The CAB Battle – Who Is An Indian (Citizen)?

The feverish pitch over the Citizenship Amendment Bill has reached a crescendo. The Indian lower house of parliament has overwhelmingly passed it with it now reaching the upper house. Most likely, it will pass with the support of “neutral” parties pushing the bill over majority.

Safe But Betrayed: Pakistani Hindu Refugees in India
Pakistani Hindu Refugee Camp in Delhi. Formalization of CAB may aid these currently destitute conditions.

Under the CAB – Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Christians (basically persecuted communities of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh) will receive asylum and an accelerated path to citizenship.

Critics label this bill as anti-Muslim and rhetoric from certain BJP members does not help in the  defense against this accusation.

But again consistent with the common theme of international coverage of India, we are missing context (or more accurately, outlets are leaving it out purposefully).

What’s A Partition?

Not the Beyoncé song. If you have an inkling of knowledge about subcontinental history, you know about the partition and the Two Nation Theory (TNT). TNT was proposed by an Islamist ideologue named Syed Ahmed Khan of Aligarh Muslim University in the late 1800s. Muhammed Ali Jinnah ran with the idea and eventually convinced enough Muslims to vote for partition (Hindus, Sikhs, etc… were not polled for their vote). In the midst of continued violence (much of it encouraged by Jinnah’s Muslim League), the Indian National Congress would acquiesce to partition. Massive violence followed with millions of Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs dead.

Sir Syed Ahmed Khan – First proponent of the Two Nation Theory

However, while Pakistan became an Islamic state, India remained secular (though its minority appeasement down the line really pushes that definition).

India had given up 1/3 of its land to satisfy (separatist) Muslims yet still had 9% of its population as Muslims post-partition. The Muslim population in India would grow to around 15% today while a trident of partition, Pakistani civil war, and persistent persecution would annihilate the Hindu population in Pakistan and Bangladesh (From 1941 to present, the land containing current day Bangladesh’s Hindu population dropped from 28% to 9% while Pakistan’s Hindu population dropped from 14% to 2%.)

It is the shadow of partition that looms large over the CAB.

The Entry Rules?

Defenders of the CAB say it gives refuge to persecuted minorities in true Indian tradition (Baghdadi Jews, Syrian Christians, Persian Zoroastrians, and Tibetan Buddhists have all received refuge in India over thousands of years). However it brings to point the case of Islamic minorities (Shias, Ahmediyas, Ex-Muslims, etc…). Many of these minorities face horrid persecution in the Islamic subcontinental states. Why should India also turn them back?

Now is where the acceptance of partition arrives. CAB critics say by rejecting persecuted Muslims, India validates Jinnah and the TNT. I can honestly understand this perspective. Why should these Muslims pay for the sins and mistakes of their ancestors?

Portrait of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad – India’s first Education Minister and lauded Indian Muslim freedom fighter.

On the flip side, CAB supporters return with saying they are merely accepting realities. Threats of national security, demographic change, as well as a cold hard perspective that India owes nothing to those related to its partition (non-Indian Muslims) are valid reasoning no matter how un-PC they are. In addition, the CAB has no bearing on Indian Muslims.

Even deeper, CAB supporters see this as India fulfilling its duty as a refuge of Dharma in the case of Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs. The near complete obliteration of Dharmic religion from these lands is not forgotten and won’t be any time soon.


The legalese with regards to the bill seems iffy on its constitutionality. The Indian constitution bars discrimination based on religion within India. However it doesn’t bar discrimination with regards to non-Indian citizens.

India’s Home Minister Amit Shah (and probably next Prime Minister), has foreseen this. During a firebrand speech recently, Shah pointed out the litany of laws favoring minorities in India thereby showing a mirror to the Indian state’s institutional religious discrimination. This poses a major problem for the opposition. Add to the fact that the BJP has massive political capital after the Kashmir and Ram Mandir episodes, the centre possesses an insurmountable high ground over its opponents.

