, are they not duplicate in your opinion -
- From the first paragraph -
- "It amended the Citizenship Act of 1955 by providing a path to Indian citizenship for members of Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian religious minorities, who had fled persecution from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan before December 2014. pib.gov.in"
- From the second paragraph -
- "Under the 2019 amendment, migrants who had entered India by 31 December 2014, and had suffered "religious persecution or fear of religious persecution" in their country of origin were made eligible for citizenship. pib.gov.in"
- You say that "I haven't seen anybody say that people can't apply for such exemptions now and apply for citizenship after receiving them" The law explicitly mentions cutoff date of 2014 for getting Citizenship. Which sentence in this law, in your opinion, is telling that future persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Christians from PAB will get Citizenship ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 12:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- It says they should have entered India by December 2014. It doesn't say they should have received exemption by December 2014. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 Please see in the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 clause 3, sub-clause 3 proviso, where it gives exemption to making application now for only those who meet the other criteria and against whom case is pending. Those people are limited. But one of the sentences in the lead states otherwise -
- "Immediate beneficiaries of the Bill, according to the Intelligence Bureau of India, will be 31,313 refugees: 25,447 Hindus, 5,807 Sikhs, 55 Christians, 2 Buddhists and 2 Parsis.economic times". The reference given for this sentence nowhere says the word "immediate", this is own addition. This is violation of Wikipedia:No original research Infact, the Deccan Herald link given in the article body, also says - "Citizenship Act will benefit only 31,313, not lakhs" -- Kmoksha (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, you are getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND. Just look at a sample google search, pick a citation and add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Another accusation on me without giving any specific details, which is obviously untrue. I just showed the inconsistencies in the links of the article itself. The article body link is saying one thing and the lead is saying another. Your own added link is saying that Citizenship act will NOT benefit lakhs. Why add our own wording when the link does not say that and neither does the report of joint Committee on CAB ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- The second sentence of the policy you cite says "
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
". You have not explained what efforts you have made to convince yourself that "no reliable, published sources exist". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)- Go one line further in the wiki policy Wikipedia:No original research which is "
This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.
" This is what happened and I have already explained it. The article content is inconsistent with the content of the sources used in the article. There is no word "initial" in the sources you use. That is own wording used. The source link which you give clearly says that "Citizenship act will NOT benefit lakhs." That is supported by the `Report of joint Committe on CAB`, so it is true. -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Go one line further in the wiki policy Wikipedia:No original research which is "
- The second sentence of the policy you cite says "
- Another accusation on me without giving any specific details, which is obviously untrue. I just showed the inconsistencies in the links of the article itself. The article body link is saying one thing and the lead is saying another. Your own added link is saying that Citizenship act will NOT benefit lakhs. Why add our own wording when the link does not say that and neither does the report of joint Committee on CAB ? -- Kmoksha (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry, you are getting increasingly WP:BATTLEGROUND. Just look at a sample google search, pick a citation and add it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- It says they should have entered India by December 2014. It doesn't say they should have received exemption by December 2014. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected needs to review
Hello folks, on 15th January 2020, the semi-protected in this article was expired. But, on 22th of January the Indian Supreme Court held a hearing about CAA. There was potential and opportunity for non-logged users to vandalize this article with many false information regarding this law such as including the Hong Kongers or Uyghurs in the Citizenship Amendment Act. Does someone have opinion about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.20 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've extended the protection by another 3 weeks in anticipation of the Supreme Court hearing. El_C 07:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)