The dichotomy between the West’s seething hatred and doomsaying of Modi-Shah versus their ascension as India’s most powerful and popular political figures in decades is fascinating.

But what about a moral high ground?

Western media laments at how India has degenerated to fascism these days. Is this perception reality? Probably not in my opinion.

I think what irks many of these outlets is an assertive India that no longer looks for the approval of the West (or a deracinated brown sahib/a in their place).

What has caught my mind recently is how Western coverage of India is affecting perceptions of India abroad. While some saw Modi as an aberration of a “secular, democratic, and liberal” Indian ethos, now they are beginning to realize Modi and Hindutva are here to stay. Does that mean India will slide into fascism?

On the other hand, many domestic Modi supporters would say that Modi is fulfilling a “secular, democratic, and liberal” ethos that India lacked for so long under Congress rule! Of course in both of these scenarios, I am speaking of white collar middle class folks’ perspectives. Other demographics would say Modi is fulfilling his role as  a Hindu leader giving refuge to the persecuted Hindus in lost lands (this may honestly be the biggest vote catcher for the CAB and primary driver of the BJP’s push).

Then comes the thought – how will policy towards India be affected? While Western foreign policy hasn’t been egregiously affected by bipartisan slants, we are now entering a highly polarized era. The latest incarnation of Western right wing governments seem to favor India, but future demographics are hilariously skewed in favor of the left wing across a number of Western countries.

As the world becomes more globalized, it will be interesting how influential Western media outlets will be on the increasingly connected youth of developing nations including India (the caveat is India’s youth are more pro BJP than older generations). 

Yes, opinions can change as we age but it is fairly apparent that your average millennial takes the word of BBC/NYT/Wash Post as gospel.  We will have to see how a Western left wing government reacts to India, especially one whose constituency is in congruence with this “India = Fascist” narrative. Throwing in the wrench of India’s rising economic clout, these parties will have a bit of a conundrum.

Though it must be said, do that many Westerners even really care about India?

Official Indian justification and response to recent criticism from the USCRIF over the CAB

Find more about Indian, American, and Geopolitics at my blog – The Emissary. Thanks again to the Brown Pundits!

Published by

The Emissary

Find more of me at:

52 thoughts on “The CAB Battle – Who Is An Indian (Citizen)?”

    1. Haha Omar contacted me on twitter but wow that list is great!

      Tried to capture a birds eye view (with a slant towards defending CAB tbh).

      Your comment makes me realize how spanning this whole amendment/issue is.

      1. Emissary, have you discussed this with India’s policy elite? It would be great if someone can legally write something like what I propose in a way that the Supreme Court of India (APEX court) would not overrule. Something written precisely enough to exclude Islamist Rohingya, Pakistanis and Arabs.

        I think many in the BJP, RSS, VHP would go for it.

        It is time for India to be proud of, celebrate and extol Indian Islam. India has to stop apologizing for Indian Islam as India has been doing since 1947. India and eastern philosophy tilted muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Tibet, Xinjaing etc. can lead the global Islamic reformation. Most of the rest of the muslim world will eventually follow where Indian and eastern muslims lead.

          1. Harish Salve’s defence does not hold. It is none of India’s business how other nations treat their minorities. Certainly, India’s constitution cannot be amended to include the human rights of foreign nationals in their own countries. When Hindus are mistreated in Bangladesh or Pakistan they may seek asylum in India, but how about, say Uighur Muslims from China. On what grounds will the law apply in their case.
            While there may be grounds for giving Hindus of BD and Pakistan asylum and citizenship, there is no need to pass a law to that end. The real problem for GoI is the large number of non-citizen Hindus in Assam who outnumber the Muslims. Assamese want neither the Bengali Hindus nor the Muslims.

  1. PM Modi might be the most pro muslim PM in Indian history (or the second most pro muslim PM after PM Vajpayee). PM Modi openly eulogizes Mohammed pbuh as a great and high spiritual master comparable to the great Brahma rishis who sang the Vedas, Agamas, Samkhya and Jain Sutras. Tariq Fatah would say they sang them 10 K years ago!

    There are two Islams as per Fatah. Allah’s Islam and Mullah’s Islam. India is the land of Allah’s Islam. The land of the first mosque in the world. The land that protected Ahl al-Bayt (family of the prophet) from Takfiri in 632 AD when the prophet passed away. The land that protects the mystical Muraqabah muslims.

    If you can understand Hindi, this town hall is one of Fatah’s best:

    Fatah says call out Babar and Timur. Celebrate Nizammuddin Aulia. Who I would add is a the lion of Indian Islam (or Hindu Islam or Hindustani Islam or Bharatiya Islam or Swadeshi Islam).

  2. “Pakistan’s Hindu population dropped from 14% to 2%”

    This is a lie that the Hindu Right keeps repeating. After partition West Pakistan’s Hindu population was 1.4%. It is 1.8% today. And if you are using the pre-partition figure, why not do the same for India (you only used its post partition 9% figure as a baseline). Sloppy propaganda.

    ” India gave up 1/3 of its land”.

    Ah yes, North-Indian Hindus thinking all of South Asia belongs to them, and then wondering why everyone (Muslims, Sikhs, Tamils, Eastern-States) hates them. Punjabi, Sindhi, and Kashmiri land belong to Punjabis, Sindhis, and Kashmiris, and its for them to decide what to do with it. Them deciding to form their own country is not “India losing land”.

    This whole piece is filled with nonsense but I only have the energy to address the first two things I saw.

    1. Here is the source for that info(already linked in the piece):

      Shows the fortunes of Muslims in pre partition India to post.

      And a growth of 1.5 to 1.8% really that amazing vs Muslim growth in India (9 to 15%+)? And why should we separate Bangladesh (East Pak)? It’s well known that the Pakistani Army purposefully singled out Bengali Hindus during the war.

      I don’t think it’s a legit question of which minorities fared better. Let alone the fact that a Hindu cannot even become PM in Pakistan. India is not perfect towards its minorities, but I’d say it’s the best in the subcontinent (of the big 3).

      1. – it seems quite clear non-muslims fare worse in pakistan than muslims in india

        – internet hindus do routinely promote statistics that when i dig into them are quite misleading/exaggerated (usually their qualitative assertion is correct, but they can’t help but ‘goose the egg’)

        – i think the idea that ‘india gave up 1/3 of its land’ is easy to problematize. it’s like how peoples’ republic of china claims the western 50% of china that was actually conquered by manchus. india as a civilization and identity is old. but the nation-state as we understand it is a postcolonial construct, so saying ‘india gave up 1/3 of its land’ opens as many questions as it answers.

  3. Frankly to me this is either a poltical master stroke or heavy political capital being used for negligible returns.

    I think its the latter. Outside of North East and Bengal , there hardly any refugees who can swing elections in any Indian state. The only ethnicity it helps is the Bengali Hindu which has been steadfast in opposing the BJP/Hindu Right. To me its a bit like Rajiv Gandhi-Tamil issue. Getting ultimately killed by the very same people who you think you are “helping”.

    But perhaps BJP sees something which i am not. In a more “Hindutva-ized” India where increasingly all the opposition party no longer oppose u on ur main ideals (article 370, Ram temple , UCC), you need to come up with even bigger polarizing issues to distinguish urself from the opposition. And this could be their master stroke.

    1. BJP plays a bootleggers-and-baptists game with people like Owaisi.

      Both sides benefit politically.

      Indian political discourse at large suffers.

  4. One may have different opinions about CAB, and praise or criticize it for many legitimate reasons. But the western discourse, as represented by the NYT article, is often fraudulent, peddling either intentional lies or at best misunderstandings. “Taking steps towards blocking naturalization for muslims” NYT headline says, whereas it does not remove any existing pathways to citizenship for muslims (just adds one more for persecuted minority religions).

    I was looking for cogent statement dispelling misinterpretations, and I found it here:

    1. Taking steps towards blocking naturalization for muslims

      This is quite accurate when it comes to Muslims in Assam who cannot prove indigenous ancestry. At least in the near term, the plan for them is to automatically shunt them into detention camps.

      But as you say, the NYT seems to go a bit too far with a blanket statement. Clearly Muslims are not prohibited from naturalization by the CAB; it’s just that non-Muslims get automatically naturalized.

      You need to ask yourself if this is really a big deal, and you are willing to discard an entire argument because of a single semantic error. This seems to be a common strategy of the BJP’s legions of internet supporters (not saying you are one though.)

      1. i think its good in a way. It strengths both sides of the spectrum.

        The whole Hindutva-nativist-the west is against us VS the nazis are here-who cares for nuance-liberals.

        The CAB leaves enough space for the first group to argue that its not against anyone, but it send a strong message to the 2nd group of what’s next. But how far its electoral dividends go we have to wait

  5. CAB is a disgusting and majoritarian idea that has no place in a secular state. It essentially declares that India is a Hindu (or “Dharmic”) homeland just as Pakistan is the homeland of British India’s Muslims. If the bill were truly about persecuted refugees then it would not characterize people on a religious basis. Others have already pointed out that the Rohingya are being persecuted in Burma but they are excluded from this bill because they are Muslim. If the bill is supposedly restricted to countries that were part of British India then Afghanistan would not qualify.
    The secular state of India should hold itself to higher standards than the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Majoritarianism in India is not justified just because Pakistan is a majoritarian country. Too many Indians seem to be OK with their country becoming a Hindu version of Pakistan.
    Imagine if Pakistan passed a law declaring that since Muslims are being persecuted in India (lynched etc) they are all welcome to come to Pakistan and become Pakistani citizens. CAB is the equivalent of this.

    1. you write with the florid excess of an internet hindu 😉 common south asian characteristics? (yes, some of your points are cogent, but the way you sound unhinged and hysterical probably makes ppl not pay attention)

      1. I make no bones about having no patience for right-wing majoritarianism. If that is deemed “unhinged” than so be it.

        States should belong to all their citizens. This applies equally to Islamic Republics and Hindu Rashtras.

        1. States should belong to all their citizens.

          this seems like a vacuous assertion. there are contradictory demands. choices are made. that’s why it’s *liberal* democracy.

          1. The US belongs equally to all US citizens, no matter what their religion. Israel privileges Jews from anywhere in the world who can become citizens just by virtue of their religion.

            You can see what I am getting at. Creating religious tests for citizenship is anathema to any secular state. Even Pakistan (which has never claimed to be secular) doesn’t restrict citizenship to Muslims. CAB is completely against the idea of India, which was supposed to be a secular state for all its citizens.

      2. Kabir mostly regurgitates bromides rather than actually engaging with his interlocutors. His conversations are less conversations and more monologues with people nearby.

        1. Unfortunately, the Hindutvadis on this site keep making the same disingenuous right-wing arguments which necessitate “bromides” being “regurgitated”.

          The worst are people who live in secular liberal democracies but are cheering fascism in India. Hypocrisy at its worst.

    2. “Imagine if Pakistan passed a law declaring that since Muslims are being persecuted in India (lynched etc) they are all welcome to come to Pakistan and become Pakistani citizens. ”

      be careful what you wish for. take it from me such a bill will be hugely welcome in india. i know my people. 🙂

      1. LOL, I think that perhaps for that very same reason Pakistan would never have a bill like that (considering that it will open a path to Pakistan for muslims.) .

        Pakistan has yet to take back its own stranded citizens (mostly Biharis) from Bangladesh who aided them in the 71 war.

      2. Pakistan should not pass a law like that. Pakistan belongs to the Pakistani people and not to Muslims everywhere. We are responsible for our own 200 million citizens, no matter what their religion. The idea that Pakistan should be a homeland for all persecuted Muslims in the subcontinent is just as ridiculous as the idea that India should be a Hindu homeland. Yet it is the supposedly secular state that is actually in the process of passing such a majoritarian law.


    “Ignore for a moment that an upheaval that took place two generations ago, in 1947, to be precise, is guiding the policies of the Indian government in 2019. Focus instead on Shah’s logic: Because British-ruled India was divided into two countries in 1947, and Pakistan (and subsequently Bangladesh) chose to ill-treat religious minorities, India carries a special responsibility to shelter those minorities – but only those minorities. In other words, India must provide asylum to Hindu Bengalis fleeing Bangladesh but not Muslim Rohingyas escaping Myanmar. And this is because, in Shah’s imagination, India is a Hindu nation, just as Pakistan is a Muslim nation.
    The reasoning is deeply flawed. For one, the leaders of independent India decidedly rejected the two-nation theory of the founders of Pakistan and ratified a Constitution that made India a secular republic.
    Over the years, this secular republic has accommodated not only refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh but also Tibetans escaping Chinese takeover of their homeland and Sri Lankan Tamils fleeing violence by the Sinhalese. While some refugees have been naturalised into Indian citizens, many are still living on the margins. It is true that India lacks a consistent legal framework for refugees, a gap which needs to be filled, but the Modi government’s Citizenship Bill is no answer to that.
    Instead, by focusing solely on refugees from Muslim-majority countries, the vast majority of whom are Hindus, the Citizenship Bill betrays the real agenda of the Modi government – to dismantle India as a secular state and replace it with a Hindu rashtra.”

  7. @razib
    After reading this post, I couldn’t understand if you are commenting on west’s reaction to CAB or what CAB means to India

    If it is about West’s reaction then as an Indian I don’t care much for that

    And what it means for India, as someone said above, this benefits the Hindu Bengali but as a reaction now the entire NorthEast is on fire (because there are lots of Hindus from Bengal/Bangladesh in NorthEast)

    And what about Tamils (Hindus, christians & muslims) from Sri Lanka

    Any reason why non-muslim majority countries are not in this list

    Long back I read that the condition of sri lankan refugee in Tamil Nadu is appalling as there are severe restrictions on jobs, movement etc. This bill does nothing for them

    Lastly from the practical point of view, I have felt more kinship to christians of my own caste rather than other ‘hindus’ of my religion

    Religion is personal for a hindu. Whereas caste is public & cultural. BJP is trying to make religion political but I believe it won’t work or will backfire

    Lastly on your point of ‘minority appeasement’, it is a fact that minorities need special rights as a group in a democracy. This is no different from welfare state principle where weaker section get extra benefits. I feel as a policy this strengthens democracy

  8. My only critism of CAB is that of expulsion of muslims from the country? The rohingya refugees have settled in india and will do well that would’ve done in Myanmar. I know in Mewat a lot of rohingya have settled in and the muslims have helped them get aadhar card(id sort of) and settle in the area. The problem is the resistance to modernization and very group based thinking of people in those areas.
    Now coming on the Merits is that persecuted and unequal communities from bangladesh, pakistan, afghanistan should be able to get a better life in India . If there was no persecution they wouldn’t have come in India similar to rohingya refugees coming in India.
    Also Modi’s government gets the huge boost if its passed not only from hindu but from all communities.

  9. I am amazed that the entire debate around CAB in the Rajya Sabha consists of re-litigating Partition. Amit Shah blamed Congress for dividing India on the basis of religion. He deliberately ignored the fact that India was never intended to be a Hindu state (at least in the vision of the Congress) despite the fact that Pakistan was clearly intended as a Muslim homeland. It was Jinnah who contrasted “Muslim Pakistan” with “Hindu Hindustan”. Nehru’s Congress strongly denied the logic of TNT. BJP seems intent on proving Quaid-e-Azam right.

    It’s been 72 years. At what point is BJP going to stop using Partition as an excuse? Pakistan doesn’t spend this much time litigating 1947 but the Hindu Right seems to be obsessed with it. Present discrimination cannot be justified on the basis of mistakes of the past, which TNT definitely was. Instead of learning from Pakistan’s experience, BJP seems to want to repeat it in India.

    CAB kills the dream of a secular India which is a state for all its citizens. That is what all moral people are mourning today.

  10. Aatish Taseer can now convert to his mom’s religion of Sikhism, the majority religion of where he resides, Christianity, or even Hinduism in order to expedite his citizenship process 😉

  11. the CAB/NRC issue leaves out the practicalities. What will happen to those who fail to qualify in CAB/NRC tests ? What will happen to them.
    In Assam and NE , CAB/NAB is opposed because of the fear it will enfranchise large number of non-Assamese, Hindu or Muslim does not matter . Even when Hindus are enfranchised , will they be shifted to other parts of India because of opposition in Assam?
    The GoI thinks making laws is enough – not good enough

  12. I think apart from Assam and Tripura, all other N-Eastern states are fire-walled with Inner Liner Permit. Assam too they are adding more and more tribes to the 6th schedule and non tribal Assamese to clause 6 of Assam accord. These will essentially make non Assamese the only non “reserved” category.

    This leaves Tripura where Bengalis are already a majority so tribals there cant do much. That’s the reason the biggest protest against CAB is in only these 2 states.

    In a way its more “practical” then you think.

      1. As i said, either u put these 2 states on ILP or under 6th schedule. And only then the protests will really go away. As long as there is this perception that the Union is giving other neighboring states something and not to us, this fault line will always remain.

  13. as of now violent protests are taking place against CAB in india. no, it is not indians protesting to uphold the secular credentials of their country. the protests are taking place in NE states where they fear they will soon be swamped by hindu bengalis from b’desh.

    all politics is local.

  14. I have heard from Indian Bengalis that Hindus in certain pockets feel very insecure in Bangladesh and that they move to India.
    I request the Bangladeshis and Indian Bengalis on this blog to react to this pl.

  15. I have heard from Indian Bengalis that Hindus in certain pockets feel very insecure in Bangladesh and that they move to India.
    I request the Bangladeshis and Indian Bengalis on this blog to react to this pl.

    1. @Brown
      It’s quite possible that Bengali Hindus in Bangladesh feel insecure, but evidently the Assamese people don’t care much about them either.

  16. from the Hindu nationalist perspective, does it make sense to make it so easy for Hindus/Sikhs from Pakistan/Bangladesh to migrate to India such that these countries will soon be bereft of any Hindu/Sikh/Indic presence?
    I totally get that from the humanitarian perspective it makes sense, as well as from the perspective of the affected individuals and families. But why would Hindu nationalists permanently ‘cede’ those lands? If full migration happens, in a hundred years there will be no memory of Indic presense in these core “Indian” areas. Wouldn’t it make sense to encourage and support Hindus/Sikhs to fight it out, and increase their presence by having more children etc?
    So what is the thinking here?

    1. sort of. That is what Indian Hindus/Sikhs do wherever it is peaceful like the entire Anglosphere.

      Muslim majority Pak and Bangladesh are just dangerous. I mean the 1971 genocide proportionally killed more Hindus. With hundreds of thousands dead or raped in recent history and also tendency for sparks of violence in an already oppressive landscape, I think the few Hindus/Sikhs should be given the opportunity to leave.

      Also, all won’t leave. There are some that will always stay. I would argue the majority. It isn’t easy to leave an established life. I hear in certain areas around Karachi, it has harder of course to be Hindu than it is to be Muslim, but it is tolerable.

      But I think giving refuge to some Balochis and Ahmedis is a good idea too.

  17. justanotherlurker, how do you define “Hindu Nationalist”? If you mean BJP voter, do you regard about 1/3 of Indian muslims to be “Hindu nationalists”?

    The BJP would likely electorally benefit from having more immigrants that are fleeing religious persecution.

    For that matter I think the BJP would benefit from having Sufi, Shia, liberal Sunni, lbgtq sunni, atheist or ex muslim, femnist Sunni, Ahmedi, Afghan, Bangladeshi, Balochi immigrants too. The BJP seems to do well with Bangladeshi muslim immigrants. The BJP would benefit from changing the make up of Indian muslims to make it more liberal and minority. Might boost the BJP percentage of the muslim vote from 1/3 to 40% of the muslim vote.

    I think Modi privately would love to win 50% of the muslim vote in the next general. Achieving this, however, will be very challenging.

  18. Protests somewhere in Bengal (in Murshidabad?)

    These are more than just anti government protests. There are hardly any tricolor flags there. The mob is carrying all kinds of sundry flags, are shouting fanatical religious slogans and demanding “freedom” from who knows who? Now is the time to dismiss the Banerjee government and impose President’s rule in Bengal.

  19. thwarlock wrote:

    “Aatish Taseer can now convert to his mom’s religion of Sikhism,”


    “Sab Ka Vikas, Ghar Wapsi Ke Sath!”

  20. so if I am getting this right..
    1. assam doesn’t want bengali hindus
    2. west bengal – at least under the dispensation of mamta bannerji – doesn’t want bengali hindus.
    3. delhi’s left/liberal circles dont want bengali hindus.

    so apparently only amit shah seems to love bengali hindus. and ironically, bengladeshi muslims immigrants seem to be completely unaffected by these protests. nobody is even talking about them.

    what a circus!

    1. “ironically, bengladeshi muslims immigrants seem to be completely unaffected by these protests.” Please share more.

      Many West Bengal muslim voters and Bangladeshi immigrants allied with the BJP in 2019. Pretty sure these muslims are not protesting.

      It would be more productive to lobby to change CAB to include certain groups of muslims heavily persecuted by Islamists. The political reality of India is that CAB needs to be written precisely so that Rohingya or conservative muslims can’t qualify under it.

    2. “so apparently only amit shah seems to love bengali hindus.”

      The most ironic part is Bengali Hindus themselves dont love Amit Shah.

      That’s why i compared this whole scenario with Rajiv Gandhi’s Tamil love which ended in him getting killed by his lover. 😛

  21. What I find interesting is the Guajrati-ness of this whole thing. Gandhi, Jinnah, Sardar Patel, Modi, and Shah. The gujus causing lot of trouble, in terms of division. Funny thing is, in recent history, they rarely pick up arms and go to warm themselves. Well, except for a very famous Parsi fellow.

    The real battle for the heart of S Asia seems to be between Punjabi Sunnis and North Indian Upper Caste Hindus, with the exclusion of Bengal. The Hindus are shedding allies everyday. They aren’t playing the long game well.

    1. Yeah to me its strange that the most nationalistic leaders happen to be Gujaratis. Folks who have always maintained self preservation over chivalry. Like Modi i still get it , but Shah is a baniya. Like the total anti-thesis of the stereotype.

      “The real battle for the heart of S Asia seems to be between Punjabi Sunnis and North Indian Upper Caste Hindus”

      I would say the UCs have got significant OBC support for the first time since the Marathas. That all the allies they really need, considering that Bengal/S-Indians were never their allies to begin with

      1. “Yeah to me its strange that the most nationalistic leaders happen to be Gujaratis”

        It shouldn’t be strange at all. Gujaratis are a community that value education, business savy, and strategic thinking. This is fertilizer for national movements.

        The British actually noticed this trend among upper-caste Hindu and Muslims of North-India, which they believe contributed to the Indian Mutiny.

        Which, is why they replaced the above (who constituted most of the rebellious British Indian army), with Pathans and Punjabis. The reasoning (sound in my opinion), that these latter groups are too tribal and stupid to ever pose a coherent threat to British rule.

  22. CAB “protest” rally at IIT Kanpur held without permission by some “dara hua musalmaans”
    “scared muslims.”

    They don’t look very “dara hua” do they? A couple of apparently high ranking police officers are seen dealing with the crowd without proper preparation such as riot gear, tear gas, and pallet guns.

    Here is a related article:

Comments are closed.

Brown Pundits